Range of indices

[Cacarulo]

This is exactly what the book by Don and Dave is doing !

That's correct. The order of preference outlined in the book is the choice to follow.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

Thanks good sir. I started on your cac2 system yesterday and am looking forward to getting it mastered.

Thank you! I think you won't be disappointed. Enjoy it.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

I was wondering what range of indices that everyone uses. I think Wong actually recommended -1 to +6. I was thinking of maybe going a little further like maybe -3 to +10. I know we need to get away from negative counts when we can but sometimes need to play some.
Thanks

One more thing related to the range suggested by SW. It's important to highlight that this range is associated with level 1 systems (or those whose tags are between -1 and +1).
For level 2 systems, the range doubles, and that's without even considering the realm of risk aversion.

Sincerely,
Cac

[8675309]

One more thing related to the range suggested by SW. It's important to highlight that this range is associated with level 1 systems (or those whose tags are between -1 and +1).
For level 2 systems, the range doubles, and that's without even considering the realm of risk aversion.

Sincerely,
Cac

I honestly didn't even think of that. Thanks

[DSchles]

For level 2 systems, the range doubles, and that's without even considering the realm of risk aversion.

That is, if you still reckon TC by full decks. If, as for the RPC, you divide by half decks, then the range stays the same. Of course, you know this.

Don

[Cacarulo]

That is, if you still reckon TC by full decks. If, as for the RPC, you divide by half decks, then the range stays the same. Of course, you know this.

Don

Yes, exactly, or as in Halves where, being a level 3, the tags are divided by 2.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

CAC said

or as in Halves where, being a level 3, the tags are divided by 2.

That’s doubled halves you’re quoting (which doubles computational halves time plus computational index time) is slower than fractional halves which I use.

An additional problem I see is for the hi lo player who wants to migrate to (doubled) halves, must relearn his/her/it/they/him/her (my first stab at those ridiculous pronouns).

[Intermediate]

Would it be useful to think about the desired range of indices in terms of the range of Advantage/Disadvantage ? For example, the range for a 2D, h17, DAS, nRSA might be -2.5% to +2% which would be about a Hi-Lo TC range of -4 to +5. That way you would convert the Advantage/Disadvantage to whatever the count was in your counting system and the corresponding index range

[Freightman]

I usually wait until the last 2 decks, if there seems to be any chance to recover then I hang around. I was at a 6 deck shoe last night that was dealt with one deck cutoff and no mid shoe entry so I definitely hung around if possible because 90% of the time I was playing heads up.

A very good reason to stick around.

[DSchles]

Did you have the opportunity to change tables with similar conditions? Because, if yes, then hanging around through negative counts isn't the right thing to do, if you can move and not be too conspicuous in the process..

Don

[Cacarulo]

CAC said


That’s doubled halves you’re quoting (which doubles computational halves time plus computational index time) is slower than fractional halves which I use.

An additional problem I see is for the hi lo player who wants to migrate to (doubled) halves, must relearn his/her/it/they/him/her (my first stab at those ridiculous pronouns).

I don't quite understand what you mean by the duplication of computational time.

Typically, when discussing a level 3 system, we're referring to one with integer tags ranging between -3 and +3. This is why we designate Halves as a level 3 system rather than a level 1.5.
It's evident that if we divide Double Halves by 2, we return to the original Halves, where fractional tags span between -1.5 and +1.5.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

I don't quite understand what you mean by the duplication of computational time.

The additional step of multiplying by 2 and then dividing by 2. Then
a. Were indices learned at double value? If so, then both TC and index value need to be divided by 2 - additional steps
b. Did you graduate to double halves from hi lo. If so, then all of those hi lo indexes originally learned must now be doubled with both TC and new index value again divided by 2.

Far easier and faster to play fractional halves with regular indices, especially if one has graduated to halves from hi lo as I have.

[Freightman]

Might add that time saved leaves room for other table computational endeavours. Further, whether using fractional or doubled halves, you still have the same number of tag values. Accordingly, there’s no such thing as a level 1.5.