Index Deviation

Lets say that you are playing a count system where the index to double soft 15 v 4 is TC=0. At >0 you double, at <0 you hit. What about at RC=0? Prior to this post, I would make the double when RC=0, but now I'm thinking that since the EV for doubling or hitting is the same, it would be better to just hit to lower variance. What do you guys think?

PS: As for RA indeces, I think it is still a better idea to make the play with less variance. From what I understand, RA indeces are made where the CE of the play is better than BS, rather than just pure EV. So now, like non RA indeces, instead of the EV, the CE is the same, which means that the short term variance of the index improves, which is better than nothing.

Hmm at RC =0 your TCis also 0, or am i missing something?

Ming

Ming,

That's going to depend on whether it's a balanced or unbalanced count. A RC of 0 in Red7 and a RC of 0 in HiLo are pretty different. From the OP it seems that the count is balanced though.

Well i kinda assumed it was hi-lo from the A4v4 statement.

Ming

If the Index is ZERO and your True Count is ZERO you play Basic Strategy.

This is not mysterious.

FLASH1296 said:

If the Index is ZERO and your True Count is ZERO you play Basic Strategy.

This is not mysterious.

Click to expand...

What about in situations with 16 v 10? Basic strategy is to hit, but the index for hi opt II DD is 0. So with a TC of 0 I would follow the index and stand, correct? That's not BS.

Technically speaking the TC would be greater than 0 For example, if there are 5 decks left and the RC is +1, The TC would be 1/5 = .20 which is greater than 0 so you'd stand on that 16 vs a dealer 10.

Deathclutch said:

What about in situations with 16 v 10? Basic strategy is to hit, but the index for hi opt II DD is 0. So with a TC of 0 I would follow the index and stand, correct? That's not BS.

Click to expand...

i believe you are correct. well it is correct for hi/lo anyway.
it's supposed to be such a close call that it doesn't take much to swing it one way stand or one way hit.
i guess the thing is about basic strategy where it is a hit, is that i'm pretty sure for the big picture sort of thing the count unbeknown to the basic strategy player over the long haul will be negative a bit more than it will be positive.
so i'm guessing that tips the scales just enough to make the basic strategy play hit for 16vs10 .
errhhh well talking say a six deck s17 game, like ok really even the zero true count can be looked at as -0, 0, and +0. i guess even there maybe the -0 out weighs the +0, sort of thing.

DeathClutch,

If the correct Basic Strategy play is to HIT and your True Count is ZERO then you do NOT deviate., You play B.S. You HIT.

In truth, the difference is so slight, you may as well flip a coin -
rather than obsess about a nearly meaningless decision.

FLASH1296 said:

DeathClutch,

If the correct Basic Strategy play is to HIT and your True Count is ZERO then you do NOT deviate., You play B.S. You HIT.

In truth, the difference is so slight, you may as well flip a coin -
rather than obsess about a nearly meaningless decision.

Click to expand...

Thats what I am saying. The difference in EV at the index departure point is near 0, so the better play to make is the play with less variance. For an index like H/S 16vX, I would think there is little change in variance, but an index where you would double instead of hit has a bigger difference.

I tend to be conservative on those plays and usually let the count get a little higher than the index calls before doubling on those marginal plays.

SleightOfHand said:

Lets say that you are playing a count system where the index to double soft 15 v 4 is TC=0. At >0 you double, at <0 you hit. What about at RC=0? Prior to this post, I would make the double when RC=0, but now I'm thinking that since the EV for doubling or hitting is the same, it would be better to just hit to lower variance. What do you guys think?

PS: As for RA indeces, I think it is still a better idea to make the play with less variance. From what I understand, RA indeces are made where the CE of the play is better than BS, rather than just pure EV. So now, like non RA indeces, instead of the EV, the CE is the same, which means that the short term variance of the index improves, which is better than nothing.

Click to expand...

I would definitely double in H/17 games, because this can only help your double.....even if we are talking about splittin hairs.

One thing I like about practicing with real cards, is that you can always back up the hands, and play-out the other scenarios. It seems like more often than not, it paid better, to double these hands. There were more times, when i just hit and lost the hand, opposed to winning double, than there were times, verses, when I doubled and lost, opposed to just hitting and winning.

RoR is heavily influenced by maxbets, so perhaps you would sleep better being more conservative, when those are in play.

