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

[reb]

That makes no sense. How would you call a 10/3 count ?

I am misunderstanding but isn't that just easy, its above 3 so if the index was 3 you would just do the index, what's the point of flooring the 3.333 to 3. Im so confused about what's going on. lol

Would you be okay to hop on a call and talk about this because this messaging is just really not working it seems. all good if not tho.

[Gronbog]

But where should I get the indexes to learn, in the THLCCS book?

I'm biased, but my answer to this is Yes!

[Gronbog]

As far as Wong Pro Blackjack was written, the method to appreciate index numbers is the same

The reason I brought up Wong is that his index numbers are truncated. So -1.9 becomes -1. I have no doubt that many players use Wong's index numbers while flooring or rounding.

[Gronbog]

I am misunderstanding but isn't that just easy, its above 3 so if the index was 3 you would just do the index, what's the point of flooring the 3.333 to 3

Perhaps 11/3 = 3.666 would be a better example. Rounding gives 4 while flooring and truncating give 3.

[G Man]

Your biased for a good reason, you produced a master work.
Reb, nope, sorry I won’t do this over the phone. Read this thread again and ask extra questions if necessary.

[reb]

Can we just start over, thank you for your patience and trying to help me.

So for normal indexes not colins, you just do the action stand, double down, surrender and insure when the true count is equal to or higher than the index.
Colin changed this because he wanted one chart that fit basic strategy and the indexes on the chart. So he added the indices where you hit/dont surrender at a true count and bellow. Show in the pictures I added at the top, for -1- 13vs2 so following this you would hit AT a true count of -1 and bellow, nothing higher than that. So if the true count was -0.5 you would still stay with 13vs2 according to his chart. When you move over to what CV claims the bja chart is you will see the index is 0 Hit < Value, so at a - 0.5 TC you would HIT, this wouldn't happen if you follow the BJA chart and that's where my initial confusion came from. Now it would yeild the same result if you floor the TC for BJA chart but I don't think they tell you to do that because of my next point.

He also opted for when the index is 0 use the running count instead which is why I don't think he tells you to floor true counts because why add this if your going to floor the TC anyway.

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.

So for 0 indexes you can just use the running count as being positive or negative to call these? , lets say the running count is 1 and its the first hand of a 8 deck shoe your dealt 16 (no suurender) the TC would be 0.125 very low, should you stand here?
or how about the same situation for 12vs 4. ect without naming all of them.


Also when indices are calculated is it true to assume that there will be an exact decimal true count for where whatever you choose EV wise is truly 50/50 one may be more risk averse but is it true to assume that? And if this is true that you could theoretically learn these indices and not have to round/truncate/floor the tc because the cut off point is exact.

I'm biased, but my answer to this is Yes!

Tbh with all this confusion this is what im gonna do, Ive been comparing all the indices i can get from cv with bja to try to get some clarity and tbh its just confused me more. Im gonna stop considering bja's indecies and just use the THLCCS book and use the ones in there, is there a way ,other than just manualy typing them in, to get the indecies in the book into cv?

[reb]

Hang on no, if you truncate the BJA indices on cv it yields the same results as the BJA chart. sorry.
So the way that colin sets out his chart you don't need to truncate because of the way its set out. ? i think
And by setting it out like that when you truncate you have to differenciate the 0 indices by just using the running count becuase otherwise D0.9999 to U0.9999 would truncate to 0 and then you would just use basic strategy. I think thats gotta be the answer right?

[Norm]

Long known that truncation is inferior.

[reb]

Yeah I know. I get that your trying to hammer home that BJA isn't good and its using old methods for indices, strange altered methods and wording but is my assessment of it correct or am I wrong what Im saying.

Basically, can we conculde that BJA's version HiLo is inferior. Also why do they do this, surly they know its a worse version, why spread it, BJA would be the same as it is now just with far better methods no? is it about covering their back, so no one can say they are profiting off other peoples ideas?

edit: the yeah I know was unnecessary, I've just read back through everything and this point hasn't been said in this thread so thank you for adding this info, but i hope you can understand that this felt like a non answer.

[Norm]

I get that your trying to hammer home that BJA isn't good

Not I. I've been doing business with Colin for 18 years.

[Gronbog]

So for 0 indexes you can just use the running count as being positive or negative to call these? , lets say the running count is 1 and its the first hand of a 8 deck shoe your dealt 16 (no suurender) the TC would be 0.125 very low, should you stand here?
or how about the same situation for 12vs 4. ect without naming all of them.

Also when indices are calculated is it true to assume that there will be an exact decimal true count for where whatever you choose EV wise is truly 50/50 one may be more risk averse but is it true to assume that? And if this is true that you could theoretically learn these indices and not have to round/truncate/floor the tc because the cut off point is exact.

These two questions are tied together. The answer is that it depends to what level of precision the indices were computed. It's quite common to see folks recommending the use of 1/2 true counts as the level of precision. Some of the combinatorial methods (as opposed to simulation) claim to calculate indices to several decimal places. It then comes back to Norm's advice from a previous post in this thread: Use the instructions that come with the index charts you are using.

So to answer your first question regarding 16 and I assume vs T:

1. The commonly accepted index for standing, including THLCCS, is 0, so with RC=1, you would stand. With RC=0 you would also stand.
2. If the system author separated RC=0 into a separate bin, as BJA did, and as I have done in the past, that system would recommend standing at RC=1 and hitting at RC = 0. You would do microscopically better over time.
3. If the system author computed the index to several decimal places and the index was less than or equal to 0.125, you would stand. You would once again do microscopically better over time.

Whether it's worth the extra level of detail for the tiny increase in performance is a personal choice. Since I independently discovered that hitting 16 vs T at RC=0 is slightly better, I find myself doing that even as the co-author of THLCCS.

[Gronbog]

Im gonna stop considering bja's indecies and just use the THLCCS book and use the ones in there, is there a way ,other than just manualy typing them in, to get the indecies in the book into cv?

This is a good question. I will personally undertake the inputting of the indices from THLCCS into CV if Norm will include them in the distribution of the software and (hopfully) make them available via an update.

[reb]

hether it's worth the extra level of detail for the tiny increase in performance is a personal choice.

understood

This is a good question. I will personally undertake the inputting of the indices from THLCCS into CV if Norm will include them in the distribution of the software and (hopfully) make them available via an update.

wow that's awesome, i ordered your book a few days ago and am eager to read it and see the indices. I would be happy to help input some of the indecies myself and send the files if you would like the help!