An example could be S. Wong having 8 v 5 @3 and, BJA will have it at a 2.
Usually has to do whether calcs are Truncated rounded or floored. Wong truncated, but that won’t make a difference here. I always use true 3 as index, and true 5 for risk averse.
As OP is likely a newbie, Read up on risk averse. It’s likely better for you - depends on factors.
Don can answer why he used 2
Don can't answer why he used 2 because a) I didn't, and b) it's the wrong index.
To the OP, you gave us no information at all as to the situation for the index: number of decks, S17 or H17, and the method for calculating the index, which Freightman alluded to. In any event, on page 375 of BJA3 (and not BJA, which, I assume, is Blackjack Apprenticeship), you will find the correct Hi-Lo multi-deck S17 floored index for doubling 8 vs. 5. It is +4, while the r-a index is +5.
Don
Don
Thanks for the distinction between BJA and BJA3. I missed it.
To OP
I talk to someone on a reasonably regular basis who birthed on BJApprenticeship - Colins site.
My understanding is that index numbers are simplified for the masses. Not 100% accurate, but close enough and possibly easier to retain. Note my comment on Wong Truncating which makes no difference on positive values vs flooring.
Don has passed his probationary period on EV maximizing indexes versus Risk Averse, and thus, may be relied upon for providing reasonably accurate advice.
“I talk to someone on a reasonably regular basis who birthed on BJApprenticeship - Colins site.
There does not exist anyone who ever joined BJA and failed. They are 100% fool proof and anyone who does not quit other careers or college despite winning at local casinos is a stupid fool, not committed enough and does not belong on their forum. It’s unlikely one could ever find an alum of BJA that failed.
Endeavour
https://youtu.be/hRX6hSGeZs4
Bookmarks