Illustrious 18

[Freightman]

K

The reason BJTF has been so frustrating is no one seems to want to learn any fundamentals anymore. Good for me, I guess, because most of these people will be gone in a few months.

The Illustrious 18 was a concept created by Don Schlesinger as a way to capture most of the value of all index plays by focusing on the top 18 most valuable. A sort of Pareto principle for card counting, except it captures more than 80%. Don published the first explanation showing the value of each of the index plays. Starting at page 55 in BJA3 is required reading for everyone. (I add this here because I think it could be clearer: The 18 are the starting point and bare minimum a counter should learn. Don't stop learning.)

So your question is... what, exactly? Are people doing what their count system tells them to do for a given hand and true count? What is the point of doing anything else? Also, do you understand that the published I18 information is for Hi-Low?

(Don: apologies if I mischaracterized anything. It's obviously a complex subject.)

Agree in principle. What needs to be understood by all s that the I18 is quoting strike points. Shoestring bankroll players should consider risk averse for many of their index plays.

The slash and burn player will play the strike point in their pursuit of EV maximization. The longevity player will likely play a mix of EV maximizing and risk averse. That is my practice, though my risk averse play has nothing to do with aversion to risk.

[21frogman]

though my risk averse play has nothing to do with aversion to risk.

Which begs the question, "Why do you use risk averse indices?"

[Freightman]

Which begs the question, "Why do you use risk averse indices?"

Certain hand combinations are so common, example 8v6. The index for doubling is +1. The combination is so common that a mix of many doubles versus non doubles just makes it to easy to be picked off. I usually (not always) wait until +3 to make The play. The loss of not doubling at +1 is minuscule, and the far less common +3 can be incorporated into a persona, and captures a much higher % of the Expected Value.

Now, I almost ( no such thing as always) always follow index 10v9, 11v10 etc etc. Trust that clarifies.

[21frogman]

[quote=Freightman;273943]Trust that clarifies.[/quote

It does. You use them to decrease the risk of being labeled an AP and thus increase longevity. (In other words, a risk being averted that is not in the definition of "risk averse".)Thanks.

[Freightman]

[QUOTE=21frogman;273945]

Trust that clarifies.[/quote

It does. You use them to decrease the risk of being labeled an AP and thus increase longevity. (In other words, a risk being averted that is not in the definition of "risk averse".)Thanks.

Nicely phrased.
I should add that the 8v6 double at plus 3 or more has some decent coin on the felt. The gain at plus 3 or more is simply too much to ignore, thus, the decision to double is made in a nano second, the act takes over requiring a second or 2 to put the money out.

[21frogman]

Let me turn it around: Why would you NOT use risk-averse indices? You need to study carefully BJA3, pp. 375-377, to understand that using them can't possibly do you any harm.

Don, I did reread pp. 375-377 and I see and understand the obvious benefits with virtually no risk. I asked my question in order to elicit Freightman's reason for using them.

[DSchles]

Which begs the question, "Why do you use risk averse indices?"

Let me turn it around: Why would you NOT use risk-averse indices? You need to study carefully BJA3, pp. 375-377, to understand that using them can't possibly do you any harm.

Don

[21frogman]

Let me turn it around: Why would you NOT use risk-averse indices? You need to study carefully BJA3, pp. 375-377, to understand that using them can't possibly do you any harm.

Don, I did reread pp. 375-377 and I saw and understood the obvious benefits with virtually no risk. I asked my question in order to elicit Freightman's reason for using them.

[21forme]

Why would you NOT use risk-averse indices?

If your BR is sufficiently high for the level you're playing, and the variance doesn't matter to you, EV is lower using risk averse indices.

[Freightman]

If your BR is sufficiently high for the level you're playing, and the variance doesn't matter to you, EV is lower using risk averse indices.

True, but we are telling marginal bankrolls that by using risk averse indices, that they can reduce variance and increase their max bet.

[DSchles]

If your BR is sufficiently high for the level you're playing, and the variance doesn't matter to you, EV is lower using risk averse indices.

That simply isn't true and is the reason I urged to reread pp. 375-377. It makes no difference what your bankroll is. By using r-a indices, the lowering of the variance immediately permits you to increase the size of your optimal bet, thereby allowing ultimate e.v. not to suffer.

There is NO DOWNSIDE to using r-a indices, and people who advocate otherwise are laboring under a misunderstanding of the concept.

Don

[21forme]

That simply isn't true and is the reason I urged to reread pp. 375-377. It makes no difference what your bankroll is. By using r-a indices, the lowering of the variance immediately permits you to increase the size of your optimal bet, thereby allowing ultimate e.v. not to suffer.

There is NO DOWNSIDE to using r-a indices, and people who advocate otherwise are laboring under a misunderstanding of the concept.

Just reread those pages. Guess I had the same misconception you did twenty years prior to your writing.

Sooo, why aren't those indices adjusted up to the RA indices and simply called the indices?

[DSchles]

Sooo, why aren't those indices adjusted up to the RA indices and simply called the indices?

The concept doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you use r-a indices, you also have to make adjustments to optimal bets, so that the whole approach is internally consistent. The alternative, as you can see from the article, differs very little from using e.v-maximizing indices, which then require somewhat smaller wagers.

The bottom line, also stated in the article, is that the former approach is slightly better than the latter. Much ado about nothing? Maybe.

Don