DealornoDeal
Member
I am learning the Hi-Lo, and am trying to find a link to the list of the Illus. 18 and Fab 4 indices.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Illustrious 18 and Fab 4
- Thread starter DealornoDeal
- Start date
zengrifter
Banned
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
Fairly Complete
This is fine for DAS or not any multi deck s17.
Some Additions and the h17 variations for multi deck:
s17/h17
12 v6 -1/-3
11 v a 1/-1
10 v A 4/3 or you can use 10 v A 4 for s17/ h17, I do it
godeem23 said:
This is fine for DAS or not any multi deck s17.
Some Additions and the h17 variations for multi deck:
s17/h17
12 v6 -1/-3
11 v a 1/-1
10 v A 4/3 or you can use 10 v A 4 for s17/ h17, I do it
Dyepaintball12
Well-Known Member
Couple Questions:zengrifter said:
1) So, for all the indices with 0 (and negative) as a count, you use the RC, but every one 2+ you use the TC?
2) Why isn't insurance on there? Is it a TC of 1?
Thanks
Sonny
Well-Known Member
No, you should use the TC for all decisions. I disagree with the article on this point. It says that any decision with a 0 index can use the RC, but I don’t recommend that. It is okay to use the RC for the 16 vs. 10 decision (and probably 12 vs. 4 too) since it is a very close call, but all other indices should be done with the TC.Dyepaintball12 said:
I suppose the article is technically correct since those are the only two Ill18 indices with a 0 index, but if you decide to learn more then you should use the TC not the RC.
Insurance was covered in Lesson 13:Dyepaintball12 said:
http://www.gamemasteronline.com/Archive/BlackjackSchool/GameMasterClassics13.shtml (Archive copy)
-Sonny-
Dyepaintball12
Well-Known Member
These indices seem a little high to me after using the simple Red 7 count.
Insurance at a TC of +3 and above only, with most of these indices being over +4 TC?
So I am assuming if these are correct, most of the time you are not even really using indices. I play 8deck and stretches over +4 dont tend to last long
Insurance at a TC of +3 and above only, with most of these indices being over +4 TC?
So I am assuming if these are correct, most of the time you are not even really using indices. I play 8deck and stretches over +4 dont tend to last long
Sonny
Well-Known Member
I use +3.5 for Insurance but +3 is fine. A lot of the decisions for doubling (Lesson 15) and splits (Lesson 16) are lower than +4. I believe all of the Illustrious 18 are +4 or lower except for two (I forget which ones for HiLo).Dyepaintball12 said:
The article said that you only use indices about 10% of the time. For an 8D game you’re definitely going to be playing BS almost all of the time. Shoe games are sloooooow and boooooring, but you already know that.Dyepaintball12 said:
-Sonny-
Dyepaintball12
Well-Known Member
Sonny said:I use +3.5 for Insurance but +3 is fine. A lot of the decisions for doubling (Lesson 15) and splits (Lesson 16) are lower than +4. I believe all of the Illustrious 18 are +4 or lower except for two (I forget which ones for HiLo).
The article said that you only use indices about 10% of the time. For an 8D game you’re definitely going to be playing BS almost all of the time. Shoe games are sloooooow and boooooring, but you already know that.
-Sonny-
Wait I was under the impression that website WAS the Illustrious 18 and Fab 4. But less than half are under +4
Sonny
Well-Known Member
But there's only 16 of them. :grin:Dyepaintball12 said:
That website lists several indices but not in Ill18 order of importance. Lesson 14 is hit/stand indices, Lesson 15 is double down indices and Lesson 16 is Split indices. The Ill18 are here:
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/tcindex/i18index.htm (Archive copy)
You can also find the risk-averse Ill18 and Fab 4 for HiLo in Schlesinger' book.
-Sonny-
Ferretnparrot
Well-Known Member
Ive read that the value for insurance varied greatly by the number of decks i think somebody should clear that up, i use 3.1, and that guy is using 3.4, i have a book that says 2 and another one that says 3.
