
FLASH: queries re: questionable indices
Running Off two sets of HiOpt II indices with S.B.A. I expected to see differences between the two ~ both are for 2 deckers but one is a S17 NDAS game and the other is H17 DAS. Naturally the indices involving pair splitting and dealer's holdings of Ace or Six are radically different in spots; yet there are a few different departure index numbers that have me befuddled. Any feedback is very much appreciated.
This one completely confuses me:
88 vs. dealer TEN is listed as +4 for S17 and 6 for H17
Ignoring the smallest indexed differences, I am wondering about the following:
Soft 18 vs. dealer Ace is listed as 0 for S17 and NOT listed at all for H17
Soft 18 vs. dealer 2 is listed as +3 for S17 and listed at +5 for H17
Soft 15 vs. dealer 5 is listed as 4 for S17 and 6 for H 17

Don Schlesinger: Re: queries re: questionable indices
> Running Off two sets of HiOpt II indices with S.B.A.
> I expected to see differences between the two ~ both
> are for 2 deckers but one is a S17 NDAS game and the
> other is H17 DAS. Naturally the indices involving pair
> splitting and dealer's holdings of Ace or Six are
> radically different in spots; yet there are a few
> different departure index numbers that have me
> befuddled. Any feedback is very much appreciated.
> This one completely confuses me:
> 88 vs. dealer TEN is listed as +4 for S17 and 6 for
> H17
Obviously, S17, H17 doesn't enter into this at all. But, DAS, NDAS does. For HiLo, the difference in indices is about 4, dividing by whole decks. HiOpt II tag values are about double those of HiLo, so if you were to still divide by whole decks, rather than half decks, there could be such a big difference between the two.
> Ignoring the smallest indexed differences, I am
> wondering about the following:
> Soft 18 vs. dealer Ace is listed as 0 for S17 and NOT
> listed at all for H17
That's correct. You always hit the latter.
> Soft 18 vs. dealer 2 is listed as +3 for S17 and
> listed at +5 for H17
> Soft 15 vs. dealer 5 is listed as 4 for S17 and 6
> for H 17
All seem reasonable.
Don

FLASH: curiouser and curiouser
Rerunning the indices in question has really gotten my attention:
The most obvious error re: 88 is bizarre as it is clear that the index is a "+" number not a negative one.
A7 vs. Ace cannot be +17. That is just plain silly.
2D S17 No DAS:
88 vs 10 = 15
A7 vs A = 0
A7 vs 2 = +4
A4 vs 5 = 6
2D H17 DAS:
88 vs 10 = always split
A7 vs A = +17
A7 vs 2 = +2
A4 vs 5 = 6

Don Schlesinger: Re: curiouser and curiouser
> Rerunning the indices in question has really gotten
> my attention:
> The most obvious error re: 88 is bizarre as it is
> clear that the index is a "+" number not a
> negative one.
> A7 vs. Ace cannot be +17. That is just plain silly.
That's not what you wrote the first time. Clearly, you're doing something wrong. Afraid I can't help you.
> 2D S17 No DAS:
> 88 vs 10 = 15
Makes no sense.
> A7 vs A = 0
That seems correct.
> A7 vs 2 = +4
> A4 vs 5 = 6
These are HiOpt II indices, so I can't pass judgment on all of them.
> 2D H17 DAS:
> 88 vs 10 = always split
Clearly silly.
> A7 vs A = +17
You're doing something wrong. Why not write to Karel: [email protected]
Don

FLASH: Re: curiouser and curiouser
Thanx Don. I shall do so.

FLASH: Don ...
You wrote above:
"That's not what you wrote the first time. Afraid I can't help you"
Don, the first line states that I have RERUN S B A

Don Schlesinger: Re: Don ...
> You wrote above:
> "That's not what you wrote the first time. Afraid
> I can't help you"
> Don, the first line states that I have RERUN S B A
Yes, I realize that. My point is that the first number for that play made sense. Then, you reran it, and it made no snese at all; so my conclusion is that you must have done something wrong.
Don

Cacarulo: Some answers
> Running Off two sets of HiOpt II indices with S.B.A.
> I expected to see differences between the two ~ both
> are for 2 deckers but one is a S17 NDAS game and the
> other is H17 DAS. Naturally the indices involving pair
> splitting and dealer's holdings of Ace or Six are
> radically different in spots; yet there are a few
> different departure index numbers that have me
> befuddled. Any feedback is very much appreciated.
> This one completely confuses me:
> 88 vs. dealer TEN is listed as +4 for S17 and 6 for
> H17
> Ignoring the smallest indexed differences, I am
> wondering about the following:
> Soft 18 vs. dealer Ace is listed as 0 for S17 and NOT
> listed at all for H17
> Soft 18 vs. dealer 2 is listed as +3 for S17 and
> listed at +5 for H17
> Soft 15 vs. dealer 5 is listed as 4 for S17 and 6
> for H 17
Are you running the full set of indices? I'm asking this because it's incorrect to calculate an isolate index. for instance, you can't get an index for 14vT without calculating first 16vT and 15vT. Be careful with this.
For a "quick and dirty" response I calculated some algebraic indices that should give you an adequate estimate of what you should get.
2D,S17,NDAS (fulldeck indices)

8,8 vs T = +8.1 (standing over splitting)
A,7 vs A = +0.1 (standing over hitting)
A,7 vs 2 = +0.7 (doubling over standing)
A,4 vs 5 = 8.4 (doubling over hitting)
2D,H17,DAS (fulldeck indices)

8,8 vs T = +13 (standing over splitting)
A,7 vs A = Always Hit (standing over hitting)
A,7 vs 2 = 0 (doubling over standing)
A,4 vs 5 = 8.5 (doubling over hitting)
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cac

FLASH: An afterthought
Much thanx to everyone for their responses. Very much appreciated.
I have carefully revisited the (addended) Infinite Deck Effects of Removal Charts in the final edition of "Theory of Blacklack"
If I am uncertain about the correctness of a particular index, I can work out a reasonable approximation for myself utilizing these charts.

Cacarulo: Re: An afterthought
> Much thanx to everyone for their responses. Very much
> appreciated.
> I have carefully revisited the (addended) Infinite
> Deck Effects of Removal Charts in the final edition of
> "Theory of Blacklack"
I think you should check the BJA3 EORs which are far better than the ones in TOB. BTW, I didn't use EORs in my index calculation.
> If I am uncertain about the correctness of a
> particular index, I can work out a reasonable
> approximation for myself utilizing these charts.
You can do that but it's better to know why you're getting the wrong indices with SBA. It shouldn't happen unless you are doing something wrong. Which version are you using?
Sincerely,
Cac
Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads
 You may not post replies
 You may not post attachments
 You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules
Bookmarks