Last edited by James989; 12-11-2019 at 05:22 AM.
Thanks for your reply.
I need your comments on this. The indices interact with one another as pointed out by NORM. For example, to find indices vs dealer up card 8, we should sim through a shoe(to cover all possible subsets) and start the process "backward", meaning we should first find the index for total 18 vs 8, and then index for 17 vs 8 . . .until index for 9 vs 8.
Am I correct ?
Partially. For example, you need to determine what you will do after a split before you can determine a split index. And, that will also depend on what you will do for a double, if you have DAS. And, surrender depends on anything you might do. It gets much more complex if you want to use risk averse indices. RA indices should include overall risk. Determining the correct indices depends on a rather large number of variables. It's kinda silly to present indices with decimals that are not RA indices.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Totally agreed that it will be more complex for hands with SPLIT.
For example, when 17 vs 8, the possible strategy should be STAND/HIT, so find ev of STAND and HIT for TC = -50 to TC=+50, from there, we will know at what TC we should switch the strategy between STAND/HIT !
As for 9 vs 8, it should be DOUBLE/HIT . . . . .etc . . .
Last edited by James989; 12-11-2019 at 05:49 PM.
Composition dependent indices are clearly different. I support them. But, I don't generally suggest using them. There are exceptions with certain bonuses. Side bets and bonuses are becoming an important part of AP.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Bookmarks