# Thread: Illustrious 18 - indexes

1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I am not so sure but I guess the root problem is the disproportion of the pair to the non-pair. TC frequency is not the main problem.

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
You are posting nonsense again. A shoe is a shoe, from start to end. Knowledge of the shoe changes as you see more cards. The shoe itself does not change. TC frequencies change as knowledge increases. Suppose you cut in a different spot. Would you expect pair frequencies to change?

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
To prove I am right, let me show you an example. For a 8-deck shoe, when I have a hand of (7,7)vs8, I split the (7,7) pair when TC>+2 during the first two decks, but split the (7,7) pair when TC>-1 during the last two decks. This is the same shoe, but I play the remaining two decks as if they are a 2-deck new shoe. Have I been using the correct strategy?

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Why do you do that? Right or wrong, it's not relevant. If the shoe was dealt backwards, would you reverse what you are doing?

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by aceside
Sigh. Is there any possibility, remote as it may be, that, going forward, you might possibly think before you put your foot squarely in your mouth? Is there any possibility that you'll show any kind of humility whatsoever, when discussing blackjack with some of the foremost authorities in the world, and entertain some restraint in trying to teach us one more ridiculously absurd theory after another?

Don

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by DSchles
Is there any possibility, remote as it may be, that, going forward, you might possibly think before you put your foot squarely in your mouth?
I'll give you odds on that one, Don.

8. 0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by DSchles
Sigh. Is there any possibility, remote as it may be, that, going forward, you might possibly think before you put your foot squarely in your mouth? Is there any possibility that you'll show any kind of humility whatsoever, when discussing blackjack with some of the foremost authorities in the world, and entertain some restraint in trying to teach us one more ridiculously absurd theory after another?

Don
I just looked up the Stanford Wong PBJ book. It shows that for the hand of (7,7)vs8, the HiLo index of hit/splitting is TC>=+5 for a 4-deck s-17 shoe but TC>=-1 for a 1-deck s-17 shoe. This seemingly supports my argument of playing different indices at different levels of dealing depths for the same 8-deck shoe with a fixed penetration of 7.5 decks.

9. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Tarzan
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.
You have done research on this. Can you sort out which indices vary a lot with the number of decks remaining?

10. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by aceside
I just looked up the Stanford Wong PBJ book. It shows that for the hand of (7,7)vs8, the HiLo index of hit/splitting is TC>=+5 for a 4-deck s-17 shoe but TC>=-1 for a 1-deck s-17 shoe. This seemingly supports my argument of playing different indices at different levels of dealing depths for the same 8-deck shoe with a fixed penetration of 7.5 decks.
Oh no. It does nothing of the sort. Of course indices are different according to the total number of decks -- but not with remaining decks. If you start with four decks and have one left, the one left is still based on four decks.

Example, what are the odds of getting a BJ? It's the odds of getting an ace then a ten plus the odds of getting a ten and an ace since either is a natural.

Single-deck (52 cards, 4 aces and 16 tens): (4/52 * 16/51) + (16/52 * 4/51) = 0.04826546003
Double-deck (104 cards, 8 aces and 32 tens): (8/104 * 32/103) + (32/104 * 8/103) = 0.04779686333

Simple combinations. That's true at the start, middle, or end of the pile of cards.

Page 3 of 9 First 12345 ... 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
•