9v7 HiLo Index Question

Hey, I've been reading the forum for some time now (over a year), so first off thanks to everyone, especially the older/more advanced members, the archives have been a great resource here. Now I didn't search the forum for this answer, but I was hoping someone could answer it..

On the blackjack school lessons here, on lesson 14, the index says to double a 9 vs a 7 at a count of 6. However, on the wizard of odds illustrious 18/fab4 table, it says to double at a count of 3. Which is correct, and why the difference?

hi-lo

KingHenry said:

Hey, I've been reading the forum for some time now (over a year), so first off thanks to everyone, especially the older/more advanced members, the archives have been a great resource here. Now I didn't search the forum for this answer, but I was hoping someone could answer it..

On the blackjack school lessons here, on lesson 14, the index says to double a 9 vs a 7 at a count of 6. However, on the wizard of odds illustrious 18/fab4 table, it says to double at a count of 3. Which is correct, and why the difference?

Click to expand...

H-lo
Double 9Vs7: +3
Split 9,9Vs7: +4
If you are quarter-kelly, then 9Vs7:+4

so is the blackjack school on this website wrong then? it states to double 9 vs 7 at 6 for a hard double. if so, it makes me wonder if any of the other indexes on those pages are wrong.. here's the link to the page


http://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackjack-school/blackjack-lesson-15.php

I have been told that the indices from Blackjack School are risk-adverse indices. I had the same questions when I first came here.

KingHenry said:

so is the blackjack school on this website wrong then? it states to double 9 vs 7 at 6 for a hard double. if so, it makes me wonder if any of the other indexes on those pages are wrong.. here's the link to the page


http://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackjack-school/blackjack-lesson-15.php

Click to expand...

I would most definitely say that this cannot be correct, assuming that these lessons are for Hi-Lo (I have never used these lessons before). In Don Schlesinger's chapter on the I18, the 9 v. 7 index given for Hi-Lo in the simulated 4-deck game fo 9 v. 7 is +3. Even the risk aversion index given by D.S. is only +4. Moreover, for the level 2 system I use, the index for that play is +6, a perfect double of 3 (note that not all level 2 indices are double those of level 1 systems).

I have an index generator and could verify the index for any game you specify, if you feel it is necessary to do so.

SP

good looks

i've been using the illustrious 18 and the HiLo count and doubling 9 v7 at +3 but I want to expand my indexes after running into numerous 16/15 vs. 7's, 8's etc at high counts and not knowing the index costs me. If you can run the indexes for HiLo, that'd be great southpaw, the game is as follows:

6 deck, S17, DAS, Double down any hand, LS, one card on split aces + no resplit, i think thats all the important rules.. exactly the same as PA mandated rules

KingHenry said:

i've been using the illustrious 18 and the HiLo count and doubling 9 v7 at +3 but I want to expand my indexes after running into numerous 16/15 vs. 7's, 8's etc at high counts and not knowing the index costs me. If you can run the indexes for HiLo, that'd be great southpaw, the game is as follows:

6 deck, S17, DAS, Double down any hand, LS, one card on split aces + no resplit, i think thats all the important rules.. exactly the same as PA mandated rules

Click to expand...

I started the generator. I am running it for ALL plays. This might take hours, if not days. The other day, it took about an hour just to generate some surrender indices that Arnold Snyder did not provide for the Zen count.

I will post a file or something with the indices in this thread when it is done. On a side note, I highly doubt that there will be any more than a few (if any at all) discrepancies between the indices I am generating and the prescribed multi-deck indices that can be found in the literature for Hi-Lo.

SP

All right KingHenry, so I generated Hi-Lo indices for every play for the game you specified. The rules I plugged in were:

6D, .75 Pen, SP to 4, No RSPA, 1 card to split aces, LS, DOA2, DAS, S17

This is a link to the results:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B0cCldUn36hMNGIyOGJmODQtZGU5ZC00NmM4LWI0ODAtMzQwNGIyZTFkZDli&hl=fr

It may take a moment to load this, as it is about 32 pages. If you have any questions, let me know.

First off, there is not an index for every play, because for some plays, you should follow basic strategy no matter how high or low the count is. Also, the index I got for 9 v. 7 is +4. I reran the index for the H17 version of this game and it is also +4.

Enjoy!

SP

Edit: Should you wish to learn more indices, the following is what I recommend. I recommend that you use the exact index for the I18 and the Fab 4, but simplify the rest. Specifically, I recommend categorizing the other plays that you wish to learn into groups such as the departures that occur at -5,-1,1,5,10 and etc. Feel free to use any variation of the above idea. I'd credit Arnold Snyder with the idea when he made the Hi-Lo lite. Suprisingly, the penalty for using simplified indices is absolutely minimal, though it is slightly higher for handheld games.

A note on rounding: Say you're working on categorizing the indices that you want to learn and you find a departure that occurs at say +7. Don't round this down to +5. Put this one with your +10 group. It is better to be safe than sorry and just use basic when in doubt.

yo thanks alot everyone for the feedback, and thank you very much for those indexes south paw. thats more than i could have asked for, but its gonna be good use for me. i dont plan on memorizing them all, but rather adding slowly to the illustrious 18 and expanding my indexes as i get comfortable with them (starting primarily with the higher tC ones). i prob won't bother with many below -2 as the minor EV difference x min. bet = minimal. however...i am tempted to stay in at very low counts just to get to use that hit 16 vs 6 and 17 vs. Ace play just to get everyones reaction. . i think ill avoid the risk of having my tires slashed tho. not a very +ev on that...

