Possibly a stupid question, but I'd like to know if the Illustrious 18 would work on something other than Hi Lo, namely the Silver Fox Strategy? Yes, I realize the tag values are much different RE: the 7 and 9, but would the Illustrious 18 be anywhere near the ballpark for using with Silver Fox?.....Thank you for any and all replies.....Ronster
The illustrious 18 are not only theoretically different for each counting system, they are also theoretically different due to other considerations such as your betting ramp and style of play (play-all, white rabbit, back counting, etc.). Having said that, one big factor is the frequency of each index which should tend to be similar for each system, if you stick to the same style of play.
In practice the same 18 indices are generally used among different counting systems although the index values may be different. Silver fox balances 2 additional cards vs HiLo. I would expect the indices and their values to be very similar.
If you start with simple BS then most of the I18 is based on frequency of matchup occurrence, frequency of the play being made (sum of the TC frequencies when index is exceeded) and gain after the index is exceeded. Only the last one varies much by count being used. But BS need not be play-all BS. If you wong out of most negative counts or backcourt and only play advantage situations, you will have a different BS based on EV maximizing each hand for the TC you play. This will change the I18. A striking example is BS for these types of wonging would be to stand on 16vT. The deviation from this wonger's BS to hit 16vT would be a worthless index. So for most shoe game player's, who I assume wong out at some point if the TC gets too negative, the BS required to EV maximize the sum of the counts they play while flat betting is different than play-all BS. The 18 most important indices would also be different since BS would be different. It is the larger positive indices that become the most important as most of the negative indices aren't worth much because you are never far below the index and the frequency of hands played at those negative TC are low. Plus your bet will be minimal. If you use a modified basic strategy for counting while wonging out of most negative TCs instead of ploppy BS, the I18 are all positive indices. This is the most efficient way to do index play if you don't play all. I am not sure why only some of the pros do this and it is not done by recreational counters.
Ralph Stricker was a dear friend of mine, so it hurts me to say anything negative about Silver Fox, but the simple reality is that, under most circumstances it underperforms Hi-Lo, despite reckoning two more ranks of cards. The reason for this is that neither the 7 nor the 9 is very important to count re betting EORs, and counting the 9 as a negative hurts the insurance correlation (as is the case with Halves). The result is that you're betting off not reckoning either of those ranks and sticking with Hi-Lo.Originally Posted by Ronster
Finally, to answer your original question, the I18 indices would be virtually identical for the two counts.
Don
Look at "Playing" page 94 in "Modern Blackjack".
Number 13 is missing.
And my sim on 100 billions hands
Gain per hour (100 hands) between BS and REKO-F
ScreenShot272.jpg
REKO does not play TT vs T different than BS.
A part of small differences are from Standard errors.
But the hourly gain (not IBA) from TT or BJ and the lose of hourly gain in some hands are surprising side effects.
Our main hypothesis is a frequency variation due to game variations in high counts. Mainly a weaker consumption of cards (stands and doubles) and thus a "preservation" of 10 (more frequent therefore more consumed than weak cards when hitting)
Last edited by Phoebe; 05-27-2018 at 07:37 AM.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks