can someone post index play for every hand. that would be great .
Here is a link to all of the index plays
http://www.amazon.com/Professional-B.../dp/0935926216
Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes, by then you are a mile away and have his shoes.
Please get some books and study up. You don't even know what you're asking, and from that, it's apparent you wouldn't know how to use it anyway.
Here's an index: 16vT @ -10.
Here's another: 16vT @ -2
Here's a third: 16vT @ 0
Want another? Sure: 16vT @ 4
What count are they for? What rules are they for? What game conditions are they for? Who knows? You didn't specify anything relevant to your situation, so no one can help you. You didn't provide any details of your game or your count, which shows you don't understand what indexes really are and how they work.
No one can help those who are unwilling to help themselves.
Without being a d*ck about it...........
Indices are basically basic strategy modifications. As you know (or should know), "basic strategy" varies from game to game. Double deck is different from 6 deck. S17 is different from H17. DAS is different from no-DAS. It goes on.
That being said, you're going to have different indices for different games, just like you have different basic strategy for different games.
On top of that, perhaps slightly more obvious, indices are different for different counts. A true-count in Hi-Lo of +4 is quite different than a true-count of +4 in Hi-Opt 2 (along with almost all other true-counts). Therefore, it doesn't make sense that Hi-Lo and Hi-Opt 2 would have the same index values for different plays (along with any other count).
If you were to have an unbalanced count (ie: Where you start your running count at some negative number and you don't find a "true count" [by dividing by remaining decks], your indices will be very very different from true-counted systems).
If you would like to find the index charts for your game, here are a few ways of doing so:
- Buy a book which explains the count. The index charts will be (should be) included in the book. If you're unsure of which book to buy, ask here and someone should tell you which book explains the count you use the best.
- Load up CVBJ, CVCX, CVData, and they can show you what the index charts look like.
- Find them online.
- Post what count system you use, here, along with the game you play (rules, decks, etc.), and someone might be able to help you.
You do not want to learn the wrong index values for your system, so make sure you find, learn, and memorize the correct numbers.
Good luck.
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
I use hi-lo indices usually h17 das and I've got my indexes down pat I believe but one thing I've still got a lack of understanding on is this: Stanford Wong says to truncate any and all decimal values from the true count after calculating based on the current penetration in the shoe; however, it seems to me that standing on 16vT with TC -3/4 is significantly different than standing on +3/4. But, I've seen the graph for change in eV for 16vT around TC0 and the slopes of the lines for standing and hitting are very small so perhaps this is a bad example.
But given a hypothetical index around which strategy deviation has a more profound impact with respect to the count (perhaps AAv10?) Why is it necessary to truncate the decimal values?
My only thought is that it makes for slightly more conservative plays with a buffer zone.
If the indicies were calculated by truncating, then you should truncate when you use them. For 16vT, use the RC.
"One of these days in your travels, you are going to come across a guy with a nice brand new deck of cards, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the Jack of Spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not take this bet, for if you do, as sure as you are standing there, you are going to end up with an ear full of cider."
Tthree, you've explained many times that truncating (or flooring in positive TCs) is "safer" because of the weighting of the frequency distributions within each bin towards the low side. I agree that the frequency distributions are weighted towards the low side of the bin, but I don't agree that flooring is any less accurate for playing decisions in negative counts. In truth, it doesn't matter what name we assign to a particular bin. We can say -2.5 falls in bin "-2" or "-3" or "apple". It doesn't matter what we call it. If we define that name before we generate indices for our system, the indices are just as accurate regardless of whether we floor or truncate. The only real difference between truncating and flooring is the negative TC bins have their identifiers shifted by one integer, and we break the -0.999 to +1 bin in half, improving our information near zero. The only problem comes if you try to use indices generated for one method of TC calculation, but that's not the method you are using. The best solution is to decide which method to use (my preference is flooring) and use CVData to generate the correct set of indices for that method, game, rules, etc.
I believe you are wrong about how CVData determines indices, but I'll admit it's been quite some time since I generated indices. Perhaps Norm can clarify, but I believe that CVData considers the true count frequencies when creating indices. I don't think it would simply take a +2.9 index and call it +2.
When you divide the running count by the number of remaining decks, you get a decimal number. You then either round, truncate, or floor this number to come up with your true count. Regardless of your method, the final result is an integer and all decimal true counts that round, truncate, or floor to that particular integer are said to be in the same "bin". The decimal index Tthree refers to is the exact value for the index, which you would use if you were neither rounding, truncating, nor flooring your true counts, but rather were using the exact values. True counts closer to zero are more frequent than those farther from zero, even within small ranges (like 1 TC ranges), so for positive counts, you will see true counts on the lower end of that bin more frequently than you will see true counts at the higher end, which increases the relative cost of playing errors at the lower end of the bin compared to the higher end. But I really think CVData takes all that into account when you generate your indices. For people who aren't using complex multiparameter counts (which may be much more difficult to sim), I think you can just plug your system into CVData, hit the button, and wait on it to spit out the optimal indices for you and your true count conversion method.
Bookmarks