index play

[Preferrd]

so, if I'm understanding correctly, people have recommended using the RC for indices of 0 to overcome the phenomenon of making playing errors at the (zero) bin because of the large frequency of decimal index situations this bin accounts. Am I correct?

However, looking at this graph: http://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm
I see that the differences in EV on 16vT between hitting or standing seems almost negligible compared to perhaps 13v2 (the slopes at the intersection are steeper)
Meaning, I would think there would be greater variance in plays for 13v2 compared to 16vT for TC0. So perhaps using a RC would be more meaningful to use for 13v2?

However, all this is predicated on the assumption that Zero is the exact index for these strategy deviations. It may well be that there is a more profitable 'decimal index for these situations like +0.2 or -0.5 for 13v2.

After all, in Appendix E of PBJ, Wong's simulations show a slight edge on hitting for 16vT for at least a minutely negative count. Compared to standing, the appendix shows that hitting gives +0.006 EV. I would assume this is at or slightly below TC0 since the simulation is run with 16vT and all other cards in deck swapped out for simulation. This gives a running count of -1 no matter what composition of 16vT.

Note: for some reason this graph shows an index of -1 for 13v2, but my books say 0 so I'll go with that and leave it up to differences in simulation methods.

[AussiePlayer]

...I only tried to answer his question without getting too complicated.

Well, there's a first for everything!

[RS]

If the actual index is +0.3, but is listed as 0, and the current TC for the shoe you're playing is +0.2, how big of a difference is that going to have? A 0.2 TC is the same as having a +1 RC with 5 decks remaining. In that case, you'd be playing incorrectly. But if say the TC is 0.33 (RC = 1, 3 decks remaining), then you would be playing correctly.

I believe you use the RC instead of TC with indices of 0 because (say the index is stay => 0), when you calcupate the -1 RC with 3 decks remaining, your TC will be -0.33 and when truncated will be 0. So while you should be hitting because you have not yet actually met the 0 TC threshold, you would mistakenly be staying in such a situation.

[Preferrd]

I've only heard in this thread to use the RC for indices of 0. Is this just an offhanded theory or solid practice? I've never read in a book instructions to use the RC for indices of 0.

Can I get an official ruling on using the RC for indices of 0? 12v4 13v2 16vT A2v5 A8v6 (H17) 3,3 A,7 9v3 etc??? these are quite a few playing decisions

[MidniteToker]

In Hi-Lo, in order to obtain the TC, you divide the RC by decks remaining. Now, let's see. With an RC of 0, can you think of a divisor that will result in any TC other than 0?

[Preferrd]

In Hi-Lo, in order to obtain the TC, you divide the RC by decks remaining. Now, let's see. With an RC of 0, can you think of a divisor that will result in any TC other than 0?

Very good observation. Not quite the answer I was looking for.

[Norm]

In Hi-Lo, in order to obtain the TC, you divide the RC by decks remaining. Now, let's see. With an RC of 0, can you think of a divisor that will result in any TC other than 0?

That's not the point. Point is, there are multiple RCs that can result in a TC of zero. So, if the index is 0, using the RC instead of the TC can be a bit more accurate.

[Preferrd]

Yes, the conversation evolved into something a little more specific than the OP query. Its left me indecisive on 0 index plays which is uncomfortable... There are quite a handful of 0 index plays in H17 (which is the only game in my locality), and I doubt that the efficiency of using the RC instead of the TC has the same correlation over all those plays. So I'm thinking, which plays to use the RC and which not to? Its got to depend on the significance of deviating from basic strategy on each particular index.

[MidniteToker]

That's not the point. Point is, there are multiple RCs that can result in a TC of zero. So, if the index is 0, using the RC instead of the TC can be a bit more accurate.

True, my point only concerned an RC of 0. For RCs corresponding to a TC of 0, if you're flooring will range from 0 to the number of decks played (not inclusive). If truncating, then the same range extends in negative RCs as well. If rounding, 0 to half the number of decks unplayed (not inclusive), and the same thing into negative counts (but include the exact half in negative RC).

Decks remaining: 3, 0 TC if flooring with RC 0 to 2, if truncating with RC -2 to 2, if rounding with RC -1 to 1.
Decks remaining: 4, 0 TC if flooring with RC 0 to 3, if truncating with RC -3 to 3, if rounding with RC -2 to 1
Decks remaining: 5, 0 TC if flooring with RC 0 to 4, if truncating with RC -4 to 4, if rounding with RC -2 to 2

And so on. I think that's correct...

[yesiamred]

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.

Yes, I agree...you will learn much more from reading and researching yourself. I would'nt just take someones word on what could potentially be your bread and butter. I own or have read just around every book ever written on the game of blackjack.