Deviation pattern

[ccalice21]

Hello,

I notice that some charts only give the cutoff indices, but is not so clear on exactly what to do above or below the index. Is the pattern (attached) always true, that as TC increases from very negative to very positive, the playing decision should change from Hit, to Sur, and eventually Stand? It makes sense to me that when the TC is very negative, I should just hit no matter what, but I just need some confirmation.

Thank you!

[Freightman]

I could take a guess, but just for clarification - what count system are you using? Example, looks close to hi lo and even with ES10, it is correct to hit in really negative counts.

hmm, a new approach to back of the envelope math

[Freightman]

I could take a guess, but just for clarification - what count system are you using? Example, looks close to hi lo and even with ES10, it is correct to hit in really negative counts.

hmm, a new approach to back of the envelope math

And if hi lo, Professional Blackjack by Stanford Wong is a must have, especially with regards to your query, tables starting around pages 250 or 252 and surrender tables around page 92 - both off the top of my head as I’m having lunch out.

[ccalice21]

Yes, I am using hi-lo. I get the indices from the book "The Hi-Lo card counting system: a complete guide to index play" by Don and Dave. The indices are very specific for a set of rules (4.5/6 S17 DAS LS Play all 1-12), but I wonder if this pattern/order is always true, that as TC increases from very low to very high, players should Hit, Sur, and eventually Stand.

[Freightman]

I haven’t really looked at Don’s and Gronbog’s book for some time. I’m presuming the strike points listed by the Dynamic Duo are break even points.
https://youtu.be/f36Wxblw-5U?si=aTtoer4lWq7Mql6j

For max EV, I would follow what they say. Before committing 100% however, I would review Risk Averse and also analyze your bankroll against ROR and possibly consider variance reducing plays, especially in those high count stand indexes.

My standard game is H17 which I know backwards and forwards - I’m certainly a bit off on S17. Wong’s book doesn’t really analyze index to spread. It is simple but thorough. Keep in mind that Wong truncates vs flooring - which makes no difference in positive counts, but distorts negative counts.

Gronberg, I meant Gronbog, and Don certainly put tremendous effort into their book. They may well offer some constructive criticism - listen to it.

[G Man]

Hello,

I notice that some charts only give the cutoff indices, but is not so clear on exactly what to do above or below the index. Is the pattern (attached) always true, that as TC increases from very negative to very positive, the playing decision should change from Hit, to Sur, and eventually Stand? It makes sense to me that when the TC is very negative, I should just hit no matter what, but I just need some confirmation.

Thank you!

You have it wrong. Your surrender index number is not a range but a starting point where the index number starts.
For example, 15 vs 10 is Surrender at 0 or more, even when you reach +4. The Stand number of +4 kicks in but only if you can't surrender, say after a hit or if the casino rules doesn't permit surrender.
So it should read: Surrender at 0 or more, if you cant surrender hit until reaching +4 where you start Standing. Hit any negative running count.

[ccalice21]

Thanks a lot for the clarifications.

[Gramazeka]

Hello,

I notice that some charts only give the cutoff indices, but is not so clear on exactly what to do above or below the index. Is the pattern (attached) always true, that as TC increases from very negative to very positive, the playing decision should change from Hit, to Sur, and eventually Stand? It makes sense to me that when the TC is very negative, I should just hit no matter what, but I just need some confirmation.

Thank you!

15 vs 10

[DSchles]

I may be reading incorrectly, but does your chart show that, at +4, hitting 15 v. T is better than standing? If so, that wouldn't be correct for Hi-Lo multi-deck.

Don

[Gramazeka]

First stay, secound hit. 4.2 TC - skew point. These are the exact values. 6d.ENHC.

[Gramazeka]

Are we waiting for Cacarulo?
p.s. I'm confident in myself))

[DSchles]

First stay, secound hit. 4.2 TC - skew point. These are the exact values. 6d.ENHC.

But, if 4.2 is the exact point, then the floored index is +4, no? (Cac and Dave virtually always agree on indices.)

Don

[Gramazeka]

Yes of course ! 4.2 = 4 flooring, no problems. But I prefer absolutely accurate indeces.