Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: xxi: "Final Answer" on Hi-Lo indices?

  1. #1
    xxi
    Guest

    xxi: "Final Answer" on Hi-Lo indices?

    I?ve always been mildly frustrated by the differences I?ve found in indices for Hi-Lo, both in the literature and in various software programs. While I realize the discrepancies make very little difference overall, it?s annoying to be buzzed for an error by one program and not for another, or to have to decide which to use. I?d like to decide a final answer and put it in all my practice tools (e.g., CVBJ.). Right now I only use Don Schlesinger?s Illustrious 18 and Fab 4 when appropriate.

    My starting point is Stanford Wong?s Professional Blackjack, 1994, which advocates ?truncate, and not round,? when using its indices. Blackjack Secrets, 1999, from the same author has some differences but notes that the expected gain from the differences is less than the cost of the book. Blackjack Attack also lists slightly different numbers for the ?I18?; I don?t know if the difference in them is due to rounding vs. truncating, newer studies and simulations, or something else.

    Any feedback from the Masters or other pros on exactly which set to use and how to handle true count conversion would be appreciated.

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: "Final Answer" on Hi-Lo indices?

    > Any feedback from the Masters or other pros
    > on exactly which set to use and how to
    > handle true count conversion would be
    > appreciated.

    Over the years, opinions changed on which methodology, both for generating indices, as well as using them, was "best." As you point out, in the long run, it matters very little indeed.

    The indices from the "I18" chapter of BJA were taken from Wong's tables and thus reflect his methodologies of the time. Later, for the Chapter 10 studies, we switched to the modern-day simulators (Karel's and Imming's)), and some of the numbers changed slightly.

    I would use the p. 195 indices with confidence. I would also check out the "Systems 101" feature of BJRM for the I18 and Fab4 for virtually any system and number of decks you wish to know. And, I would use SBA to generate a complete set of indices for any count.

    Don

  3. #3
    Karel
    Guest

    Karel: The optimal method


    It can be mathematically proven that the optimal method of generating and using indices is flooring for regular indices (for making the decision "if TC is greater than or equal to index"). The optimal method is the opposite, ceiling for reversal indices.

    The reason for that is that the maximum error between the used index and precise number is only 0.5 for flooring, resp. ceiling, while it may be 1 for other methods.

    Regards,

    Karel

  4. #4
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Flip a coin

    I ran literally thousands of sims using the indexes in PBJ and BJA while testing CVCX. BJA indexes are very slightly superior. Very slightly. If you find one method is easier than another - use it.

  5. #5
    Joel Friedman
    Guest

    Joel Friedman: Re: "Final Answer" on Hi-Lo indices?

    I don't believe that there is a final answer to the question of what is the right playing index to use. I haven't worked on such problems for over 20 years, but I don't think that either the problem or the methodologies have changed over that time period. What you'd like to know is at what critical true count value the right decision changes from one option to another. The simulation people can run lots of simulations and generate such critical true count values, but their results depend somewhat upon the parameters of their simulation, specifically how many players are at the table and how deep is the penetration. What you care about is the expected mix of cards of various denominations that you will go up against given that the true count is a specific value. This expected mix of cards varies depending upon game conditions making it impossible to provide a single correct answer for what the best playing indices might be. Mostly, though, this is of only theoretical importance since when you are in the neighborhood of a critical playing index, it costs you almost nothing to make the "wrong" decision.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.