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,

Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
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?