I put another 11MB of charts up on the web. This time, a bunch of index charts.
I put another 11MB of charts up on the web. This time, a bunch of index charts.
For years, I've been telling Norm that we needed such a product. In fact, I wanted to make it part of the appendixes for BJA3, but, in my typical style, I wanted to do "everything," and for it to be all-inclusive: all the major counts, for all numbers of decks, all combinations of rules, and not just the Catch 22 and Fab 4, but more indices, as well.
In the end, the job seemed overwhelming, and would have required many too many pages for a book. But, such a pull-down menu on a Web site or a CD is precisely the right vehicle for such information.
I hate to rain on your parade, but I'm trying to convince Norm not to give away everything for free and to consider marketing such a product, for all the popular counts. He said to me that he could understand why a researcher and player, like me, would want such a product, but wondered whether there would be sufficient demand from the blackjack-playing community, en masse, to warrant the time required to produce such voluminous data.
So, now it's your turn, guys. Tell us if you think there would be interest in a full suite of such products and if, at the very least, you'd buy the one for the particular count that you use, if not others, as well.
We'll look forward to your input here.
Thanks.
Don (for Norm, too, I'm sure!)
> I would definitely buy it! I would trust Norm's
> indices more than those I would generate! The idea
> with the CD sounds good, it could also be possible to
> include it all on one of Norm's site, protected via
> password. Or some kind of ringbinder, extendable for
> every single count...
> You both did already such a great job for the
> blackjack community that I simply couldn't imagine who
> else could master such a project! ;-)
Thanks much. If it were up to me, I'd start the project tomorrow. Will discuss with Norm, after a few more people weigh in.
Don
> Thanks much. If it were up to me, I'd start the
> project tomorrow. Will discuss with Norm, after a few
> more people weigh in.
I think there are better ways to spend time as far as BJ research is concerned. There are many updates which can be made on the various CV products which would prove far more beneficial to the player then this project you are proposing.
Consider another ODP study, but this time for unbalanced counts like Red7 or KO and then compare results to Hi-Lo.
MJ
> I put another 11MB of charts up on the web. This time,
> a bunch of index charts.
Norm, I admire your work product very much.
My game will change as a result of your charts, since I used +4 as the surrender index for 16-8, and I see you have it at +10. All the other numbers I checked were within 1 of the numbers I have used for years.
I also note that Peter Griffin, "Theory Of Blackjack", page 230, has the following index plays as having no value: 9-8,8-3,8-4,7-5,7-6,A8-3,A4-3,A4-5,A3-3,A2-3,14-9. Did you include them for completeness, or has Griffin been overturned with further research?
Thanks very much for your work on the free site, it is a wonderful addition.
> I put another 11MB of charts up on the web. This time,
> a bunch of index charts.
Bothering you again, but I would also have liked to see 13-10 surrender which I use at +8, 14-3 which I use at -4, and 1010-4 which I use at +6.
Easy for me to say of course since it is no work for me. Thanks again.
> My game will change as a result of your charts,
Don't change it so fast! :-)
> since I used +4 as the surrender index for 16-8, and I see
> you have it at +10. All the other numbers I checked
> were within 1 of the numbers I have used for years.
There is an error here. In some recent work that Norm did for me, in supplying surrender indices for Hi-Lo, he gave +5 for 16 v. 8, which agrees with both Braun and Wong. That is the correct Hi-Lo index. +10 is not correct (neither is +4, but it's a little closer! :-)).
Don
> My game will change as a result of your charts, since
> I used +4 as the surrender index for 16-8, and I see
> you have it at +10. All the other numbers I checked
> were within 1 of the numbers I have used for years.
+10 is the index for 16v8 if you include 88v8. It's +5 if you do not include 88v8. I'll change it to non-inclusive and make a note of some kind.
> I also note that Peter Griffin, "Theory Of
> Blackjack", page 230, has the following index
> plays as having no value:
> 9-8,8-3,8-4,7-5,7-6,A8-3,A4-3,A4-5,A3-3,A2-3,14-9. Did
> you include them for completeness, or has Griffin been
> overturned with further research?
He just didn't bother as they have so little effect.
> +10 is the index for 16v8 if you include 88v8.
You must never do that! Especially since there's a separate line and index for 8,8 v. T.
> It's +5
> if you do not include 88v8. I'll change it to
> non-inclusive and make a note of some kind.
Makes sense now. Thanks.
Don
> You must never do that! Especially since there's a
> separate line and index for 8,8 v. T.
I allow this as the same table is used for 7,7 surrenders. Some people are interested in using a 7,7 index and some not; in which case the 14 index is different. Although the difference in results is tiny. Maybe I should force the pair index on unless the user forces it off.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks