# Thread: Illustrious 18 - indexes

1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Norm
Might be easier to see this as a step chart. Below is the current way CVData displays this and as a step chart:

Attachment 4522

Attachment 4523

I don't use step charts by default as all other indices have two lines and they would overlap. Changing the lines to not be filled would fix this. Incidentally, you change change this yourself in CVData by clicking the Designer button and changing the chart type.
Now, the real question up for you: what kind of card combination exactly is your HiLo true count of +3 for a 6-deck shoe? This is a perfect one: A(23), 2(20), 3(21), 4(21), 5(21), 6(21), 7(21), 8(22), 9(23), 10(96).
Here A(23) means there are 23 aces in the remaining deck. What other combinations are good?
Thank you for you hard work.

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by tal32bur
So, I've been incorporating the 'Illustrious 18' deviations into my gameplay.

Just out of curiosity, I plugged each of the 18 individual deviations into the CVCX 'Index Chart Viewer' on the website card-counting.com. This online index chart is pre-set with 6 decks, S17,DAS, LS.

I also compared the illustrious 18 with the index's in Wong's "Professional Blackjack" Table A4. This table is for 4 Decks, S17, DAS.

The indexes found in the 'Illustrious 18', the 'Index Chart Viewer', and in Wong's Table A4 are usually the same, but there are different index numbers for 6 of the 18 plays:

TT v 6: (4) (5) (4)
12 v 2: (3) (4) (3)
9 v 7: (3) (4) (3)
16 v 9: (5) (4) (5)
12 v 5: (-2) (-1) (-1)
13 v 3: (-2) (-2) (-1)

Where the index number inside the first bracket is from the 'Illustrious 18', the second is from the 'Index Chart Viewer', and the third is from Wong's Table A4.

So, from reading Blackjack Attack, my understanding is that Don's indexes are based on a 4 deck shoe; whereas Norm's CVData online viewer states it is based on 6 decks. Wong's Table A4 is base on 4 Decks. The CVData online viewer and Wong's Table A4 are both pre-set to S17 rule. I'm not sure which soft-17 rule was used in the Illustrious 18.

All three of these information sources are beyond reproach and I have no doubts about their accuracy. Its just that I've become a little obsessed with card-counting this month and wondering what accounts for the slight different in these indexes.

Thanks for any feedback offered.

Cheers
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-Book-Indexes-!!!

Cheers

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by aceside
Now, the real question up for you: what kind of card combination exactly is your HiLo true count of +3 for a 6-deck shoe? .
You need to look at many millions of combinations according to the frequencies in which they will exist at all deck depths in the range requested.

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by aceside
Can anybody explain the discrepancy?
Yes, of course. Card-counting.com is wrong. Did that ever occur to you?

Don

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
No, it's correct. He's misreading it.

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by aceside
These are pretty close anyway, but last week when I looked up these chart views on card-counting.com, it shows the insurance index is 2.4 for 6-deck s-17, das, las. It is clearly printed on the picture figure there. However, I later discovered that it should be +3. Can anybody explain the discrepancy?
Originally Posted by Norm
No, it's correct. He's misreading it.
Apologies. Didn't realize this was your site! Rarely referred to it by that name. Anyway, sure. Your indices are in the middle of the boxes and not on the line vertices.

Don

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by DSchles
Your indices are in the middle of the boxes and not on the line vertices.
Works better for most charts. But, I'm going to change it in CVData for index charts. To do this now,

Click on Designer
Click XAxis
Turn on Labels on Ticks

8. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
In calculating precise indices, you'll find that for quite a few hands, 8vs4, 9vs7, 9vs8, 10vsT, 10vsA, 15vs8, 15vs9, 15vsT, and the list goes on, that the index moves dependent upon number of decks remaining. The index for the play is different at one deck remaining than what it is with 4 decks remaining. Some hands remain absolutely in sync with the index constant regardless of numbers of decks remaining, though. I've noticed slight variations in people's calculations dependent upon method used, however quite close to one another, over here it's +1 but over there it's +2 sort of thing, but I thought I'd bring up that fascinating fact, the index moving up or down dependent upon number of decks remaining with certain hands, whereas on others it doesn't.

9. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
This is reasonable. The portion of pairs will drop a lot as the number of decks drops, while the portions of all other hands will slightly increase. All these indices involving pairs will change a lot with the number of decks.

10. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
No aceside, that's completely false. That makes sense as to the number of original decks -- not remaining decks. Tarzan is correct in that indices can change as penetration changes. That's because TC frequencies change.

Page 2 of 9 First 1234 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

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