> Oh really? What about splitting 10s vs 5 and
> 10s vs 6? These 2 plays are made at the
> pivot point with the maximum bet out. These
> 2 plays ARE part of I-18 but the KO authors
> decided to omit these plays from the
> Preferred Strategy and replaced them with
> doubling 8 vs 5 and 8 vs 6, two considerably
> weaker plays.

See my answer to your other post.

> Well, they must be worth something as they
> are part of the I-18.

Be careful. They are "worth something" to BALANCED, TRUE COUNTED systems. They may be worth considerably less to unbalanced systems.

In fact, I would guess that the so-called "I18 and F4" are not the same, and almost certainly not the same rank, depending on the count's card tags, and for unbalanced counts, the pivot.

So a real true comparison would take each systems top 18 and top 4 surrenders. It would not assume that TC and RC based systems would have the same one's.

One has to draw the line somewhere. Even decks-in-play, rules, and penetration could affect inclusion and order.

> They are not meant to be apples-to-apples.
> Your missing the point here Don. Allow me to
> clarify. The only difference between the sim
> from bjstats.com and the one from BJRM are 7
> index plays. EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME.
> Yet these 7 index plays account for a
> difference of $6.00/Hr in increased
> earnings. But for some reason you and John
> seem to maintain that KO Preferred and KO
> I-18 Fab4 perform very close to one another
> and the difference in performance is minimal
> if anything at all.

I don't think we have ever said that. I don't recall ever publishing a "comparison" article that contrasted one system splitting 10's versus another one that didn't.

> The 5 missing indices and 10 splits are
> worth more then you realize.

We are talking past each other, using different definitions for the same words.

But your common sense should kick in before you would presume to write that Don Schlesinger fails to realize the value of something so obvious as 10-splitting. You should instead assume that you must have in mind, apples, while he has oranges.

> Nope. However, if KO-Preferred was not used
> then why not just write what was used,
> namely KO I-18 Fab4? :-)

As I posted elsewhere, how would you distinuish KO I-18 F4 with unique RC's versus 'grouped' RC's? I did so with the "Preferred" modifier.

I could of been more clear, but the I18 and F4 should have been a clue.