Indices.

[Northbend]

This is a probably an elementary question, but I would appreciate if y’all could confirm whether I have the correct understanding. I’m assuming that when we’re using a counting system and the count goes high enough to begin using indices, that the indices begin with what would be considered the “closest calls” in the game, and then go in descending order. What I mean by “close call”, is the it’s close to a 50-50 proposition as to hit or stand. So for instance, typically one of the first indices is 16 versus 10. Because this is an extremely close call in blackjack, it only takes the count going up a little for the correct play to become standing versus hitting, and then the next indices would be the next “closest calls“ like 12 verses 2 upcard etc. this would mean that 16 versus a ten upcard is a closer call than 12 versus a 2 upcard. I’m assuming this would probably be a correct statement among pretty much all legitimate counting systems, for blackjack or Spanish 21. am I correct? Thanks for being helpful everyone.

[Cacarulo]

This is a probably an elementary question, but I would appreciate if y’all could confirm whether I have the correct understanding. I’m assuming that when we’re using a counting system and the count goes high enough to begin using indices, that the indices begin with what would be considered the “closest calls” in the game, and then go in descending order. What I mean by “close call”, is the it’s close to a 50-50 proposition as to hit or stand. So for instance, typically one of the first indices is 16 versus 10. Because this is an extremely close call in blackjack, it only takes the count going up a little for the correct play to become standing versus hitting, and then the next indices would be the next “closest calls“ like 12 verses 2 upcard etc. this would mean that 16 versus a ten upcard is a closer call than 12 versus a 2 upcard. I’m assuming this would probably be a correct statement among pretty much all legitimate counting systems, for blackjack or Spanish 21. am I correct? Thanks for being helpful everyone.

Not necessarily, the count doesn't have to be high enough to use indices. We also use indices with low counts. The concept of "closest calls" is not important either.
You make the play when the count is greater than or equal to the corresponding index (or less than the index in the case of reverses). Period.
It doesn't matter whether we're playing blackjack or Spanish 21.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Northbend]

Huh, interesting. I do understand how to use indices with high or low counts, but I’m trying to understand the reason why some come before others.To help me understand, when the count gets to a certain point, and you for example, stand on a 16 verses 10 upcard, but the count is not high enough to incorporate other indices, if it’s not because it’s a closer call, then why is this the case? Is it really just because “it’s the math” and there’s no way other way to explain it? I’m not sure if I’m being clear enough here, so sorry if I’m not being clear enough! Regardless if you answer my follow up question, Thank you for sharing your expertise and answering my first question! Appreciate it!

[Freightman]

Published indices, either positive or negative are basically at strike point - essentially breakeven.
Risk Averse indices are recommended for most players, risk averse meaning that a far higher proportion of the expected value will be earned.

Examples of strike Point
8v6 +1
99v7 +3
10v10 +4

Risk Averse induces
8v6 +3
99v7 +5
10v10 +7

Longevity ap’s will play risk averse. Longevity players such as myself, will use a combination of risk averse and EV Maximizing. Depending on index used. Slash and burn ap’s will use strike point, also known as EV maximizing.

Shortpoint - Essentially, you’re correct.

[Northbend]

Published indices, either positive or negative are basically at strike point - essentially breakeven.
Risk Averse indices are recommended for most players, risk averse meaning that a far higher proportion of the expected value will be earned.

Examples of strike Point
8v6 +1
99v7 +3
10v10 +4

Risk Averse induces
8v6 +3
99v7 +5
10v10 +7

Longevity ap’s will play risk averse. Longevity players such as myself, will use a combination of risk averse and EV Maximizing. Depending on index used. Slash and burn ap’s will use strike point, also known as EV maximizing.

Shortpoint - Essentially, you’re correct.

.

Great answer Freightman. In fact, the longevity issue is exactly what I was pondering when I asked this question, so thank you.

[bigplayer]

The close calls are the ones between +1 and -1 which is where the True Count resides most of the time. The better question is which are most valuable. Those will tend to be really frequent ones or ones where you have a lot of money at stake (high counts). Search for Don Schlesinger's Illustrious 18 indexes. There are add-ons called the Fab 4. Don's book is a Bible for this stuff. "Blackjack Attack"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northbend]

The close calls are the ones between +1 and -1 which is where the True Count resides most of the time. The better question is which are most valuable. Those will tend to be really frequent ones or ones where you have a lot of money at stake (high counts). Search for Don Schlesinger's Illustrious 18 indexes. There are add-ons called the Fab 4. Don's book is a Bible for this stuff. "Blackjack Attack"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup, still need to read that one.

[Gronbog]

Search for Don Schlesinger's Illustrious 18 indexes. There are add-ons called the Fab 4. Don's book is a Bible for this stuff. "Blackjack Attack"

Also consider checking out The Hi-Lo Card Counting System: A Complete Guide to Index Play which Don and I released earlier this year in which we rank the indices according to contribution to SCORE for a wide variety of rule sets and bet spreads.