More indexes more scrutiny, no?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"With ploppies at the table you could end up with crappy cards and a negative deck and a large bet on the table. THAT makes no sense to me."

I fail to understand, since the ploppies presence could also improve your ratio of non-crappy cards.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

True. But do you "know" with all their tucking and jiving going on. Straight up, "you know" what's in the deck, in the tray, and on the table.

Your reply above does not in any way reference my question to you.
In fact, it sounds dangerously close to a "voodoo" style response.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"If a poppy tucks a 10 and a 7 you don't know ... you never got to see it.
f you are holding 14vs10 that knowledge could be a vital piece in your
decision making process."

Cards are turned up for payoffs. You'll see them before the next round;
a single deficit 7 will not alter your BS in a SD game, but two will.
However, the gain is minor with that deficit when compared to ...
the real issue, which is the radical decrease in hands before shuffle.
You are likely to get 2 or 3 rounds with ploppies at the table, but
5 or 6 playing solo.

[Bobcat]

The notion of "mixing it up" may or may not work, and for two different reasons. First, departures per hour is a vastly overrated concept. People write about the advanced counts with 100 indices as if an opportunity for a departure comes down the pike every other hand. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can play for an entire hour and make maybe one departure. And, it will be the exception and not the rule that, for any given hour of play, you will actually get to play the same hand two different ways, to show how you like to "mix it up." Clearly, 16 vs. 10 will be the most likely candidate.

Finally, understand that whether you say anything to the pit boss or not, and whether he even sees your departures, ultimately, it's the EITS that gets you. No one can hear anything up there; all they can do is see how you're playing the hands and how the plays correlate with the count, which, in turn, is what can get you in trouble.

Don

My guess is that the EITS is most concerned about bet variation with the count, something that can be evaluated in a consistent way across Ace-reckoned counting schemes. But judgments based on strategy variations seem less certain. For example, for 16vT perfect play and HiLo can give very different results. And if the EITS is looking for HiLo players, maybe your more accurate play will not get flagged. Maybe someone has more info on this.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

" ... for 16vT perfect play"

Trying to save an absurdly small amount of cash by hitting 16 vs. 10 is a big beginner's error.

A ploppy will always be consistent in his play with this hand. The pit and the EITS know that.

Other beginner errors include changing bet size far too often ~ in lock step with the T.C. and

failing to do so on a strong hand, while taking it on weak hands ~ in keeping with the count.

There are good reasons why I am still a full-time Professional Player after 24.5 yrs.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

About $450 on $25 Minimum bets over the course of 100k hands.

W. T. F. are you talking about ? Are you referencing the specific hand matchup: 16 vs. 10 ?

$25 on $450 = 1/17 = -5.6% This looks wrong. Your aggregate loss on (always) standing

on that hand is much lower.

"This still more than doubles about 15 indices combined."

Trying to make sense of this statement is a futile task.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Seriously, do you really believe someone above is tracking how every suspicious counter plays 16vs10?"

Yes counters are suspicious, but you are trying to say a suspected counter.

RE: 16 vs. 10

The cost is quite low because you have your minimum bet out
whenever the count is unfavorable. Playing black, I NEVER hit
16 vs. 10

You would have to do a weighted average for all negative counts
(exclusive of Wong Out negative counts) ergo, it is never a real
significant loss. Do you have a sense of what the difference in
expectation is between hitting and standing is? I think not.

I would like someone (who is more careful with his decimal places
than I am) to provide the actual numbers. This minuscule 'loss' is
inversely proportional (as a % of gain) to the depth of one's betting
ramp (spread). With aggressive play the loss approaches, but never
reaches, zero.

It pays to advertise at such a bargain price.

It is a tiny price to pay. Almost free. Gaining a degree of protection
from pit critters. ANY pit critter "worth his salt" knows to watch your
play on all of the close hands, but 16 vs. 10 is the key play observed.

Meanwhile ... you're ranting and raving re:
" ... indices 15,16vs2 thru 6 and 13,14vs5,6 ...?"
You need to sober up I am thinking.
What is the index for a hand matchups like 16 vs 6 ?
Maybe you believe that you have an Index for splitting
4's vs. 2 that is below T.C. +25. (Hi-Opt II)

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Phillipe,

Je vous remercie beaucoup pour votre réponse rapide.

Z M F

[ZenMaster_Flash]

moses,

I am hoping that you can see "the error of your ways."

[mofungoo]

Question: why is 16 v 10 ( index 0 ) near or at the top of the list for the Ill 18? These are the most profitable plays, correct?

[Three]

So the cost if you wong out below TC -1 is about 0.002654*(your min bet)*(the number of times you get 16vT and have a TC -1). You get TC -1 about 10% of all TC's and make a 16vT decision on about 7.5% your hands (to use very rough numbers). The rough cost of always hitting with the usual wonging style used is .0002 times your min bet per round or .002 times your min bet per 100 rounds. If we accept 100 rounds per hour and a $10 min bet it costs 2 cents and hour at a $25 min bet it goes up to a whopping 5 cents per hour. Even at a $100 min bet that makes 20 cents an hour cost to always standing on 16vT and wonging out of counts below TC -1 as I assume most try to do.

[DSchles]

Question: why is 16 v 10 ( index 0 ) near or at the top of the list for the Ill 18? These are the most profitable plays, correct?

It's second to insurance. The main reason is that the holding comes up much more frequently than any other play, except 15 v. 10, but the latter has a much higher index (+4, rather than 0), so you make the 16 v. 10 departure to stand much more frequently than any other play in the I18.

Don

[LoneWoLF]

who cares about heat. Play as aggressive as possible, let them back you off, return again, let them trespass you, keep returning and let them waste their funds taking you to court only for the judge to continually rule that the case is dismissed. Rinse and repeat.