Citations needed.
I will look it up and confirm.
Untitled.jpg
Brett Harris Formula Example.jpg
Ok, I will do a separate index generation of True Counted KO using CVDATA to confirm. If the indices come up to be the same for both surrender and insurance as in Modern Blackjack that is what I will be following.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 09-16-2019 at 03:44 PM.
I meant that RA makes sense for surrender and insurance too.
But only Don could convince me of the relevance of RA for Hit / Stand
Yes, you substract 4 to Hi-Lo indices to find TKO indices equivalence if you use the formula TC = RC/ Decks unplayed
But that doesn't mean that TC = RC/ Decks unplayed - 4 is relevant.
Insert any RC (in particular The IRC) in the formula if you don't trust me.
IRC = -24 (as required by Brett Harris for 6 decks)
Initial TC= -24/6 - 4 = -8
Ca me fait une belle jambe de connaître ce TC
Last edited by Phoebe; 09-16-2019 at 04:15 PM. Reason: relevance instead of existence
Makes little sense. But, consider this: when you hit, it's possible to tie the dealer, therefore lowering overall variance. When you stand, it's impossible to push. Therefore, if you made it such that you hit more frequently than for the e.v.-maximizing index, I suppose that would lower variance. But it would also lower e.v., and since you aren't betting any more, as with splits and doubles, it wouldn't make any sense to me.
LOL! Et pourtant, ca ne peut pas te faire de mal !
Don
Don and Norm, you are right. Knowlege can't hurt a priori.
But partial knowledge, yes.
In the present case, the knowledge of the TC, without knowing that it is necessary to shift the equivalent indices HiLo by -8, can pose problem.
Seriously, Norm, can you confirm (or not) the typo in Modern Blackjack ?
Last edited by Phoebe; 09-17-2019 at 12:05 AM.
I hesitate to reply Norm, but obviously Freightman thinks I am a sock and has said so many times before. So I'm just repying to say I am not and do not think that I come off as such. Except to him for some reason.
I do not think I am disruptive to threads, if anybody is I think it's Freightman.
Anyway, thanks to Don for joining this discussion. And really all I said was that I agreed with Seriousplayer and somehow Rathernotgivemyrealname became upset with both of us.
Last edited by Counting_Is_Fun; 09-17-2019 at 08:55 PM.
You really do like conflict. Again, I am not upset at anyone, merely appalled. If you read back, you will see me and some others discussing a counting system, then seriousplayer chimes in with an attitude and a need to attack others. Then you chime in just to call me numbnuts and that my opinion doesn’t matter so I shouldn’t give it. I am happy to hear any intellectual content (something your posts here lack) from seriousplayer but it’s the way that he delivered it that disgusted me. Spiting rather than helping.
I will give my opinion regardless of your maturity level. Good day.
Bookmarks