Hi-Lo Indices Posted by Southpaw

I have made extensive use of the excellent indices posted by Southpaw
on December 7. Thanks alot to Southpaw for making these available to us.
While the vast majority of the indices make sense to me, there are a few cases where the recommended action appears to differ from the indices.
For example, in the Surrender Table, 8,8 vs X, the recommended play is Surrender >=1. However, the indices seem to indicate that it is better to surrender even at a TC of 0 (Surrender -0.50, Play -0.536691).
Other examples are Double 9 vs 3 and Double 8 vs 6.
Can someone explain how the recommended play was determined based on the indices generated?

KingHenry said:

On the blackjack school lessons here, on lesson 14, the index says to double a 9 vs a 7 at a count of 6. However, on the wizard of odds illustrious 18/fab4 table, it says to double at a count of 3. Which is correct, and why the difference?

Click to expand...

Either, or any point in between. +6 is best - Its a risk-averse index. zg

mikeyd said:

I have made extensive use of the excellent indices posted by Southpaw
on December 7. Thanks alot to Southpaw for making these available to us.
While the vast majority of the indices make sense to me, there are a few cases where the recommended action appears to differ from the indices.
For example, in the Surrender Table, 8,8 vs X, the recommended play is Surrender >=1. However, the indices seem to indicate that it is better to surrender even at a TC of 0 (Surrender -0.50, Play -0.536691).
Other examples are Double 9 vs 3 and Double 8 vs 6.
Can someone explain how the recommended play was determined based on the indices generated?

Click to expand...

Hello mikeyd,

This is absolutely an excellent point that you bring up here. This is really just a print off that my simulator spits out to me. I have doubled checked some off them in the past and never found such apparent discrepancies. This is something that you may wish to inquire to Qfit (the writer of my simulation software and a member of this site) about. I have a few theories about how this has arisen.

The two double down plays you mention are so extremely just barely break even that it is possible that Qfit programmed it to say to wait until the next TC to make the departure. After all, it is better to stick with basic strategy unless you are certain a departure is called for. However, the 8,8 v. X index is still quite a decent surrender even at 0. The only possible explanation I can give for this is that perhaps this play is not good when the TC is right below zero and Norm somehow programmed it to take this into account, advising the user to wait until +1. Still, it would be better to inquire the mastermind himself.

I personally surrender 8,8 v. 10 at anything higher than a TC of -5 for a level 2 system, but I use RA indices. This demonstrates that it is not a good idea to push out more money on a play that is just barely borderline, and that it is just better to surrender it.

Great observations, though.

Best,

SP

Southpaw said:

Hello mikeyd,

This is absolutely an excellent point that you bring up here. This is really just a print off that my simulator spits out to me. I have doubled checked some off them in the past and never found such apparent discrepancies. This is something that you may wish to inquire to Qfit (the writer of my simulation software and a member of this site) about. I have a few theories about how this has arisen.

The two double down plays you mention are so extremely to break even that it is possible that Qfit programmed it to say to wait until the next TC to make the departure. After all, it is better to stick with basic strategy unless you are certain a departure is called for. However, the 8,8 v. X index is still quite a decent surrender even at 0. The only possible explanation I can give for this is that perhaps this play is not good when the TC is right below zero and Norm somehow programmed it to take this into account, advising the user to wait until +1. Still, it would be better to inquire the mastermind himself.

I personally surrender 8,8 v. 10 at anything higher than a TC of -5 for a level 2 system, but I use RA indices. This demonstrates that it is not a good idea to push out more money on a play that is just barely borderline, and that it is just better to surrender it.

Great observations, though.

Best,

SP

Click to expand...

The accuracy of simulation results has always been a concern to me. It is often not easy to validate the result unless an error is obvious. I am just talking in general terms, not commenting on any specific commercial simulator. Let's face it: most programs have bugs.

psyduck said:

The accuracy of simulation results has always been a concern to me. It is often not easy to validate the result unless an error is obvious. I am just talking in general terms, not commenting on any specific commercial simulator. Let's face it: most programs have bugs.

Click to expand...

I share your concern. No offense at all to Norm--without his products, I'd probably be trying to grind it out playing-all at a 8D, H17 table with a benign spread--but in all honesty, I have noticed many bugs in CVBJ and CVData, CVBJ in particular. All of the ones I have encountered in CVData have been purely aesthetic (although the discrepancy our friend has encountered seems to be more than aesthetic), but it makes one wonder how deep the rabbit-hole goes I cannot tell you how many times I have deleted and reinstall these programs because of malfunctions.

To be sure, though, these programs are worth at least 10x the price Norm is literally giving them away for. Without them, my level of play and knowledge of the game would be no where even near where it is now.

SP

the ill 18+4 is all you need. obv the negative ones are pretty useless as are the ones with tc >10. the other half are all to costly as far as risk and heat.

if doubling your max bet to earn 5 cents is worth the risk to you then you arent betting correctly and thats a bigger problem. if for cover purposes you dont have a max bet out during an unusually high count then you must have determined that heat is something you should be worrying about. in that case doubling some smaller bet for 5 cents shouldnt be worth it if it makes the dealer yell "doubling A9" or "splitting tens" or whatever.

while i wouldnt advise memorizing +50 indicies, i think its a good idea to be familiar with them and understand their nature for the sake of understanding the game. that way when if for some reason opportunities do come up where you are way beyond the index point youll have a bette ridea of whether or not to pull the trigger. ie maybe you should split TT vs 5 at tc 10 etc