Gee, are we talking about Fitzgerald's under the new mgmt, perhaps? The DOA, LS rules yield a .10% HA, so if you restrict your index plays (I don't see why) to insurance only, I would suppose you would have turned the HA negative, even though slightly, by playing perfect BS and flat betting.Cardcounter said:
I get +.15% for S17 and -.03% for H17 using comp dependent strategy and assuming the six-card auto winner applies to all hands, including split hands and also a max of 3 splits is allowed for non-ace pairs. Unlimited splits on non-aces will add a very small amount. If total dependent strategy is used decrease the EV by about .04%.Cardcounter said:
If played independently each hand has the same EV. The case could be made that the second hand has a slightly higher EV, though, because it will be played using more information than is available to the first hand. The same logic applies for a third base player in a non-heads-up game. I think Thorp said a single deck game could be positive EV by flat betting and sitting at third base and making correct index plays. Beat the Dealer is the only book I've seen that attempts to quantify the value of index plays. Other sources say the ill18 give 80% of the value of full index play. But 80% of what? I would be intersted to know. I'm sure the value of index play declines as more decks are added.shadroch said:
What I would like to know is the value of index play to a flat bettor. What is your EV if you do nothing but flat bet and play correct indices? I'm sure it'll be a function of number of decks and penetration. Also in a very deeply dealt shoe I think there is the potential of some indices going haywire, but I guess you would just have to accept that as a small part of the overall picture.Kasi said:
Of course it also depends on the counting system I'd imagine in the sense each hand would have a playing efficeiency attached to it. Like the 7 in Hi-Lo makes it is pretty worthless for any info on 14 vs 10 kind of thing.k_c said:
k_c i'm pretty sure the illustrious 18 was wrought from a four deck s17das game.75% pen. also a 1-12 spread where player goes from one hand to two hands at tc>=5. the idea was i believe so that the i18 could be a sort of one shoe fits all sort of deal but Schlesinger did say people would be adjusting it to their particular games, betting, count systems ect.k_c said:
I'm not saying anything against bet spreading. I just think that to see what is gained from indices, the best way would be to separate index play from bet spreading. What would be left would be an EV for a flat betting index player. Theoretically that should be better than the HA the basic strategy faces but by how much?Mimosine said:
Honestly i think the best way to figure this out is to sim it. For some games and some rules it will be much more valuable, like if LS is offered. it will probably make a very small difference depending on how many people are seated, and for sure the number of decks will matter. then the number of indicies used, and the count. I think i read hi/lo + I18 + Fab4. oh yeah the all important pen will also have a huge effect. if pen is 50% you'll never be using index plays to the point where they'll make a difference. negative index plays like 13v2 12v6 etc are in the clear minority, the vast majority of index plays are employed in + counts, so you have to make sure you see those + counts...k_c said:
