Hit the Road Jack: Experts disagree on index number of Illustrious 18

[Hit the Road Jack]

I trust this is the place to ask my question given my esteemed company and hosts.

I have recently been studying the High-Low counting system as found in Stanford Wong's Professional Blackjack as I have memorized the basic strategy. I want to start learning the strategy deviations based on the count in earnest, but the numbers matrix seems a bit daunting, even for the values of -1 to +6 as Mr. Wong advises.

I hope not to confuse matters here, but I have found other books to be easier to understand and more conducive to learning. In particular I have studied the information in "Take the Money and Run" by Henry Tamburin.

In the advanced blackjack section near the end, he talks about how he had had difficulty with memorizing strategy deviation based on the count and had therefore started making mistakes until he had come across an article by Donald Schlesinger (published in The Blackjack Forum in September of 1986?)Tothebest of my knowledge this article delineated the so-called "Illustious 18" which makes up for roughly 80 percent of the total profit to be made when deviating from the basic strategy. Mr. Tamburin then goes on to list the index numbers and plays for corresponding count values such as: Stand on 16 vs. 10 at count +1 or higher, Hit at counts of 0 or lower.

Herein lies the descrepancy, to check the accuracy of these values and corresponding rules, I then went back to "Professional Blackjack" and found the values to be different usually differing by one with Stanford Wong's values being lower. I assume these differences to be significant. Are these values attribuatable to rounding, as Mr. Wong recommends to truncate count values?

I therefore have two questions, first is this list by Mr. Henry Tamburin (found in "Take the Money and Run") mostly representative of the "Illustrious 18"? If not are they found in Mr. Donald Schlesinger's book "Blackjack Attack"?

Secondly, which strategy numbers are correct?
Stand 16 v. 10 @ +1 or 0? ( But if at 0, then why does Basic strategy say to hit hard 16 vs. 10, isn't 0 count in the High-Low a neutral deck equivilent to first hand just after shuffle?)

What about:
Stand 16 v. 9 @ +6,
Stand 15 v. 10 @ +5,
Split 10's v. 5 @+6,
Split 10's v. 6 @ +5,
Double 10 v.10 @ +5,
Double 10 v. A @ +5 and
Double 11 v. A @ +2? Can I call these plays the "Elite Eight"?

Next:
Double 9 v. 2 @ +2,
Double 9 v. 7 @ +4?

I am very poor as I have never been able to play, but am willing to purchase "Blackjack Attack" if it is a good investment of my time and money. What would you say about this?

I would appreciate any comments on the above and provide my thanks in advance.

[SOTSOG]

Since I learned the numbers from Wong's "Professional Blackjack", all your numbers are off by +1. ;>)

Don't know what the exact difference is between using Wong's numbers, or using the I18 with every index increased by +1, but I am thinking you are in the neighborhood of a Big Mac and Fries for you and a lovely date. Supersize it, if you play a whole bunch of hours over your lifetime.

Get the new copy of BLACKJACK ATTACK III. It probably includes the "SWEET 22", there are a couple of plays after further analysis that have been added to the old I18 that are also nice and profitable.

Don't be confused with using an index and basic strategy on your 16 vs T question. One method takes into account the count of all the cards that have been played, and the other method only the cards that make up your hand and the dealers upcard. One is more accurate than the other. Guess which one.

[Ouchez]

> I trust this is the place to ask my question
> given my esteemed company and hosts.

> I am very poor as I have never been able to
> play, but am willing to purchase
> "Blackjack Attack" if it is a good
> investment of my time and money. What would
> you say about this?

I will treat you and the honey to a casino buffet.

Henry is a fine writer but is not in the same league as D.S. or for that matter Wong. Bank on what D.S. says and writes.

Regards,
Ouchez.

[Don Schlesinger]

Generating accurate index numbers can be a daunting task -- one filled with perils along the way. One has to decide upon rounding, truncating, or flooring; TC estimation to full deck, half-deck, or quarter-deck; and other estimation techniques, such as representative levels of penetration (if not card-by-card precision).

The p. 195 indices in BJA2 are quite excellent and accurate. The ones coming up in a couple of weeks in BJA3 will be better still, with a few minor changes.

Don

[paranoid android]

I believe it was George C. that showed that even if all the indices are off by 1, it makes very little difference in your win rate. He may have even showed that being off by 2 on every index may not matter much (or I may have smoked too much crack and am making that part up). If you buy a simulator and generate indexes with it, you'll see that they will differ by a small amount based on penetration and perhaps other factors. The truth is it doesn't matter much if a set of indices are slightly different. Either will probably be good (assuming they are close). That being said, I always like to know I'm using the most accurate indices possible for my game, even if it only translates to an extra penny per year. I'd rather it go into my pocket than the casinos.

[thanks4thefish]

Agree with all the above responses.

In addition realise that different tables are often for slightly different games, ie differing number of decks, dealer stands or hit soft 17.

Beginners are often obsessed with which is the most powerful system, which is the most powerful index's. If you are talking between choosing from ProBJ, BJA, or any other book of that calibre, there are much more important factors to consider, game selection, bet ramping, bet variation.

Just choose one you're comfortable with. If you get serious or want to satisfy your obsessiveness with perfection, buy a good sim program & sim your own numbers for the exact game your playing.