Thanks k_c but, unless I'm reading it wrong, your response addresses improving the performance of the computation of basic strategy using some reasonable assumptions about how the split hands will be played. I am familiar with all of this. But computing basic strategy has the property that you know the exact composition of the remaining cards at all times and so it is naturally suited to CA methods.

What I'm wondering about is the CA methods used by Cac, Zen and Gramazeka (and you? and others?) for computing indices. Cac speaks about removing specific cards and Zen references exact EOR numbers, but these only represent the situation off the top of the shoe. However, each true count is represented by a vast number of possible remaining deck compositions multiplied by a variety of penetrations. Cac then goes on to reference an assumed level of penetration (4.5/6 in this case).

I know from experimenting with my own simulation algorithms that the final index numbers are sensitive to all of these factors. For each holding, the expected frequency of occurrence varies with penetration and the expected frequency of occurrence of remaining deck compositions, from "balanced" to "extreme", for lack of better terms, and it necessary to collect samples in numbers which reflect these frequencies. Using simulation makes this easy. I'm wondering how all of this comes together when using CA methods to calculate indices.

If anyone is inclined to share insights, I suggest a new thread in the Advanced Strategies, Theory and Math forum.