Ace-params, are a big card, on hands A2-A5, and ive always taken these hands very seriously. Even to the point, where my index, changes, from +1 to -2 depending where your at in the deck(s).

jack said:

One thing I like about practicing with real cards, is that you can always back up the hands, and play-out the other scenarios. It seems like more often than not, it paid better, to double these hands. There were more times, when i just hit and lost the hand, opposed to winning double, than there were times, verses, when I doubled and lost, opposed to just hitting and winning.

Click to expand...

This can lead you to bad conclusions and bad habits. It's why BJ dealers are poor sources of info. They knowledge is empirical. And wrong.

QFIT said:

This can lead you to bad conclusions and bad habits. It's why BJ dealers are poor sources of info. They're knowledge is empirical. And wrong.

Click to expand...

Well i know you win more hands if you just hit vs doubling. I think you knew that!

I actually got this theory, from the infamous 11vX hand, where my index is -6.
It always, and I mean always seemed, that when there was a deck or less to be played in a 2D game, and my TC reached -7 or less, which prompted me to hit, opposed to doubling, it would cost me dearly.

This lead me to the conclusion, that all TCs are'nt equal. Doubling the 11vX @-6 with 1/2 deck remaining, is a much better bet(imo) than doubling it with the same TC, with lets say a deck and a half remaining.

I know, I know what your going to say, but trust me when i say theres some kind of 'floating advantage' that's taking effect, with particular hands at different deck levels and the number of decks in play.

OK, you can call me crazy now

JJ,

You are not crazy.

You suffer from a mild case of "selective memory".

Computer simulations remove our (highly fallible) memories from the equation.

Jack,Johnson

Are you serious?

After this long on this forum and you are still using The Sacred Flow theory and saying things like "I always seemed to lose when I doubled".

Come on man.

You are correct when you say you will win more hands but you double because you will win more money. Winning money is what AP and gambling is all about.

Fact is, theres a 3% less chance, you'll catch a face-card in multiple-deck games verses pitch games. The same reason why you'll recieve less blackjacks in MD.

So therefore, doesnt it make sense, that this fact, would also have to affect hard and soft doubles and that your indexes for these hands would have vary somewhat?

Look at how I use/see my discard tray for hard and soft doubles.

6Decks> and the two examples i'll use are 8v5 and A2v4. My indexes for these hands are both +5

Remember these are L2 indices.

*hards doubles

()softdoubles

6D>FULL<

5.5D>*-6(-3)

5D>*-4(-2)

4.5D>*-3

4D>*-2(-1)

3D>*-1

2D>TRUE INDEX(+5)=2decks in discard tray.

1D>

>EMPTY<


So for example, if theres 5decks in the discard tray and I have 8v5 i'll double @+5*-4=+1 and I would double A2v4 @+5(-2)=+3 since soft hands only put half the emphasis on face-cards as hard doubles do.


Im really not tryin to be a smart-ass, but this is honestly how ive been practicin for awhile. Im always open for discussion, and would change my habits, if only somebody would show me the logic, as to why this is wrong.

Yes there is a difference between single-deck and multiple deck. But what does this have to do with different depths?

JJ,

The fewer cards left the more accurate your TC needs to be. I don't want to call it error but I will call it estimation and rounding. Therefore, there is less margin for deck estimation and count rounding the fewer cards that are remaining. Unless we have machines, some rounding and estimating is required by all counters.

So, have you done anything mathematical, something beyond "always seems", that says that the Index for 11vX is different with different amount of the deck to play? I assume that your index isn't exactly -6 but rather it is somewhere between -5.5 and -6.49 but I cannot see that index changing with the remaining decks to play.

I feel the loss of accuracy is what you are experiencing and if so, good intuition! That said I am still not convinced you are making the correct play.

Over the years, i've tried to listen to what the cards tell me and heres what "i think" they're sayin.

You really cant see the difference until about 4 decks have been dealt from a 6deck shoe. After that, it becomes very noticable. And that pales in comparison to after 1 deck being dealt, from a 2deck game.

1)you start to recieve more BJs and Pats at the same TC

2)You'll start catching more tens at same TC.

3)The dealer will start breaking more and more, as more cards are dealt at same TC.

4)Im gonna regret this one..lol.The dealer starts getting stiff more often at same TC.

Maybe its a cumulative effect of TCs. Or maybe its the "floating advantage" for hands only, im noticing. Or just maybe, i had just been paracticing to hard for too long...idk

One other thing ive noticed is that your positive TCs are stronger in a 2 decks, game, than they are for a 6deck game.They're not the same, to me.

Thoughts?