Can't Find a Way to Add Some indices to CVData

[Gronbog]

I'm currently following through on my promise to add the indices from THLCCS as a strategy in CVData/CVCX. In doing this I've run across a few situations for which I can't figure out how to add an index. In particular:

1. We have different hit/stand indices for some pairs than for the corresponding hard hand. For example, in Table 26.3 (2-deck S17 DAS LS) our index to stand on 8,8 vs 9 is +4 where the index to stand on 16 vs 9 is +5. However, there seems to be no way to add the different index for 8,8 vs 9 in the hit/stand table.
2. Similarly, in the same table, our index to surrender 6,6 vs T is +14 where our index to surrender 12 vs T is +15. Now, in the surrender table, there are rows to add separate surrender indices for 7,7 and 8,8, but no way add this one for 6,6.
3. We have indices for doubling A,T after splitting (a recent thread revealed that some of these were missing from the book), but there is no A,T row in the Double Down table.
4. We identified some plays with both a regular and a reverse index, forming a range in which to make the play. For example, in Table 26.3 again, 17 vs A for which you surrender at -10 but less than -4; i.e. "(-10 < -4) r". I can't see a way to represent this in the CVData index table.

I'm also curious about the purpose of the "Special Actions" box and whether it might be helpful.

Any assistance or insight would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Gronbog]

I may have found my own answer to cases 1 and 2 above. I'm using the composition-dependant feature to add indices for the pairs I need. Confirmation that this is the right solution would be appreciated. And I still need solutions for cases 3 and 4.

[Gronbog]

Thanks to Norm for confirming to me offline that the "Composition Dependent" feature is the correct way to enter hit/stand indices for pairs as well as surrender indices for pairs other than 7,7 and 8,8 which already have rows in the surrender table.

Unfortunately he has also confirmed that cases 3 and 4 are not supported.

[Norm]

If folks think there is a reason for AT actions or double boundary indices, I can look at this. Never thought they were useful.

[Gronbog]

You can count me as interested, since I would like to enter the indices from THLCCS as published.

We also have recently gotten questions about doubling A,T. As for the double boundary indices i would be interested to know whether any others have identified these other than me and Don.

[Cacarulo]

You can count me as interested, since I would like to enter the indices from THLCCS as published.

We also have recently gotten questions about doubling A,T. As for the double boundary indices i would be interested if any others have identified these other than me and Don.

I support the motion. It would be interesting to have indices for doubling A,T and T,A after splitting, as well as the option to consider A,T or T,A as a blackjack instead of a soft 21.
There's another option that would also be interesting in the case of blackjack ties. Here, the tie could be worth 0.0 or 0.5, for example.


Sincerely,
Cac

[Gramazeka]

If folks think there is a reason for AT actions or double boundary indices, I can look at this. Never thought they were useful.

+1

[Midnight]

+2