CV Blackjack Indexes?!!! or Book Indexes?!!!

[Norm]

CV has both S17 and H17. However, I just looked at two editions of ProBJ, and there are a lot of differences.

[RoadWarrior]

CV has both S17 and H17. However, I just looked at two editions of ProBJ, and there are a lot of differences.

Yes i had to change the rules for it to take effect! At first it didnt change however, but now it did! You are right the only differences is on 0 and negative numbers, they are all adjusted by -1. Thanks!

[RoadWarrior]

I also dont understand why Wong has a separate surrneder table in the book and then has different usrrender indices in Appendix. Table 33 Surrender indices are slightly different than appendix!! I think I should probably just use appendix, as table 33 seems to be a hybrid between hi lo and halves!! I now understand where you got the numbers from! You used the appendix and not the surrender table on table 33! that makes it clear for the surrender indices at least!

[RoadWarrior]

Can anyone help me understand if i should use table 33 on pg.93 of Professional Blackjack 1994! or the indices in the Appendix? The surrender indicies on pg.93 are slightly different than in the appendix!!

[LoneWoLF]

Can anyone help me understand if i should use table 33 on pg.93 of Professional Blackjack 1994! or the indices in the Appendix? The surrender indicies on pg.93 are slightly different than in the appendix!!

It looks like Norm used the 1981 Wong numbers in CV, would I be correct in stating that? Meaning he used the floored numbers. Wouldnt that be better than the current 1994 numbers anyway?

[Bigdaddy]

I think i know whats wrong, the numbers in CV are based on s17! like 12v3 in CV says 2 but the H17 table in wong! says 12v3 is 1 NOT 2

You're gonna drive yourself nuts with this. There are differences in published indexes all over the place and then if you run CVData sims for your specific game and counting method, you'll get more differences....

The point is that they should all be are pretty close. So my advice - try to embrace the bigger picture and do some meaningful and practical grouping of indexes that are in the top 50 category. You'll reap 95% of the value and retain your sanity by not chasing the last 5% or so...

[ZenMaster_Flash]

BigDaddy is very much right.

Hair-splitting is to be avoided.

Spend the energy on learning

a count that has HIGH Playing

Efficiency, like Hi-Opt II or ZEN.

[ajporrasm]

I too am a little confused by some indices.

I see Norm’s cvdata online index viewer for double down on 8 v 6 is TC >= 2:

https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm

Wong’s index in professional blackjack is double down on 8 v 6 TC >= 1


Other differences include:
Double down 8 v 5 Wong: 3 Norm: 4
Double down 8 v 4 Wong: 5 Norm: 6
Hard hit 16 v 9 Wong: 5 Norm:4
Hard hit 12 v 6 Wong:0 Norm:-1

The 12 v 6 index of 0 surprised me the most

The cvdata calculations there are for S17 6D DAS LS, and the site mentions it’s using half deck estimations and flooring.

Wong’s book mentions indices were calculated for S17 4D and truncated. I wasn’t sure if these were half deck or full deck estimations.

Since these are differences on indices that aren’t negative, except 12 v 6, are Norm’s considered the correct values here since they’re more specifically tailored?

Sorry to dig up the old post but I couldn’t find an answer and also have been wanting to know

[Norm]

There are a lot of variables, and indices interact. That is, 12v6 may depend on whether or not you are using indices for 13v6, 14v6, etc.

[ajporrasm]

There are a lot of variables, and indices interact. That is, 12v6 may depend on whether or not you are using indices for 13v6, 14v6, etc.

That’s interesting, I haven’t heard of the use of a specific index affecting a different index. Where could I find reading material on that if you don’t mind sharing?

For a game that is 6D S17 DAS LS, is it correct to use your indices since it was calculated specific to that game?

[Norm]

Offhand, I don't know of any reading material on this. When you are creating a standard index for 12v6; you determine the advantage of hitting or standing with different counts. But, if you hit and get a deuce, you must know what you will do with a 12v8 with the modified count including the deuce, as that will affect the advantage of hitting 12v6. If you are calculating the index for a split, you must know what you will do in various hit/stand and double situations that can result.

Best to use specific indices.

[ajporrasm]

That makes sense, thanks.

Would you say your indices are calculated assuming play this way?
And if Wong’s are?

I’m still unsure as to which values are correct to use under the pretense of full index use

Appreciate the responses from you as well!

[Norm]

I don't know the details of Wong's. I assume he took into account interactions.