Illustrious 18 - indexes

[Freightman]

Norm has given you an argument. I'll give you a different one. Suppose you're using your strategy and indices for a six-deck game and, suddenly, the shoe drops on the floor and five decks spill out, leaving only one deck remaining in the shoe. Are you now suddenly playing a single-deck game? Do you understand how utterly ridiculous such an argument would be? Or, in similar fashion, if you held the six decks in your hands and, instead of dealing from the top, you turned the pack over and began dealing from the bottom deck only, would you now be playing single-deck blackjack? Oh!

Nonetheless, there is an entirely different concept that is valid, and that is the basis for the floating advantage. If you are counting a shoe game, and you get to a point where only one deck is remaining, AND, you have a count of, say, zero, then your edge at that moment is, in fact, consistent with that of a single deck off the top. But this is a very different idea from the one that you have been espousing.

Don

A waste of time proffering logic to aceside. He is only interested in promoting the ludicrous. Your time is better spent analyzing the Complexities and advantages of the FBM ASC Advanced.

[21forme]

A waste of time proffering logic to aceside. He is only interested in promoting the ludicrous.

Agree. Trying to talk sense into this clown is like squeezing water from a stone.

[Freightman]

Agree. Trying to talk sense into this clown is like squeezing water from a stone.

Wouldn’t be a problem, provided of course, one works for UJA.

[aceside]

Nonetheless, there is an entirely different concept that is valid, and that is the basis for the floating advantage. If you are counting a shoe game, and you get to a point where only one deck is remaining, AND, you have a count of, say, zero, then your edge at that moment is, in fact, consistent with that of a single deck off the top. But this is a very different idea from the one that you have been espousing.

Don

This becomes interesting. Earlier, Tarzan brought up this “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,” and I have been researching for a conclusion. My findings on this topic is that the variation of a play index is caused by the disproportion of pairs to non-pairs, but many people here have disagreed with me. Since you are the inventor of illustrious-18, can you comment more about Tarzan’s findings and floating advantages?

[Freightman]

The remaining two or one decks of a shoe are always where I really gamble for a large amount. This is why I want to fine tune my skills to make them mathematically correct.

They're proper strategies for dealing with this potentially profitable scenario. Of course, one must deal correctly with the preceding decks to maximize this scenario. Further, you can pump up your results by proper application of QTC - beyond your capabilities.

[aceside]

They're proper strategies for dealing with this potentially profitable scenario. Of course, one must deal correctly with the preceding decks to maximize this scenario. Further, you can pump up your results by proper application of QTC - beyond your capabilities.

Your concept of QTC in your regaled FBM ASC Advanced might help with the issue of varying index with the shoe depth. This is hard stuff because it is hard to solve mathematically. I want to solve these problems on a blank paper from scratch.

[Freightman]

This is hard stuff because it is hard to solve mathematically.

You've demonstrated deficiency in this area. Consider a different line of endeavour

[aceside]

Card combination only matters on single deck in some cases. Multiple deck (2, 4, 6, 8D) indexes are almost identical because there are so many cards in the shoe so different card combination almost doesn't matter. For example, you only need to memorize the index 16 v 9 and don't need to memorize different indexes for AAT22 v 9 or 79 v 9. So Wong's books like all other BJ books just list two different index tables. One for single deck. And the other for multiple decks (applying to double decks, six decks and eight decks.) (Technically there are four kinds of tables because S17 and H17 indexes are different.)

I agree with you for the most part, but there is still something that needs clarification from you or anybody.
For HiLo, the insurance indexes are:
1Deck: +1.4
2Deck: +2.4
6Deck: +3.0
8Deck: +3.0.

For HiLo, the hand 9 vs 2 double-down indexes are:
1Deck: -1 or ?
2Deck: +1
6Deck: +1
8Deck: +1
Here is what bothers me the most. The basic strategy for the hand 9 vs 2 is double down, but the HiLo index is +1. Can anybody help explain this discrepancy?

Also, insurance and other blackjack indices come from different mechanisms. Can anybody explain a little more.

[DSchles]

The basic strategy for the hand 9 vs 2 is double down, but the HiLo index is +1. Can anybody help explain this discrepancy?

BS for 9 vs. 2 is double for one and two decks, but not for four, six, or eight decks. The Hi-Lo index is +1, so when you hold a two-card 9 vs. dealer's 2, the RC is either +3 or +2. In either case, for SD or DD, the
TC >=+1, and so you double. Once you divide RC by 4, 6, or 8, the TC <+1, so you hit.

While the above is true, as Norm mentions, BS has nothing to do with a TC of zero. You realize that, with the above hand, off the top of a single deck, the TC could be +3 as you make your BS play.

Don

[aceside]

BS for 9 vs. 2 is double for one and two decks, but not for four, six, or eight decks. The Hi-Lo index is +1, so when you hold a two-card 9 vs. dealer's 2, the RC is either +3 or +2. In either case, for SD or DD, the
TC >=+1, and so you double. Once you divide RC by 4, 6, or 8, the TC <+1, so you hit.

This explains a lot! Based on your theory, I will hit a hand of 4,5 vs dealer's 2 when TC=0 in mid-shoe when I count a double-deck shoe, but will double down this hand anywhere in a shoe when I don't count cards.

This issue is also related to the TC difference before and after the hand was dealt.

[DSchles]

Based on your theory, I will hit a hand of 4,5 vs dealer's 2 when TC=0 in mid-shoe when I count a double-deck shoe, but will double down this hand anywhere in a shoe when I don't count cards.

It's not my theory; it's a simple fact. But your statement is correct.

Don

[21forme]

But your statement is correct.

There's a first!

[Freightman]

There's a first!

Not true. It’s a second.