Illustrious 18

**moses** · 06-14-2014, 03:40 PM

Delete

**bigplayer** · 06-14-2014, 05:28 PM

For High-Low there is no index for 14 vs 10 as it does not count the 7's and thus is worthless for predicting when to make this deviation. For Halves (which counts the 7 in the main count) the index is +8. I'd say if you're making this play at +4 you're leaving money on the table. Hit.

For 11 vs 10 you have a roughly 12% advantage (initial bet) hitting but a nearly 18% advantage (initial bet) doubling down. It's not a close call which is why the index to not double is -4 High-Low.

For 10 vs 10 it is a risky play and the index of +4 is an EV Maximizing one and does not factor in the added risk. Most players will bump this index up few notches to make the EV worth the risk. It's my understanding that if you use an infinite ramp (always betting to your edge) it's never appropriate to double 10 vs 10 no matter how high the TC might reach.

**DSchles** · 06-14-2014, 06:13 PM

Two quick comments: 1) Norm was not involved in my 1986 research.

2) The entire very complicated process of how the I18 were generated is meticulously documented in the entire chapter devoted to it in BJA3.

Over the years, it has somewhat irked me that people use the book for the charts, which is fine, but have never read the hundreds of pages of text that accompany, introduce and explain the evolution of the charts. They didn't just get there by magic.

You simply cannot ascertain the I18 by logic or intuition. Just because you feel some play ought to be important, doesn't mean it is. You have to do the grunt work, for dozens of plays -- which I did -- and then you have to observe which plays come out as the most important.

So, with all due respect to you, READ what I wrote.

Don

**bigplayer** · 06-14-2014, 10:42 PM

Moses, why bother asking the questions if you've already decided on what answers you're willing to accept.

The I-18 suggests nothing about the other hands except that they occur infrequently enough or with small enough bets for no single one of them to have much effect. The I-18+Catch-4 get 80% to 85% of the value possible from all strategy deviations, if you want to get the other 15% to 20% of EV from play deviations you should go after it, but much of what you've recommended thus far appears to be that you're willing to play an even more negative EV game in some vain attempt at reducing the swings inherent in Blackjack. While this is an admirable goal, the fact is that Blackjack is a crazy game with a thin overall player edge. There is only so much you can do. You can set CVData to generate Risk Averse indexes but if you're really risk averse you'd be better served to play to a lower risk of ruin and follow those indexes to the letter rather than continue to try to re-invent the wheel.

**bigplayer** · 06-15-2014, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by moses

Because the winrate drops 11%.

Your "win rate" is your hand win percentage which is NOT your "win rate" because you aren't weighting it by the amount of money on the table. You win more often not doubling down 11 vs 10 but you still win more money by doubling down because you've got 2x more money on the table. Assuming your numbers are correct you're winning 11% fewer hands by doubling down but getting 100% more money on the table.

At a neutral TC you have a 12% advantage Hitting 11 vs 10, but an 18% advantage Doubling Down. Even if you compared total bet to total bet you have a 12% advantage on a 1 unit bet, but a 9% advantage on a 2 unit bet, you're still winning an additional 50% by doubling down.

**bigplayer** · 06-16-2014, 12:41 AM

OK, I misunderstood what you were saying. The cost of each departure from proper strategy depends on factors like penetration and bet spread as well. I believe the I-18 is listed in order of value by the way (Which is why the Insurance deviation is always listed first).

**ZeeBabar** · 06-16-2014, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by DSchles

Two quick comments: 1) Norm was not involved in my 1986 research.

2) The entire very complicated process of how the I18 were generated is meticulously documented in the entire chapter devoted to it in BJA3.

Over the years, it has somewhat irked me that people use the book for the charts, which is fine, but have never read the hundreds of pages of text that accompany, introduce and explain the evolution of the charts. They didn't just get there by magic.

You simply cannot ascertain the I18 by logic or intuition. Just because you feel some play ought to be important, doesn't mean it is. You have to do the grunt work, for dozens of plays -- which I did -- and then you have to observe which plays come out as the most important.

So, with all due respect to you, READ what I wrote.

Don

Don, you have acquired a great reputation and most of us do not need to read how you arrived at the results, who helped you and the many people you acknowledge. We trust you. Thus, for me and many others, we accept your word (charts) and do not need to understand or question the methodology. I hope I can find a car mechanic I can trust as much as I trust you as my Blackjack mechanic (BJ3). Thank a lot for all the work you have done!!!!

**ZeeBabar** · 03-25-2015, 06:47 PM

[QUOTE=DSchles;133839]Two quick comments: 1) Norm was not involved in my 1986 research.

"Over the years, it has somewhat irked me that people use the book for the charts, which is fine, but have never read the hundreds of pages of text that accompany, introduce and explain the evolution of the charts. They didn't just get there by magic."

Don, don't get "irked", take it as a compliment, that people hold you in such high esteem that they can trust the charts. Reading the rest is for those who have not yet accepted you as a diligent expert.

**Bodarc** · 03-26-2015, 12:50 AM

The work has already been done by professionals who have devoted their lives to determining these things. Why try to make things complicated and prove them Wong for 1/000 of a percent? But then again, I've never needed a 200 horsepower motor on a tri hull boat in order to catch a fish. I would much rather just tie up under a shade tree, open up some cheese and crackers, lean back and read the stories.

**Bodarc** · 03-26-2015, 08:01 AM

Yep moses, I guess it's just different strokes for different folks. I just like the simple approach to things.

**BoSox** · 03-26-2015, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by moses

My research from CV DATA indicated double downs 11vs10 occur 1.4% or 140 hands out of 1000.

moses, 1.4 per cent of 1,000 hands is not 140, it is 14.

BoSox

**SiMi** · 03-26-2015, 08:56 AM

Hi, moses!

I'm eager to try those new cheese and crackers you mentioned. Sounds tasty!! (I hope my wife doesn't kick me out of bed again...)

When you say "The key to longevity is not to get too far behind in the first place." are you talking about not going BANKRUPT? I ask because I use the term "longevity" to refer to the time I can play in a given location rather than how long my BR lasts.

I don't see the term defined in a lot of places, but, in "Burning the Tables", Ian Andersen writes, at p.59, "Longevity means how long you'll be allowed to play without getting backed off or barred." I don't want to use the term incorrectly and confuse people.

Thanks!
SiMi

**Three** · 01-27-2016, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by moses

Therefore, to say the Ill 18 is enough and that full indices is too much are both overly stated. Smart minds, should put the ego's on the shelf and use the software to come up with a happy medium.

ROTFLMAO. When did you ever once hear me say anything like that. I know all the indices. I know which ones aren't worth much (that is per occurrence because once you have the hand its frequency is a moot point) of a while after exceeded etc. If you are so close to an index you have to do the math many times it is not worth it. Close calls on indices that gain slowly after they are exceeded aren't worth much of anything. Just play BS for that close play and save the brain power and the time and put both to better use.