Originally Posted by
Tarzan
"Tarzan should probably clarify whether he's referring to indices and true counts calculated using his system or whether they are for HiLo (the usual default)."
Yes, first words out were that my indices may differ than Hi-Lo indices. I should have clarified that I was thinking in terms of my indices rather than Hi-Lo in any example noted. I would have to look up what the Hi-Lo index is. My index can alter slightly for some hands depending upon no. of decks remaining, in addition to key card situations that I didn't go into. I'm not sure your typical Hi-Lo player is going to want to look at it under a magnifying glass in this manner, but the index can be different at 1.5 decks remaining than it is for 4.5 decks remaining for some hands.
"That’s good to know. I like doubling the 9 vs 7. I’m a doubler..if it’s close to the index, I usually go for it. Now I can get more aggressive with this one."
Close to the index? What about being darn sure you are at or past the index in order to deviate from basic strategy? Playing it risk averse is wiser than playing it short of the index. Let's say you are using Hi-Lo and the index you are going with is +3 to double 9vs7. There is such a thing as being at +4, +5 even (using Hi-Lo), with the proper decision to hit, depending on key card composition (3,4,A) for the hand. You want to be at or preferably past the index to deviate from basic strategy.
Allow me to put this in terms of practical application of how I am looking at the hand. Let's say I am playing a DD game next to EnriqueVazquezFromEastNogales the Hi-Lo player. There's one deck remaining, TC+6, and we both have 9vs7. Enrique sees +6 and doubles, I see 4-10-0-5r-2r, which is right on the line in an even distribution within groupings. The question from here is (3,4) removed. If I've seen (5) about cleaned out, have seen (2) removed, only two (6) remain which are side counted, but have seen darn few (3,4) removed, I hit. Although I don't have an exact count on (3,4) removed, particularly since I am thinking more in terms of (2,3) to (4,5) ratio within the grouping for betting purposes, I am going to at least have some clues, such as seeing lots of (2,5) removed but darn few (3,4). While I'm sitting there at the table, I might have "4-10-0" dancing around in my head, but I'm also thinking "Holy fuck that's a lot of (5)'s" should it occur. At an even distribution within the grouping, I am just on the side of hitting rather than doubling. Seeing (2,5) removed over and above (3,4) pushes me farther in the direction to hit rather than double. The optimal decision in this deck composition is to hit.
Next shuffle there we are, Enrique and I. One deck remaining, Hi-Lo TC+2 and we have the same thing. We both have 9vs7, Enrique hits, I double because I've seen (3,4) removed, pretty much all of them and haven't seen nearly as many (2,5) removed. Enrique sees +2, but I see 6-0-4-4r-4r with (3,4) removed well beyond the mean. In an even distribution within groupings, I am just over the edge to double, and the significant number of (3,4) removed push it farther into the direction to double. Enrique then tells all his friends that he saw some asshole that hit 9vs7 at +6 but doubled 9vs7 at +2 in the very next shuffle the other day...
I could demonstrate how this works on a chart and get more specific, but this should be enough to give you an idea.
Bookmarks