How does the advantage on different TC be calculated?

[Freightman]

I totally disagree with your assessment. I think these rough advantages are generated when players have perfect index play on all indexes while flat betting. Bet ramp on higher TC will enlarge player's advantage. This may also create problems for players who only use I18 and Fab4. While AP capable of perfect index play begin to have the advantage at TC +1, AP using only Illustrious 18 may begin to have advantage at TC +2.2 for example. So between TC +1.0 and +2.2, they will lose bigger bet as the ev is negative in this range.

You're actually saying that an AP ramp schedule is predicated on the number of indices used? Sorry, that's ridiculous. Each rule generates a plus or mnus cost to either the house or the player. Using .5 disadvantage off the top us dimply a benchmark, which can be further fine tuned based on actual rule set. These costs can be measured by simulation, and have nothing to do with indices, and everything to do with playing perfect basic. The non counter perfect bs player won't have a clue as to what you are talking about, and it seems to me that you should rethink the matter.

[BJGenius007]

They are just rough estimates. They have nothing to do with what indices you use. There are no actual conditions where these numbers are accurate.

They don't have to be rough estimates. It should be easy programming to record all data and calculate precisely the average on different TC range, say, for all 0.2 intervals from 0 to +10. Also compare the results using three scenarios: Basic Strategy, Illustrious 18 and Fab 4 Only and ALL indexes.

[Stealth]

They don't have to be rough estimates. It should be easy programming to record all data and calculate precisely the average on different TC range, say, for all 0.2 intervals from 0 to +10. Also compare the results using three scenarios: Basic Strategy, Illustrious 18 and Fab 4 Only and ALL indexes.

Take a look at CVCX, and CvData for this type of data.

When Norm, reports that they are rough estimates and have nothing to do with indices then I suggest you consider it a valid answer.

[BoSox]

I totally disagree with your assessment. I think these rough advantages are generated when players have perfect index play on all indexes while flat betting.

Apparently Stanford Wong disagrees with you to in his book Professional Blackjack in a paragraph started on page 45 and ends on page 50 after four pages of charts.

[Three]

You're actually saying that an AP ramp schedule is predicated on the number of indices used?

Actually, optimal bet for each betting bin is determined by the average EV for all the deck compositions in the sim that fall into that bin and the Variance for that bin. Combining that info with your kelly fraction comes up with the optimal bet for that bin. The number of indices used changes both EV and variance and therefore optimal bet for each betting bin. For weak playing count counts (Ace Reckoned) the effect is far less than it is for stronger playing count counts (Ace Compromise) and even strongest playing count counts (Ace Neutral). Every tweak that affects EV and/or variance will affect your optimal betting ramp.

That is why comparisons from before and after a tweak or when making comparisons between counts MUST use optimal ramps for the same rules, pen, BR, spread and RoR for each method being compared rather than the same ramp for both. This way all the gain shows up as EV rather than in a bunch of statistics like a change in RoR. Usually around half of the potential gain or more from a tweak is from betting the same spread ratio at higher bets. If you bet it sub optimally to use practical bets in the casino the gain will still be there but it will have a portion of the gain show up in the form of a reduction in RoR making the gain impossible to quantify. When quantifying gain, all gain must show up as a change in one stat only. Then by comparing the change in that stay you get the full gain from what is being compared.

[Three]

They don't have to be rough estimates. It should be easy programming to record all data and calculate precisely the average on different TC range, say, for all 0.2 intervals from 0 to +10. Also compare the results using three scenarios: Basic Strategy, Illustrious 18 and Fab 4 Only and ALL indexes.

The average is pretty exact but to use it in practice you are using a very rough estimate for the change from one particular TC to the neighboring TC. That is what is meant by a rough estimate. Every one on your list would vary greatly from one TC to the next. The average is easy enough to get accurately but using the average to represent the absolute change from one TC to its neighbor would not be accurate. BJ is not linear and the gain from indices is cumulative as more kick in. Think about it. You are adding to an additional EV heap. As each new index kicks in as TC increases, one more thing is adding to the heap than you had before. Thus the gain is not linear but progressively larger.

