> No, an average of the decimal numbers would
> not provide an accurate index.

And an average of truncated numbers would?May believe who wants!

The TC must
> be calculated in the exact manner as the
> player will calculate it.

What do you know about a player's method to calculate TC.If a TC correctly calculated should be 2.8, he will probably round it up to 3 and you consider this as 2.You're rewarding imprecision.
I told you right from the start that I calculated both TC and Index to the tenth and this has to be more precise. It's a mathematical law.

(This is at the
> heart of simulation.) Billions of plays are
> simulated at all relevant penetrations and
> the results tracked. A weighted average is
> calculated. But, and this is important, the
> truncation/flooring/rounding must occur on
> each play before the weighted average is
> calculated. Therefore, there is no
> "point" calculated. No
> "point" exists.

And what is that weighed average? Isn't that a point? Ok, you truncate it again, so you lose even the benefit of that weighing!

This would be the
> end of index determination if TC advantages
> were linear. But, they aren't.

Not linear?Are you kidding. When I run my CA-program with a loop over all TCs from -10 to +10 with steps of 0.1, I can see with my own eyes that the results are very close to linear to say the least. Every child knows that 1 TC corresponds to a shift in advantage of roughly 0.5%.It's the basis of card counting.

Francis Salmon