Prob with indices

[Three]

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]

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]

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,

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?

[moo321]

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

Wait, what's your issue with "The Book"?

[Pierce]

Wait, what's your issue with "The Book"?

Have you not read the end of the Mississippi stud chapter? JG goes on quite a rant about Dons work.

[Three]

Have you not read the end of the Mississippi stud chapter? JG goes on quite a rant about Dons work.

Yeah but Don is a stickler for grammar. "The above" clearly is a clear reference to using complex counting approaches in BJ.

And, finally, hence the utter bullshit that was James Grosjean's consummate nonsense in his Exhibit CAA, in regard to the above.

[DSchles]

Don. Along this similar line of thought, is Wong Halves (Ill 18) vs Hi Lo (full Index) worth the extra effort?.

No. I doubt that there's any improvement in e.v. at all. The gain from level 3 would be entirely offset by using all the Hi-Lo indices, compared to using just I18 and Fab 4 with Halves.

Don

[Three]

With the same number of indices halves is better.

[Three]

No question. But how much better is the confusing part. Will it increase my income by 10%, 20%, monthly, annually? Halves does seem to reduce volatility on minimum bet hands. Tweaking it a bit by giving the 2 a full point count and the 8 a 1/2 point makes it easier to count with 1/2s on each side of the ledger.

There are a lot of factors that play into quantifying the gain. A sinple Sim of the conditions and playing style you are interested in should quantify this for you.

[Three]

Don. Along this similar line of thought, is Wong Halves (Ill 18) vs Hi Lo (full Index) worth the extra effort?.

I know SD is your game. Is that what you want an answer for?
HILO full is better than halves I18&fab 4 for SD, H17 and with H17, DAS and with H17, DAS, LS. Those extra indices make all the the difference.

[Three]

Does a 1/2 point count improve the minimum bet part of the game?

Yes in that it improves how you play the hands for most matchups. Ideally the biggest improvement IMHO for your SD game is an ace neutral count. How taxing is it to count up to 4 aces. It will really help with playing decisions over an ace reckoned count. Playing decisions is much more important in SD games since you can't vary your bet much. The ace is a low card for most playing decisions.

[DSchles]

Are you not familiar with the SCORE study in BJA3? Both Hi-Lo and Halves, among many others, are part of the comparisons. You should find what you want, for all types of games, there.

Don

[Norm]

Don. Along this similar line of thought, is Wong Halves (Ill 18) vs Hi Lo (full Index) worth the extra effort?.

It would seem counterproductive to move to Halves while reducing the indices. One major point in moving to a higher level count is more accurate indices -- which you are throwing away. The most important index, insurance, you keep. But, Halves actually has a lower IC than HiLo. Yes BC goes up. But, up from 97%.