> From your scientific post I got the
> impression that you had checked them all and
> you wouldn't have failed to point out that
> there was another outlayer.

Yes, I did that a long time ago and found some more. Don't remember exactly what were those discrepancies but you can use a good simulator and verify your indices by yourself. Maybe you don't mind playing with inaccurate indices but if I were you I would check them all.

> I remember you saying that the typical deck
> method was your first approach and that it
> was very accurate in most cases. Here you
> are contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. I said most cases not ALL cases.

> I never believed that my indices were 100%
> correct. What I still do believe is that
> even if some indices might be wrong at the
> decimal position they are still more
> accurate than just whole numbers.

That depends on the accuracy of your TC calculation so it's arguable.

> Checking
> them out by myself would be far too
> laborious when you think that it will bring
> me only one extra hamburger per year to
> speak in Don's words.

The point is that you'll get that extra hamburger only if you use the precise indices.

> RA indices are certainly very useful for
> people with limited bankrolls.

This is not correct but I won't discuss RA indices in a public forum.

> However this
> is not my case and I don't see how I could
> integrate this concept in my betting scheme.

Well, one way would be to calculate the variance of those representative decks. Another way is to use a good simulator. Question: Which software do you have?

> Only BJA1. From discussions on this and
> other sites, I have a pretty good idea about
> the content of the new editions.May be I
> miss some interesting tables. The book
> focuses on American conditions. In Europe,
> things are somewhat different.

You're missing a lot more that some interesting tables. Now, if bankroll is not your problem you could invest some few bucks and buy the new edition.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo