13 vs 2 H/S and 16 vs 9 surrender indexs on cvcx+cvbj vs BJA

[reb]

Using Hi Lo count. I know this doesn't matter too much (as these indexs happens at a low count so low bets would be on the table) but some clarification would be nice, I think the index for 13 vs 2 and 16 vs 9 on cvcx and cvbj is wrong on the bja playing strategy as it says you hit at any negative count.

On the deviations sheet I got from BJA this says you should hit and not surrender at -1 and bellow for both of these.

Complete Hi Lo says the index for 13vs 3 is 1- so I assume this is the right one but for 16vs 9 it says for any negative count.

Is there a reason for this disparity or am I missing something, did bja update their indexes at some point?

Also for the proper indexes I'm assuming I should just follow Complete Hi Lo sheet from cvbj.

screenshots of all indexes mentioned for context.

devs3.jpg
Attachment 5324
devs4.jpg

[Norm]

Nearly all books (except Uston) define hit/stand indices as Hit<value. I seem to remember Colin defines it as Hit<=Value for negative indices which I think is confusing. So I changed his tables to match the standard method. The results are the same.

[Mr. E]

How would one know what to deviate to off a chart? For example BJA H17 deviation chart shows a soft 19 deviations say to deviate when the count is 3+ (dealer up card 4) 1+ (dealer up card 5), but would I deviate to a HIT, or deviate to a double down, or deviate to a Ds?

[Mr. E]

Screenshot 2025-03-13 141545.jpg

[Norm]

I have never liked the wording "deviations". It can cause confusion. Better to just follow the instructions on the counting charts.

[reb]

Rightt so its a rounding thing, colins chart just differentiates the close calls with the 0- or 0+ to mean at any negative/positive running count but the cv one doesn't. So collins -1- meaning deviate at that tc or bellow and 0- meaning at any negative running count means the same thing to cv.

So colins -1- for 16 vs9 means don't surrender at -1 tc or lower means the same thing as surrender >= value when the value is 0 to cv.
And colins 0- for 15 vs10 meaning don't surrender at any negative running count means the same thing as surrender >= value when the value is 0 to cv.

So there are some 0 indices where using the running count is better and some where its not good to use the running count, or is it fine for all 0 indices. For example if the running count was negative but the tc would round to 0 would you hit a 13 vs 2. or would it be better to wait for a true -1 to hit.

edit: removing the word deviate after seeing your reply lol.

[reb]

for this chart it would just deviate to Ds at the true count and above for A8 vs4,5 and deviate to a stand at any negative running count according to the indexes for H17 complete hilo it says dd at -1 and above.

[Gronbog]

For what it's worth, my H/S index (published in THLCCS) for 13 vs 2 is -1 (meaning stand at -1 and higher) and my index to surrender 16 vs 9 is also -1 (meaning to surrender at -1 and higher).

So there are some 0 indices where using the running count is better and some where its not good to use the running count, or is it fine for all 0 indices. For example if the running count was negative but the tc would round to 0 would you hit a 13 vs 2. or would it be better to wait for a true -1 to hit.

My software has the ability to separate TC=RC=0 as a separate bin but I don't use it any more. As I recall, when you do that, hitting 16 vs T at RC=0 is correct, which agrees with your BJA chart above. Norm is correct that you should follow the instructions that come with the charts you are using.

You also mention rounding the true count. Most index strategies call for flooring the true count, which is what I do. I mention this because floored vs rounded vs truncated (Wong) true counts will result in a difference in the index numbers.

[Gronbog]

To elaborate on this further, here is a sample from my Visual Guide to Index Play (a companion to the THLCCS book) for the hand 16 vs 9.

16vs9.pdf

As you can see it's visually a close call whether to surrender or hit at TC=-1. However, using the statistical method provided to us by Dr. Stewart Ethier I was able to resolve the index number to -1. It's a more risk averse play at to surrender -1 than at 0 as well.

[DSchles]

It's unfortunate that so many people have decided to follow Colin's non-standard methodology and terminology for using indices and for defining what they mean. But what the top authors and researchers have always used is: If the (floored) true count is greater than or equal to the index: insure, surrender, split, double, or stand. Period. Otherwise (with a few kooky reverse exceptions) play basic strategy.

Don

[G Man]

It has always been clear until someone thinks he can get bigger than the game...

[reb]

Thank you everyone for the replies its all been very interesting and helpful.
So just to clarify everything, please correct me if I’m wrong:

The reason Colins chart is different is because with his system and charts you would not alter the true count at all when playing(no rounding/flooring/truncating),
AND with all other indices/charts the best method is to floor the true counts and as don said insure, surrender, split, double, or stand when this Floored true count is greater than or equal to the index.


The reason people follow colins non standard methodology and terminology is because they get introduced into counting through youtube (at least I did), I think the majority of people getting into it now are through that and they all endorse BJA and colin so they think/feel that that is the gold stardard for learning how to count and become an ap.

I realise now that I should probably stop using bja info as fact and for indexes.

But where should I get the indexes to learn, in the THLCCS book? All the indexes I have found are all subtly different* and I just want to have one set so there’s little confusion or at least have different indexes but understand why they are different (risk averse, coverplay ect).

*for various reasons, old methods of caluclating, rounding/truncating, weather they come from bja or cv, its all very confusing for a somone new to it like me.

It has always been clear until someone thinks he can get bigger than the game...

huh? is this a quote please explain Im confused, Im just trying to learn here edit: ah sorry I see your talking about colin here

[G Man]

The reason Colins chart is different is because with his system and charts you would not alter the true count at all when playing(no rounding/flooring/truncating),

That makes no sense. How would you call a 10/3 count ? 3.33, 3.3, 3 or 4 ? Index numbers are made to be use with say +3 and this is called flooring (or truncating for this particular example). As far as Wong Pro Blackjack was written, the method to appreciate index numbers is the same: Stand (or double or split or surrender) at a count per deck equal to or greater than the number; hit (or do not split) at a count per deck less than the number.

Colin learned to play Blackjack with good advice from some of the MIT guys and they have never interpreted the numbers any differently than Wong, Snyder, Schlesinger, etc.They would round most numbers to the nearest 0.5 but it doesn't change the interpretation.
So, just ask him why he changed the methodology.