1. 1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

## Question on deviations

Hi all,

I currently only know 8 deviations and I'd like to memorise the I-18 as a next step, I have a copy of PBJ with the charts I require, but how do I know what deviations add the most EV?

Is it simply a case of the deviations at the smaller TCs are most valuable and should be learned first? Are positive TC deviations more important than negative TC deviations as that is when you have more chips on the table?

Furthermore, does anyone know if it's possible to view the EV impact of each index inside CVCX?

More generally, as rules between tables we play can be different, different decks and pen. Doesn't that mean that the indices we memorise are in constant flux? Most may stay the same, but some rules require subtle changes in the deviations, much like in basic strategy?

Kind Regards

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Depends on the context asked. Even negative indexes are important.
Is it simply a case of the deviations at the smaller TCs are most valuable and should be learned first?
Assuming you play all - most frequent indexes are negative indexes and indexes up to TC 1. They add EV simply because they help you lose less money (15,16 v 10 and 9) They're the most frequent because this category comprise 70-80% of rounds (depending on cut) played.

Are positive TC deviations more important than negative TC deviations as that is when you have more chips on the table?
In general, any positive index, whether defensive or offensive will EV at a higher value per incident than negative indexes. From a frequency perspective, indexes such as 8v6 or 5 at + 1 and 3 respectively, 99v7 (+3) are bread and butter plays.

The plays that add EV at faster rates than any other are splitting 10’s v 4,5,6. and 10 v 10). That’s when you have your max or super max bet out. Most players don’t split 10’s for longevity reasons (including me), but I will double 10 v 10 depending on where I’m at.

The most valuable index of all based on frequency of occurrence combined with dollars on table is insurance.

I have a copy of PBJ with the charts I require
PBJ quotes indexes at strike point. Plays made right at strike point will add very little over the years. For most players, especially newer players - should learn the concept of Risk Averse indexes, especially for the higher numbered indexes.

More generally, as rules between tables we play can be different, different decks and pen.
Basically, very little if any difference on indexes based in rule set, excepting those play decisions not allowed on certain rule sets. Deck pen is very important as positive index play frequency is reduced on lower pen shoes.

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by SouthWest_UK
I currently only know 8 deviations and I'd like to memorise the I-18 as a next step, I have a copy of PBJ with the charts I require, but how do I know what deviations add the most EV?
Do you also have BJA3? The I18 plays were ranked in order of importance. Of course, that was for one set of rules, number of decks, and bet spread. Naturally, changing those parameters can change both the plays themselves and their rankings. Gronbog and I are currently working on a rather large project in that regard.

But, for now, know that you aren't going to go very wrong learning the original I18 plus four more (that I labeled the Catch 22): doubling 8 vs. 5 and 6 and A,8 vs. 5 and 6, and, of course, the Fab 4 for surrender.

Don

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Thanks both for the responses.

Originally Posted by DSchles
Do you also have BJA3? The I18 plays were ranked in order of importance. Of course, that was for one set of rules, number of decks, and bet spread. Naturally, changing those parameters can change both the plays themselves and their rankings. Gronbog and I are currently working on a rather large project in that regard.

But, for now, know that you aren't going to go very wrong learning the original I18 plus four more (that I labeled the Catch 22): doubling 8 vs. 5 and 6 and A,8 vs. 5 and 6, and, of course, the Fab 4 for surrender.

Don
I don't have BJA3 unfortunately, but I have looked up some tables online and found references to I-18, most of the plays are valid for the game I am playing, but the problem I've got is that I'm playing no hole card and some of the TCs mentioned are slightly different to page 82 of PBJ for those hands. I assume I follow what the book says as that applies to my game?

Furthermore, no hole card says to never DD 10/11 against an A which also knocks out some of the I-18 deviations. PBJ says to always hit those and only DD 11 against 10 with a TC >= 4

Thanks for the Catch 22 recommendation, I shall be adding these to my arsenal.

Unfortunately, Sr isn't offered in the games I currently have access to. So I'll memorise these for when the time comes.

Kind Regards

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
but the problem I've got is that I'm playing no hole card and some of the TCs mentioned are slightly different to page 82 of PBJ for those hands. I assume I follow what the book says as that applies to my game?
Are you playing ENHC where you lose all splits doubles etc. against dealer BJ, or NHC as found in Canada. I assume the former based on your handle.

Alison, the probable reason the indexes are slightly different is that the planet uses floored indexes while Wong truncated. Accordingly, the differences are likely only on the negative indexes.

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Freightman
Are you playing ENHC where you lose all splits doubles etc. against dealer BJ, or NHC as found in Canada. I assume the former based on your handle.

Alison, the probable reason the indexes are slightly different is that the planet uses floored indexes while Wong truncated. Accordingly, the differences are likely only on the negative indexes.
Correct, it's ENHC, dealer wins all.

You are right, the negative indices are where the differences are, with the exception of the DD 10 and 11 vs A which I believe is due to the ENHC rule.

Kind Regards

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
You are right, the negative indices are where the differences are, with the exception of the DD 10 and 11 vs A which I believe is due to the ENHC rule.
In simplest terms, truncation rounds TOWARDS zero. So, as Wong truncated
All plus true counts - floored and truncated values are both reduced to the same full integer value.
Examples towards 0 decimals 1.5145 to 1, 2.65 to 2, 0.6587 to 0

All minus true counts - floored and truncated values differ
-.6506 floors to -1 and truncates to 0
-1.678 floors to -2 and truncates to -1

#### Posting Permissions

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