CVCX Complete Zen Count Indices

[hogwashap]

It appears the Complete Zen Count indices provided by CVCX are highly inaccurate, providing significantly worse results than HiLo for any game.

I know they were taken directly from Arnold Snyder and were calculated some 30 years ago (they don't even have surrender indexes) and the indices are what people are used to- not the optimal EV or risk averse.

Does anyone have an index table for 6 deck 75% pen H17 LS DAS RSA (dealer peeks 10)?

[Norm]

Yes all indices in CV software come from the original authors, most of which are dated, because that's what folks are using.

[Cacarulo]

It appears the Complete Zen Count indices provided by CVCX are highly inaccurate, providing significantly worse results than HiLo for any game.

I know they were taken directly from Arnold Snyder and were calculated some 30 years ago (they don't even have surrender indexes) and the indices are what people are used to- not the optimal EV or risk averse.

Does anyone have an index table for 6 deck 75% pen H17 LS DAS RSA (dealer peeks 10)?

What version of CVCX do you have? CVCX is a product that goes hand in hand with CVData/CVIndex. That said, it's very important to have
CVIndex to generate specific indices for the game you're going to face. I wouldn't trust indices that were created decades ago, many of which were
algebraically derived. I've been checking what you said about Hi-Lo outperforming Zen under the mentioned conditions. That shouldn't happen, and ideally,
one should calculate their own indices. For that scenario, Hi-Lo-Full with a spread of 1-16 has a SCORE of 34.57, while Zen-Full has a SCORE of 29.52.
CAC2 slightly surpasses Zen, and the SCORE I obtain with a set of only 26 indices is 35.92. If it were 70 indices, the SCORE would rise to 38.77.
But the ranking should remain: 1) CAC2, 2) Zen, and further down in the table, Hi-Lo.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[DSchles]

Again, see BJA3, pp. 171-172. There is no scenario under which Zen does not outperform Hi-Lo if the indices are properly derived and betting is optimal for the desired spread.

Don

[Cacarulo]

It appears the Complete Zen Count indices provided by CVCX are highly inaccurate, providing significantly worse results than HiLo for any game.

I know they were taken directly from Arnold Snyder and were calculated some 30 years ago (they don't even have surrender indexes) and the indices are what people are used to- not the optimal EV or risk averse.

Does anyone have an index table for 6 deck 75% pen H17 LS DAS RSA (dealer peeks 10)?

I was thinking about the lack of LS indices in Zen-Full, and that's the explanation of why Hi-Lo-Full surpasses Zen-Full.
In the first case, Hi-Lo does have the LS indices, and you're comparing it against Zen, which doesn't have them.
If you select H17, DAS, RSA in CVCX, you will see the correct ranking: 1) CAC2=23.73, 2) Zen=23.49, and lastly Hi-Lo=20.59.

By the way, here are the FAB4/H17 for Zen:

15vA = -2
14vT = +4
15vT = -1
15v9 = +4

Sincerely,
Cac