Dyepaintball12
Well-Known Member
Ah! Thank you sir.Sonny said:
You are a gentleman and a scholar.
I have already done a pretty comprehesive analysis of insurance indices for either Hi-Lo or KO for 1,2,4,6, and 8 decks. The indices depend upon number of decks, (count) hand composition, and penetration in varying degrees. The data is pretty complete and it just is what it is. If you want to choose a single index for all insurance plays, look at the number of decks and expected penetration and you should be able to come up with a reasonable index to use from the data. At the end of each table I approximate an index based on the hand composition. I don't claim that blackjack is necessarily easyFerretnparrot said:
. The links to the data are toward the bottom of the page.k-c
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
so i guess what i'm getting from all this is that for instance where Schlesinger gives an insurance indice of TC>=+3 (hi/lo count) for a four deck s17 game in the illustrious 18 which is pretty much thought of as usable for multiple deck s17 games that in actuality there are more specific indices according to number of decks, rules and penetration and maybe even how you calculate your true count.
i recall Schlesinger in Blackjack Attack remarking how he was sort of trying to come up with the I18 as a 'one shoe fits all' sort of thing. (my words not his just to paraphrase)
so really when one uses the 'generic' I18 for some multiple deck game be it four decks, six decks or eight decks then i guess one is working on the same order as say a player that uses a 'generic' basic strategy for many different types of games but that is hopefully close enough for all practical purposes.
in a sense sort of how i go about gambling with the fuzzy count :cool2:
i recall Schlesinger in Blackjack Attack remarking how he was sort of trying to come up with the I18 as a 'one shoe fits all' sort of thing. (my words not his just to paraphrase)
so really when one uses the 'generic' I18 for some multiple deck game be it four decks, six decks or eight decks then i guess one is working on the same order as say a player that uses a 'generic' basic strategy for many different types of games but that is hopefully close enough for all practical purposes.
in a sense sort of how i go about gambling with the fuzzy count :cool2:
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
On Foreign Languages
It is not the first time I have not been understood. I guess it is my superior intellect LOL.
Sometimes my writing leaves a little to be desired.
These work for DAS
These also work for no DAS
These work for multi deck S17 games.
These work for H17 multi deck games, including the indices I posted previously.
I gave you the major changes for H17 and those indices I gave you are worth more then the high end ones in the article. The ones at TC 7 and above.
Insure at 3 is the most important
I agree with Sonny, you need to use TC for these indices. The only exceptions are the ones at zero where the running count is used.
The indices in the article are not the Sch. ILL 18.
The higher end ones 7 and above are not a part of the ILL18, though I use ones that high.
The ones I gave you are part of the ILL 18.
So you can use all the ones in the article.
or
You can use the ones in the article just up to 7
Then add the ones I posted earlier
Also add Insurance at tc3
You will be well on your way!!!!!!!!!
godeem23 said:
It is not the first time I have not been understood. I guess it is my superior intellect LOL.
Sometimes my writing leaves a little to be desired.
These work for DAS
These also work for no DAS
These work for multi deck S17 games.
These work for H17 multi deck games, including the indices I posted previously.
I gave you the major changes for H17 and those indices I gave you are worth more then the high end ones in the article. The ones at TC 7 and above.
Insure at 3 is the most important
I agree with Sonny, you need to use TC for these indices. The only exceptions are the ones at zero where the running count is used.
The indices in the article are not the Sch. ILL 18.
The higher end ones 7 and above are not a part of the ILL18, though I use ones that high.
The ones I gave you are part of the ILL 18.
So you can use all the ones in the article.
or
You can use the ones in the article just up to 7
Then add the ones I posted earlier
Also add Insurance at tc3
You will be well on your way!!!!!!!!!
