Prob with indices

**Bodarc** · 09-06-2014, 04:08 PM

Norm

I am in the process of learning more indices for FELT. I have a problem finding out the correct variance.
Here is an example with just 12's:

12V2 5 7
12V3 2 5
12V4 0 2
12V5 -3 -1
12V6 -7 -4

The first column of indices is given when I compute them using CVBJ. The second column is obtained from CVData.
I made sure that I used the same input to each program which is:

2D H17, DOA, DAS, RSA, Dealer peaks 10&A, No surrender - Asked for full indices.

What am I doing wrong and which is correct?

**Norm** · 09-06-2014, 05:03 PM

Sorry, I don't understand. CVBJ does not compute indices. Variance isn't relavant. What exactly are you doing?

**Bodarc** · 09-06-2014, 05:16 PM

When you set up a player in cvbj you are asked the following:
1. Select a strategy. I chose FELT
2. Chose settings and you get all of your rules etc
3. Choose 'attach strategy" and pick FELT F and to the right you'll see "Display Tables" which gives the indices
That is where I got the indices from cvbj

Sorry I didn't mean variance as you are assuming. I meant the count to vary from basic strategy or the index. My poor explanation.

**DSchles** · 09-06-2014, 07:10 PM

"Sorry I didn't mean variance as you are assuming. I meant the count to vary from basic strategy or the index. My poor explanation."

Call these "playing departures" or "departures from basic strategy."

Don

**Norm** · 09-06-2014, 05:30 PM

CVBJ does not include double-deck indices as very few books include them. CVData is more accurate.

**Bodarc** · 09-06-2014, 05:38 PM

So if I set up 6 Deck on CVData, they should agree with the ones on cvbj?

**Norm** · 09-06-2014, 05:42 PM

Yep. If you set it up with the exact same parameters.

**Bodarc** · 09-06-2014, 07:39 PM

ok thanks Norm

Got ya Don

**Bodarc** · 09-06-2014, 08:23 PM

Well I can't get them to match but no matter. I guess I've been using the wrong indices for 6 months and they've been doing very well. I think I might just keep them. LOL jk

Now if I take 60 indices and reduce them to 40 by grouping close indices ie 12V2 is 7 and 12v3 is 5 and I set them both at 6 ( I think the correct term is 'granularity scale'). In the overall scheme of things, will there be a noticeable difference for a casual player who plays once or twice a week, say for 150 - 200 hrs a year?

**Norm** · 09-07-2014, 04:06 AM

Very little difference.

**Three** · 09-07-2014, 07:17 AM

The difference is not just from the results of the plays. With more accuracy your optimal bets become larger. If you are betting small stakes the practical bets are the same so rather than betting more the extra becomes lower ROR. If your ROR is too high this is worth keeping intact. If you are playing to a low ROR giving a little up may mean nothing to you. If you are betting larger stakes the difference in optimal bets are also differences in practical bets and the more certainty can be translated into higher bets at the same risk profile. These are all trade offs and mean different things to different people. If you are betting up against a heat barrier raising your top bet isn't practical and if your ROR is also tiny the gain from decrease ROR isn't worth much either. If you are betting high ROR to a small BR you won't be able to raise your practical bets but the lower ROR may mean a lot to you. So the actual value of precise and more indices vary greatly depending on how the gains affect your situation. The gain of more certainty can be betting bigger at the same risk, lower ROR, or a combination of both. Of course you always get the small gains from the plays themselves but how those gains affect all your stats and bets is a matter of choice. The best choice varies with each situation.

**DSchles** · 09-07-2014, 08:05 AM

You may not agree, but it really doesn't matter. Compared to a computer simulation, all the aspects you discuss, and one's entire lifetime of play, is nothing more than a blip on the computer screen. One or two standard deviations of the "superior" manner of playing, compared to the more "simplistic" manner, in all likelihood, wipes out the entire difference. In more brief terms, better lucky than good.

I have absolutely nothing against people who keep 42 side counts in their head, with a level-62 count (:-)); rather, my objection comes when those people continually explain to us how much more money they're winning over their lifetimes from all this extra effort. It makes most others who read think that the endeavor is worth the trouble, and I don't believe that this is the case. Hence, the Illustrious 18, Norm's REKO, and other attempts to permit counters to play their system perfectly accurately and with ease. And, finally, hence the utter bullshit that was James Grosjean's consummate nonsense in his Exhibit CAA, in regard to the above.

Don

**muckz** · 09-08-2014, 11:38 AM

Bodarc, If you are looking to find which indices are better it is much easier to skip most of that chapter. If you want to quantify the actual gain from each then go ahead and do the full thing. For the easy method of identifying if an index is "good", calculate the CC for your system and compare it to the SS of the play. Then run an index gen, eliminate plays with extraordinarily high or low TC's. If you want to then further reduce the index pool look at average wager and probability of occurrence.
Regarding average wager, you do not need the Nevada Blackjack reference (for hi-lo only anyways). CVCX works just fine. Average Bet.JPG

To Don,

Originally Posted by DSchles

You may not agree, but it really doesn't matter. Compared to a computer simulation, all the aspects you discuss, and one's entire lifetime of play, is nothing more than a blip on the computer screen. One or two standard deviations of the "superior" manner of playing, compared to the more "simplistic" manner, in all likelihood, wipes out the entire difference. In more brief terms, better lucky than good.

I have absolutely nothing against people who keep 42 side counts in their head, with a level-62 count (:-)); rather, my objection comes when those people continually explain to us how much more money they're winning over their lifetimes from all this extra effort. It makes most others who read think that the endeavor is worth the trouble, and I don't believe that this is the case. Hence, the Illustrious 18, Norm's REKO, and other attempts to permit counters to play their system perfectly accurately and with ease. And, finally, hence the utter bullshit that was James Grosjean's consummate nonsense in his Exhibit CAA, in regard to the above.

Don

In BJA3 you said that a player using a higher level system should be paid accordingly in a team setting (assuming all other factors are equal). Did you change your mind?