Indices and their importance to your winning/variance

[Bigdaddy]

It's called REKO-T in Modern Blackjack. Probably only in the print version.

Once you add the "T" to REKO you are on your way to jettisoning the "RE"...YMMV..

[Norm]

Yes, in many ways. But, I have always said that one should start simple (reasonably simple -- not ridiculously simple), and have a path to grow. Now, that doesn't mean that the path should be TC'ing an unbalanced strategy. That's not a path that I would choose, due to my own personal likes. And, it doesn't mean a more complex count. There exist so many different paths. What bugs me is those that think that there is only one path. That sounds more like a religion than a strategy.

[Jabberwocky]

Yes, in many ways. But, I have always said that one should start simple (reasonably simple -- not ridiculously simple), and have a path to grow. Now, that doesn't mean that the path should be TC'ing an unbalanced strategy. That's not a path that I would choose, due to my own personal likes. And, it doesn't mean a more complex count. There exist so many different paths. What bugs me is those that think that there is only one path. That sounds more like a religion than a strategy.

The word you want is cult.

[Norm]

Not at all. I am in continuing conversation with seriously intelligent APs that make use of all manner of complex strategies. They realize the value of simplicity. But, there exist situations where complexity is of enormous value. There is not one way to skin a cat. (Apologies to cat-lovers.)

Again, people are different. I am not, and never have been, an advocate of one path. There are so many, many cogent, memorable quotes on this subject that I won't provide one.

[Drewster]

If your serious I'd love a PM. I'm always on the lookout for access to quality bj literature for good prices.

[seriousplayer]

As for betting, playing is another way that an AP can extract cash from the talons of the casinos. However; it seems that the gain in expected value deviating from the preferred optimal strategy can be less than that of the house edge offered(dependent on rules of course.) In other words, one cannot make money flat betting yet deviating BS. Yet, part of the community's decisions are based on such deviation. DonS's Illustrious 18 and Fabulous 4 are a prime example for many in the blackjack AP world. Simple and dependable, these offer the added benefit of increase winrate followed by decrease variance.Now, why do these at all? Why depart? Simply because of the added edge.

So then, what decisions should you focus on? All of them would be optimal. There is something to be said about the "increase of ev over increase of error". Why take the time to study 20, 40, 100, 200! plus indices for a possibly small gain? Why add extra mental operations to complicate your game?

"So what's your question dogman?! You answered your own question!!!"

Not quite. There are a few things that seem to be foggy:

1.) Since using ALL index plays available would be optimal, ignoring counts of greater magnitude (like TC -10 and 10 respectfully for Hi-Lo) could be an option. This reduces the need to remember 100+ indices for play departure. However; this reduces your expected profit and you WILL be missing much greater EV plays if you ignore them (like doubling 9V7/8 or doubling 10VA [if ever!])

2.) A large array of indices to study would be bothersome. Not entirely impossible. Not everyone is born with a photographic memory(oh, you lucky few!)How would you go about studying a large array of departures for your game?

3.) Are indices actually overrated? Considering AP's for blackjack derive most of their profit from betting decisions. Would YOU employ a no-index game, a some-inedx game with a specific range, or an ALL-index game?

4.) What other value(s) can an AP gain from using indices?

With card counting in Blackjack more indices doesn't mean it will always produce a higher SCORE. Because some indices have higher variances which decreases SCORE.

[DSchles]

"With card counting in Blackjack more indices doesn't mean it will always produce a higher SCORE."

For doubling and splitting decisions, if you use risk-averse indices, by definition, the above statement isn't true.

Don