> I believe I understand your point now --
> insuring only one hand in certain situations
> (that is, always following the C-D indices)
> would be better in the long run than simply
> going by the generic index in those
> situations.

Going by the CD indices is always better than going by the generic.

> My point has simply been that this play is
> not optimal -- accurately considering both
> of your hands (or for that matter, any/all
> other hands since the last shuffle) would
> yield better long-term results than just
> using the single-hand CD indices.

And I agree that it's not optimal but as I said we don't have those indices (Z) and we don't want them either. We have Y that is better than X.

> You could say that the generic index has an
> EV of X, your single-hand CD indices have an
> EV of Y, and considering the composition of
> more than one hand has an EV of Z. So X < Y < Z. > You are discussing Y. I am discussing Z.
> Hopefully we each understand each other now.

We do now

Sincerely,
Cacarulo