I-18 revelation!

[Ferretnparrot]

I think i might have a good idea, or a dumb one thats going to point out my misunderstanding of bj history

To my knowledge the "concept" of the I18 was formed long ago by some guy whos name i cant remember, but anwyays i wonder if the fact that its old and the fact that the game has since changed int terms of number of decks has an effect on the percentage of advantage you gain to play from them.

for single and double deck games you may be missing out on say that extra 20% of your ev for only playing the I18(which perhaps was the way the games were found when the i18 concept was formed and the 80% of ev notion is true)

My thought is that perhaps for 6 and 8 deck games they are less important since super high counts occur very rarely, and perhaps the i18 in 6 and 8 deck games represents a much larger portion of your expected ev? eh?

Ferret

 

[EasyRhino]

To my knowledge the "concept" of the I18 was formed long ago by some guy whos name i cant remember,

Sir Isaac Newton.

But anyway, playing efficiency has a bigger impact on single deck than on multiple decks. Playing efficiency is boosted by using more indices. Therefore, going in with piles of indices can be actually generate some sort of measurable increase in advantage. Some, (e.g. zengrifter) have been proponents of learning TONS of index plays, even if the index numbers are extremely rounded.

The gains in shoe games would be scant. Learning tons of indices here would be mainly for fun. And you know, if your brain is wired towards good memorization skills, but not towards quick arithmetic, then learning a mountain of indices might be a better idea than learning a more complicated count.

In either case, the I18 would still be responsible for MOST of the gains to be gained by playing indices.

 

[sagefr0g]

I think i might have a good idea, or a dumb one thats going to point out my misunderstanding of bj history

To my knowledge the "concept" of the I18 was formed long ago by some guy whos name i cant remember, but anwyays i wonder if the fact that its old and the fact that the game has since changed int terms of number of decks has an effect on the percentage of advantage you gain to play from them.

for single and double deck games you may be missing out on say that extra 20% of your ev for only playing the I18(which perhaps was the way the games were found when the i18 concept was formed and the 80% of ev notion is true)

My thought is that perhaps for 6 and 8 deck games they are less important since super high counts occur very rarely, and perhaps the i18 in 6 and 8 deck games represents a much larger portion of your expected ev? eh?

Ferret

Schlesinger i believe as expanded upon in Blackjack Attack. the I18 the way i understand how he wrote about it in his book was originally designed for a four deck (i think s17 das game) game with a 1-12 spread. purposely so in that it might be useful for two decker and six and eight decker games. in my opinion a sort of a fudge factor approach. but i believe he spoke about that others would want to borrow from the approach from which the I18 was designed so as to come up with indices that better fit say what ever game in particular one might be interested in. so yeah there probably is room for improvement if one is so inclined.

 

[rukus]

....

To my knowledge the "concept" of the I18 was formed long ago by some guy whos name i cant remember,

....
Ferret

Don Schlesinger described the concept in his Blackjack Attack books (which borrowed from his Blackjack Forum articles). His name is highly worth remembering. You would benefit greatly from reading his book and articles... might preempt some of the new "epiphanies" and "revelations" you seem to have on these message boards, especially like the one you mention above...

 

[QFIT]

Most people drop ten splits from Don's Illustrious 18. That makes it the Sweet 16. Adding 8v5, 9v5, A8v5 and A8v6 makes it the Catch 22. The top four surrender indexes are the Fab 4, also from Don Schlesinger. All described in Blackjack Attack. See http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration4.htm for the effect of the Ill18 in today's games.

 

[Ferretnparrot]

i thought it was don but i could never remeber his last name, or how to spell it anyways, its good to know that at least im thinking in the right and not the wrong on that note anyways, the chart you listed the link to does show a dramatic decrease in the importance of full indexes but relevnt to only similer conditions which are very vague in there definitions