[BoSox]

How does the advantage on different TC be calculated?
We often see in books that Hi-Lo players have roughly 0.5% advantage on TC +2, 1.0% on TC +3, 1.5% on TC +4, 2% on TC +5 at S17 tables. To achieve such advantage, what do players have to do? I mean, do players need to use full (or Illustrious 18) Hi-Lo index plays to get these results or just flat bet using Basic Strategy is sufficient?

Further down in post #13 you wrote:

"I totally disagree with your assessment. I think these rough advantages are generated when players have perfect index play on all indexes while flat betting. Bet ramp on higher TC will enlarge player's advantage. This may also create problems for players who only use I18 and Fab4. While AP capable of perfect index play begin to have the advantage at TC +1, AP using only Illustrious 18 may begin to have advantage at TC +2.2 for example. So between TC +1.0 and +2.2, they will lose bigger bet as the ev is negative in this range."

In the last sentence above why would you assume a high low player would raise their bet when they have not yet reached an advantage? Why are you also saying that the player does not know the up front house edge? Between the first quoted post above and the second quoted post, it is well evident you had to make a point about how low of an opinion you think of the hi low count system. Meanwhile at the same time let EVERYONE KNOW by implying just how smart you are, by talking about as yet an unpublished system only known to very few people. Are you happy now that everyone now knows you are a true Genius?

[BJGenius007]

Further down in post #13 you wrote:

"I totally disagree with your assessment. I think these rough advantages are generated when players have perfect index play on all indexes while flat betting. Bet ramp on higher TC will enlarge player's advantage. This may also create problems for players who only use I18 and Fab4. While AP capable of perfect index play begin to have the advantage at TC +1, AP using only Illustrious 18 may begin to have advantage at TC +2.2 for example. So between TC +1.0 and +2.2, they will lose bigger bet as the ev is negative in this range."

In the last sentence above why would you assume a high low player would raise their bet when they have not yet reached an advantage? Why are you also saying that the player does not know the up front house edge? Between the first quoted post above and the second quoted post, it is well evident you had to make a point about how low of an opinion you think of the hi low count system. Meanwhile at the same time let EVERYONE KNOW by implying just how smart you are, by talking about as yet an unpublished system only known to very few people. Are you happy now that everyone now knows you are a true Genius?

I don't know the answer to my original question. But I will accept an answer from guru like Don Schlesinger, either full index play or Illustrious 18. But definitely not Basic Strategy alone. I can't accept the answer from Norm, who is hard working, but not a math genius.

[Freightman]

I don't know the answer to my original question. But I will accept an answer from guru like Don Schlesinger, either full index play or Illustrious 18. But definitely not Basic Strategy alone. I can't accept the answer from Norm, who is hard working, but not a math genius.

Then why ask the question?

[Freightman]

I don't know the answer to my original question. But I will accept an answer from guru like Don Schlesinger, either full index play or Illustrious 18. But definitely not Basic Strategy alone. I can't accept the answer from Norm, who is hard working, but not a math genius.

Appendix C page 491, BJA3

[Three]

Appendix C page 491, BJA3

I am glad someone is covering for Don while he is in Europe.

[Freightman]

I am glad someone is covering for Don while he is in Europe.

I had to look it up - Don probably would have rattled it right off the top of his head.

[DSchles]

I've been back for a while (two weeks, actually). Can someone summarize the above thread and ask a very precise question, or questions, which I'll try to answer, re I18, full indices, and edge? Just an awful lot to sift through otherwise, and I'm actually working on a rather interesting BJ project that may just make it into a new edition of BJA3, when it's reprinted next year, as a new study in the Appendix. (Waiting to see how long it will take Dog Hand to react to the possibility of a BJA4! :-))

Thanks.

Don