Contradictory Indexes in BJA3?

[Optimus Prime]

I'm learning to use the Catch-22 (risk-averse) hi-lo indices from BJA3 found in table 13.11 instead of the I18/Fab4. I noticed that some of the EV-maximizing indices in table 13.11 don't match the indices in table 10.1 "The Simulation Indices" and I can't figure out why. Seems that table 13.11 and table 5.1 (Ill 18) agree on what indices maximize EV, while table 10.1 differs a little bit.

For example, 10.1 gives the indices for 12 vs. 2 as +4 whereas the tables 13.11 and 5.1 say +3.

What is the difference? Something to do with introducing the possibility of a push by hitting your 12? Or different TC calculation method? Some other difference in the simulations?

Most importantly, which index should I be using for these plays? I play mostly 6 deck H17.

[CountinCanadian]

12 v 2 I have always seen and used as +3

[Three]

Most importantly, which index should I be using for these plays? I play mostly 6 deck H17.

The index used won't make much difference. The inconsistency is probably due to it being a close call. Even if it wasn't the EV difference at the index is very small. If you look at the graph in the link. The index is +4 (that is you stand when the TC is +4 or more) but is close to being +3. I don't think it will make matters which you use. The difference in EV will be very small. That said I would use +4 because it was the index two out of three times in Don's book, it is the index in the online viewer, and the EV at TC +3 barely favors hitting.

https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm

You have to ask Don about the inconsistencies in his book.

[Optimus Prime]

I would think, when EV is really close like that, hitting would be the better choice, since the possibility of a push would reduce variance. Hence, the higher index would win in this case.

[DSchles]

The index used won't make much difference. The inconsistency is probably due to it being a close call. Even if it wasn't the EV difference at the index is very small. If you look at the graph in the link. The index is +4 (that is you stand when the TC is +4 or more) but is close to being +3. I don't think it will make matters which you use. The difference in EV will be very small. That said I would use +4 because it was the index two out of three times in Don's book, it is the index in the online viewer, and the EV at TC +3 barely favors hitting.

https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm

You have to ask Don about the inconsistencies in his book.

It's always frustrating when people look at just the charts and don't bother to read the text that explains them. The chapter 10 indices were the latest and were produced by Norm, using CVData. At the bottom of p. 374, you see that the page 375 indices were generated by John Auston using Karel Janecek's SBA. You will never, ever, have a problem using an index that differs by one from any other index.

Don

[Optimus Prime]

It's always frustrating when people look at just the charts and don't bother to read the text that explains them. The chapter 10 indices were the latest and were produced by Norm, using CVData. At the bottom of p. 374, you see that the page 375 indices were generated by John Auston using Karel Janecek's SBA. You will never, ever, have a problem using an index that differs by one from any other index.

Don

Don, I did read the surrounding text to compare methods, if for no other reason than to avoid your admonition. Alas, I was looking for a difference of method, priorities, or game specifics when I did so and made the (wrong) assumption that any simulator would produce the same indexes under the same conditions. I know that being "off" by 1 on an index is no big deal; my question was mostly academic.