Strategy deviations for ENHC

[NB10]

Hi guys,

Does anyone have the correct indexes (I18, Sweet 16, Fab 4) for 4-8 deck, ENHC, DAS, for use with the Hi-Lo count system?

Many thanks in advance!

[DSchles]

11 vs. 10 +12
AA vs. 10 -6
AA vs. A +24

As you can see, the indices are worthless. I assume you know the rest of BS.

Don

[Banker]

11 vs. 10 +12
AA vs. 10 -6
AA vs. A +24

As you can see, the indices are worthless. I assume you know the rest of BS.

Don

Is that 11 vs. 10 or 10vs. 11?
I thought 11 vs. 10 was +4 in ENHC.

[NB10]

Thanks DSchles. Do you mean I should just not deviate from BS? Or that the normal indexes (I18, etc) are applicable and there's no need for indexes specific to ENHC?

[KZman]

12 seems a little bit high for me (11 vs 10).
I use 4 when full EV, 7 if Risk aversion.

[G Man]

4 and 7 are for the regular game. We are talking ENHC here.

[Gramazeka]

System used is HI-LO with playing table Hi-lo
Kelly risk averse indices are run

AversionRatio: 1.000

Minimum positive advantage count: 1

Maximum bet count: 5

Following data used:

Count: 1 2 3 4 5

IBA(%): 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

SD/r: 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
SBA floors when calculating the true count

Remaining decks estimated exactly for true count conversion
6 decks
Shufflepoint 234 cards (75.00% penetration)

Starting at card number 1
European rules - no hole card game
Early surrender is analyzed
Dealer stands on all 17
Doubling is allowed on any two cards
Resplitting of aces is allowed
Only one card to split aces
Precision: 3.5 sigma

http://www.casinoboard.ru/index.php?...=4217&start=0&

[Meistro123]

4 and 7 are for the regular game. We are talking ENHC here.

11 v T is a BS double for the so called 'regular game'.

[G Man]

You are right. Don't know where my head was LOL. Probably had 10 vs 10 in mind.
I had +4 in my notes for 11 vs 10 in ENHC but Wong seems to think otherwise. Seee Pro BJ Table 30 where the published index is +12

[Gramazeka]

Perfect index +3.2

[DSchles]

Is that 11 vs. 10 or 10vs. 11?
I thought 11 vs. 10 was +4 in ENHC.

The indexes come from Wong and are cited correctly from the book as I stated them.

Don

[Gramazeka]

You are right. Don't know where my head was LOL. Probably had 10 vs 10 in mind.
I had +4 in my notes for 11 vs 10 in ENHC but Wong seems to think otherwise. Seee Pro BJ Table 30 where the published index is +12

+4 this is for rounding or flooring or truncating ? ))

[Gramazeka]

The indexes come from Wong and are cited correctly from the book as I stated them.

Don

Wong is wrong ! ( many time )