See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: 2 Counts vs. 2 Indexes

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Lightbulb 2 Counts vs. 2 Indexes

    Code:
    
    /012222100 -2-2\
    
         +1    -1+3
    
      112232100-3
    Practicing a hybrid count(DD only) derived from the RPC count ive become pretty efficient for the "play of hands" in "double deck" games.. And although other hybrid counts could be used i felt this one was best in terms of "EoR" in correlation to betting and playing decisions, while trying to keep it as practical as possible...

    Count 1> 12222100-2-2(2-A)
    Count2>112232100-3(A-X)

    As you may have already noticed Count 1 is for betting while count Count 2 is primarily used for hands 12-16 and insurance purposes..Now, without making things to complex it may obvious to some why count 1. has a higher "playing efficiency" for doubling on 10 than count 2 would..Likewise Count 2. has a much higher "playing efficiency" for doubling on 11 than Count 2. would..Therefore, its easy enough to reason why only one index is needed for hands 10-16, and insurance purposes..But heres where i start to get a little confused. And even though i have a pretty good idea on whether or not Count 1. or Count 2. should be used for the remainder of the hands, im still unsure if Ndas, re-splitting or even if H17 makes a difference in which count becomes the one more efficient to use..For example, if re-splitting Aces is not allowed then its safe enough to assume that Count 2. would be a more accurate decision since it tags the ace as +1(as well as soft hands A2-A6)...

    So heres one of my questions: Although im pretty confident and fairly certain only 1 index is needed for doubling on hands
    7-10 and Count 1. would have the better efficiency for the play of these hands, im still uncertain when it comes to splits and whether or not double after splitting plays a factor or not.. Note that I have reason to believe that Count 1. would be better when "double after splits" are allowed and Count 2. for when they are not..What really brought this to My attention was when it came to splitting XXs.. I started noticing "in practice" (on a blackjack program) that there were many times when the index for splitting XXs was falling a little short of one count but high enough for the other and other times it was the exact opposite even the EV showed splitting...

    What im trying to say here, is that since (what i believe) BOTH count 1 and count 2. have an almost EQUAL playing efficiency for splitting XXs i decided to learn BOTH indexes FOR THESE HANDS ONLY (and of course since its such a valuable index). So my main question i ask is, if the index for count 1. for example is +8 for splitting XXs while the index is +10 for count 2 wouldnt it be okay to make this play on whichever index comes first?

    Note:I ask this because BOTH counts are very efficient for this particular hand, unlike doubling on 10 and 11 where one count is superior over the other one..
    Last edited by Jack Jackson; 05-28-2020 at 12:50 AM.
    http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    These questions can only be answered by simulation. Play a sufficient number of hands each way so that the standard errors are sufficiently small enough for you to make a determination (Gronbog can help here!), and then see which index outperforms.

    Don

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    These questions can only be answered by simulation. Play a sufficient number of hands each way so that the standard errors are sufficiently small enough for you to make a determination (Gronbog can help here!), and then see which index outperforms.

    Don
    About Ten years ago Etfan from Snyders site, showed me a mathematical formula on how to calculate the efficiency of any particular hand.. I think it ended up being too much math for me, so i never really learned how to do it..

    In any event, and fortunately so, some the hands are fairly obvious and only 1 count and 1 index is required..The only hands i really have in question about, are splits, doubling 7-9 and whether or not its worth learning two separate indexes for a pair of Tens, since im fairly certain both counts perform on or about the same level.. And provided that's true, one could only surmise you could use whichever count reached that index first, even if taking the average of the two indexes was the case..
    http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

  4. #4


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    What I don't understand is that you seem to be willing to do a lot more mental gymnastics in the form of maintaining two separate counts, all in order to reduce the number of indices you need to learn. It sounds counter productive to me.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    What I don't understand is that you seem to be willing to do a lot more mental gymnastics in the form of maintaining two separate counts, all in order to reduce the number of indices you need to learn. It sounds counter productive to me.
    You'll have to forgive me, if im having a little bit of a hard time explaining what it is im primarily trying to ask..So for the sake of simplicity, lets say both count 1 and count2 both have an index of +9 for splitting Tens against a 6.

    Count1
    (2-A)1223210-1-2-2)
    Count2
    (A-X)11223220-1-3)

    In Example 1(top). I have a running count of +9 for count1 and 0 for count2=TC+9

    In Example 2. you can now see i have a running count of +4/+5=(TC+9) which now calls for splitting over standing for count2.
    (note:add count1 and 4 point secondary for count2)..

    As you can see in both examples i have a TC of +9 on separate instances, which in both examples it callsl for splitting(but only for 1 of the counts) so therefore cant i just use EITHER count that reaches a TC of +9 first?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Jack Jackson; 05-30-2020 at 03:45 AM.
    http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Short answer: no. If one is 8 (don't split) and one is 9 (split) which do you trust?

    Don

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Short answer: no. If one is 8 (don't split) and one is 9 (split) which do you trust?

    Don
    I dont get it. Clearly the betting count, is the dominant count for splitting Tens. Same goes for doubling on Ten..But still, there are times when the dominant count fails to identify these situations and the Playing count can pick-up the slack..I seen this first hand last night on my program when 10 versus 10 came up.. The Tc for the betting count(dominant count) was like +3 and the playing count was something like +12..Guess what? You guessed it alright, the +EV for doubling over hitting was a whopping 10% which obviously never would of triggered doubling for the dominant count(betting count).

    Honestly now, i do understand how indexes are generated and key cards DO make a massive difference, but i just seem to be missing too many oppurtunities by not using two different indexes for the betting count(only) EVEN when it is the dominant count for THOSE particular(doubles and splits)hands..
    Last edited by Jack Jackson; 05-31-2020 at 02:22 PM.
    http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

Similar Threads

  1. CV Blackjack Indexes?!!! or Book Indexes?!!!
    By RoadWarrior in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-25-2022, 02:10 PM
  2. Halves Indexes Looking for Early Surrender Indexes
    By GreenHouse in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-17-2017, 11:27 AM
  3. HI-LO Indexes - 2D vs 6D
    By LoveBJ in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-19-2016, 06:31 PM
  4. Interchangeable level 1 counts with side counts on A,2,7, and 9
    By Blitzkrieg in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-07-2014, 11:00 AM
  5. orster52: BJ indexes = Span21 indexes
    By orster52 in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-23-2008, 09:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.