Automatic Monkey said:
I wonder how important the choice of count is in this matter. Using ace-neutral counts like the mighty HO2 makes non-I18 indices more powerful than a full ace-reckoning count, and a Zen count is in between the two. So perhaps if you are using ace-neutral studying uncommon indices is a better deal?
That would affect things somewhat, but probably not very much. There are three elements that determine the “value” of an index:
1) Frequency - How often you are dealt that hand.
2) Gain - How much more (in percent) you will win by making the BS deviation.
3) Bet size - The amount of money on the table when you make the decision.
Using a large bet spread will cause certain indices to become more valuable. Even though their Gain (%) may be small, the amount of money you will win becomes larger. However, many indices are not very valuable because they are infrequent, offer little gain, or both.
For example, the hand 16 vs. 7 will occur less than once per 100 hands (about 0.0096). The TC for standing is +9, which occurs only about 0.61% of the time. That means that you will be making that play:
0.096 * 0.0061 = 0.0005856 = 1 in 17,008 hands
After about 170 hours of play you will have used that index only once. On the occasion that you did, it only earned you about 0.02% of your bet. If your max bet is $100 then you have just increased your EV by $2 for 170 hours of play, or roughly one penny per hour.
Even though the PE of an ace-neutral system will produce more Gain for these BS departures, the overall increase will probably not be much. With a small, or very large, bet spread you will begin to see changes in the Illustrious 18. Also, the frequencies of certain hands will change based on the number of decks used. However, many of the Ill18 (like the Big Three: Insurance, 16 vs. 10, 15 vs. 10) are simply too frequent and too profitable to be replaced.
But that doesn’t mean that other indices are not very valuable as well. The Illustrious 18 are simply the
most valuable in most cases.
-Sonny-
