Wong Halves System Complete Index

[Norm]

I thought no politics ?

Federation of Sneaky Bastards is an airsoft team.

[James989]

Only problem is that there is no representative subset. There can't. It's also important to remember that indices interact with one another. Index generation is far more difficult than normal blackjack simulation.

For example, to find indices vs dealer upcard 8, we should start the process "backward", we should find index for total 18 vs 8, and then index for 17 vs 8 . . .until index for 9 vs 8. Am I correct ?

[DSchles]

Can you show me on what page(in Pro BJ) show wong halves index of +3 for (4,4) vs 4 ? What I can found is +1 on Page 283.

Attachment 3871

The 1994 revision of the book went through many printings. Mine is from 2013 (the latest). And where your arrow points in now +3.

Don

[James989]

The 1994 revision of the book went through many printings. Mine is from 2013 (the latest). And where your arrow points in now +3.

Don

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 ?

[Norm]

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.

[James989]

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.

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 . . .

[Norm]

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.

[James989]

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.

Composition dependent indices may important for single deck. I mostly play multi deck game and I think should only focus on total dependent indices.

Thanks