> So you actually calculated your own indices?
The spreadsheet uses Griffin's formulas to approximate index numbers. I only used them to find out how "volatile" the ev is at the critical index (aka index number). Simulation is a significantly more accurate method of finding index numbers. CVData and SBA can both do this; for the record, these programs will produce index numbers at least as accurate, if not more accurate, than what you find in blackjack books. This is because they are state-of-the-art.
This
> sounds very interesting. I have practiced playing my
> modified zen count with TC to the nearest fraction of
> a half deck and consequently I am very concerned with
> the precision of the index numbers and have calculated
> them as decimal values slightly rounded to facilitate
> easier memorization. But knowing how precise they need
> to be in order to be accurate would be a great relief.
Two questions: First, if you don't have a sim program to generate high-precision index numbers, your numbers (I'm assuming you're using Theory of Blackjack math) won't be any better than the ones in your books. Secondly, insurance might be the only index number for which it's helpful to go to the tenth's place. The spreadsheet finds only three other volatile plays that might be worth looking into: 16 v T, 13 v 2, and A,7 v 3.
> What do you mean by increments of 5?
See, for most of the index numbers, even less precision is acceptable. As you'll see below in my list of index numbers, I rounded all but a handful to the nearest 5. This cost me about 3 percent of my SCORE, although since that is a "pure" SCORE (no camo, etc.) I may actually be sacrificing even less than that.
> Are you saying you use a single set of index numbers
> for all games, multiple deck and single deck? And
> while I was only planning to use this Zen count for
> multiple deck play, I would like to see your results
> just so I can compare and get an idea of what you
> mean, if you don't mind:-)
It would take me a while to dig through them and even if I did, I couldn't recommend you staking your bets on claims made by some random internet denizen. What you can do is purchase CVData, have it create a set of precise index numbers for each of the games you play, and compare the results with what you get when you use these index numbers instead.
> I looked it up and while it looks good, I still don't
> really understand so I guess I'll ask a different
> question. For the above unbalanced true count, if I
> were counting the ace as -1 I would add +4 to the
> count for every deck to create the IRC, +24 for a 6D
> game?
yup.
Wouldn't I also have to adjust all the index
> numbers to reflect the change in my IRC from 0 to +24?
No. Keep the original count for playing purposes. What you will change is the TC at which you increase your bet. Since you start your "betting count" at a TC of +4, you aren't going to increase your bets until at least +5. But again, to find out the exact numbers, you really need CVData.
> And this count would now be used for both betting and
> playing?
No; and the reason is that aces are valuable as a betting predictor but not as a playing predictor.
> But then after reading K-O Blackjack and putting in
> some serious critical thought and computational
> reasoning, I changed my mind and arrived at a new
> solution. Now for DD games I plan keep my standard
> multideck indices and calculate my TC the same way,
> but set my IRC as -4, but now this doesn't sound
> entirely right to me either. I don't know, what am I
> to do?
Hard to say. . . are we using K-O now? Not clear what you're asking here.
> You can say that again. If I am going to lose my money
> to a Blackjack dealer, she had better have a name tag
> with the name "Lolita" on it. But hopefully
> I'll be able to do that after I win, if you know what
> I mean.
or before. can't be picky.
> P.S. I am having trouble finding extensions to the
> titles to put in the subject box and of course I want
> to thank you Myooligan for all of your responses to my
> questions, I really do appreciate them.
yer doin just fine and you're welcome.
// Indices generated by SBA STRATEGY GENERATOR, Version 5.51
// 1D Zen, semi-rounded, compromise matrix except volatile plays are precise for single deck
// emulates casino play, e.g., no DD on BJ, always split aces
// #######DDAS, Surrender tables haven't been altered######
// NOTE: the indices are reversal for:
// splitting 8,8 vs. T, 8,8 vs. 9, 3,3 vs. 7, and late surrender 17 vs. A up
INSURANCE = 3; // Buy insurance if true count >= INSURANCE
// 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A (Dealer's up cards)
// hard standing table (stand if >= number, hit if < number)
DEFTBL HHT
(
5, 3, 1, 0, -3, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // hard 12
0, -3, -5,-10,-10, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // hard 13
-5,-10,-10,-10,-10, 99, 99, 99, 10, 10, // hard 14
-10,-15,-15,-15,-20, 99, 20, 10, 5, 5, // hard 15
-20,-20,-20,-99,-99, 99, 20, 10, 0, 4, // hard 16
-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99) // hard 17
// soft standing table (stand if >= number, hit if < number)
DEFTBL SHT
(
-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99, 99, 99, 99) // soft 18
// hard doubling table (double if >= number)
DEFTBL HDT
(
99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // hard 7
99, 20, 15, 10, 10, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // hard 8
2, 0, -4,-10,-10, 10, 20, 99, 99, 99, // hard 9
-20,-20,-20,-20,-20,-10,-10, -3, 10, 4, // hard 10
-20,-20,-20,-20,-20,-20,-10,-10, -7, -4) // hard 11
// soft doubling table (double if >= number)
DEFTBL SDT
(
99, 15, 5, -5,-10, 99, 99, // A,2
99, 15, 5, -5,-10, 99, 99, // A,3
99, 15, 0,-10,-15, 99, 99, // A,4
99, 15, 0,-10,-20, 99, 99, // A,5
5, -5,-10,-20,-20, 99, 99, // A,6
0, -2,-10,-15,-15, 99, 99, // A,7
15, 10, 5, 3, 0, 99, 99, // A,8
15, 15, 15, 10, 10, 99, 99, // A,9
99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99) // A,T
if (DAS) // doubling is allowed after splitting
// splitting table for DAS (split if >= number, except reversals)
DEFTBL SPT
(
-8,-12,-13,-19,-23,-99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 2,2
-21,-24,-24,-99,-99, 99,-99, 99, 99, 99, // 3,3
99, 16, 8, -7,-99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 4,4
99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 5,5
-4, -7,-10,-16,-19,-99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 6,6
-18,-21,-21,-24,-24,-99, -5, 99, 99, 99, // 7,7
-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99, 99, 14, -5, // 8,8
-5, -7, -8,-12,-13, 13,-18,-17, 99, 0, // 9,9
18, 14, 11, 8, 9, 25, 99, 99, 99, 99, // T,T
-24,-24,-24,-24,-24,-21,-19,-18,-17,-15) // A,A
else // doubling is not allowed after splitting
// splitting table for no DAS (split if >= number, except reversals)
DEFTBL SPT
(
15,-99,-10,-15,-20,-99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 2,2
99, 99,-99,-99,-99, 15, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 3,3
99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 4,4
99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 5,5
0, 0, -5,-10,-10,-99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 6,6
-15,-15,-15,-20,-99,-99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 7,7
-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99, 99, 5, -5, // 8,8
-5, -5, -5,-10,-10, 20,-15,-15, 99, 5, // 9,9
20, 15, 10, 10, 10, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // T,T
-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99) // A,A
endif
// Late surrender table (surrender if >= number)
DEFTBL LST
(
99, 99, 23, 20, 99, // surrender hard 12
99, 99, 18, 10, 17, // surrender hard 13
22, 17, 10, 4, 3, // surrender hard 14
21, 12, 5,-99, -3, // surrender hard 15
22, 9, 1, -7,-13, // surrender hard 16
99, 25, 24, 21, 0) // surrender hard 17
Bookmarks