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
Notted up Over Indices Again !!!! LOL
The listing on bjmath.com is the ILL18
Don't forget the h17 differences
A difference of -2 or -1 for 12 v 5 is not worth worrying about.
The differences could be due to how the indices were tabulated.
-1 was probably truncated
-2 was probably rounded
The difference between the 2 is extremely negligable. If you already know one or one seems easier to remember then stick with that.
The first thing you need to ask is if you should be playing in negative counts in the first place
1 off on indices is not a big deal
You can make indices very complicated and hard to learn by:
You can make them out to several decimals
You can make them depending on the actual hand you hold
You can come up with RA indices for each bet ramp you intend to use
However, the point of the ILL 18 is to garner the most gain from the least effort. If you want to learn more or make them more complicated you can gain some small extra advantage for more work. It is definately a situation of diminishing returns.
The more decks you play the less value the higher TC strategy variations have. You don't see the values very often.
The less you ramp your bets the less value they have. If you don't have big bets out at higher TC then the strategies have less value.
Deep cuts are better for indices.
If you want to go beyond the ILL18 I would look toward the ones where you are doubling vs dealer 5 and 6 at the lower TCs, then playing against the dealers 10, then perhaps the other soft hands and finally the splits.
So you have the ILL18 you have to just decide if that is enough or do you want to put in the extra time to learn more.
The listing on bjmath.com is the ILL18
Don't forget the h17 differences
A difference of -2 or -1 for 12 v 5 is not worth worrying about.
The differences could be due to how the indices were tabulated.
-1 was probably truncated
-2 was probably rounded
The difference between the 2 is extremely negligable. If you already know one or one seems easier to remember then stick with that.
The first thing you need to ask is if you should be playing in negative counts in the first place
1 off on indices is not a big deal
You can make indices very complicated and hard to learn by:
You can make them out to several decimals
You can make them depending on the actual hand you hold
You can come up with RA indices for each bet ramp you intend to use
However, the point of the ILL 18 is to garner the most gain from the least effort. If you want to learn more or make them more complicated you can gain some small extra advantage for more work. It is definately a situation of diminishing returns.
The more decks you play the less value the higher TC strategy variations have. You don't see the values very often.
The less you ramp your bets the less value they have. If you don't have big bets out at higher TC then the strategies have less value.
Deep cuts are better for indices.
If you want to go beyond the ILL18 I would look toward the ones where you are doubling vs dealer 5 and 6 at the lower TCs, then playing against the dealers 10, then perhaps the other soft hands and finally the splits.
So you have the ILL18 you have to just decide if that is enough or do you want to put in the extra time to learn more.
Last edited:
Ferretnparrot
Well-Known Member
these are the ones i use nobody probibly cares but i just typed it so ima post it i have used all of them in play.
xx vs 6, 5 and 4
A9 vs 6 5 and 4 these are easy cause they are the same as splitting tens
A8 vs 6 5 4 and 3 accross the grid they go 1 2 3 then 6 for their values
A7 vs 2 and ace
A6 vs 2
A3 vs 4
A2 vs 4 easy to remember in conjunction with a3 vs 4
99 vs A and 7
16 vs 10, 9 and 8
15 vs 10 and 9
13 vs 2 and 3
12 vs 2 3 4 5 and 6
11 vs A
10 vs A 10 and 9
9 vs 2 and 7
8 vs 6 and 5
xx vs 6, 5 and 4
A9 vs 6 5 and 4 these are easy cause they are the same as splitting tens
A8 vs 6 5 4 and 3 accross the grid they go 1 2 3 then 6 for their values
A7 vs 2 and ace
A6 vs 2
A3 vs 4
A2 vs 4 easy to remember in conjunction with a3 vs 4
99 vs A and 7
16 vs 10, 9 and 8
15 vs 10 and 9
13 vs 2 and 3
12 vs 2 3 4 5 and 6
11 vs A
10 vs A 10 and 9
9 vs 2 and 7
8 vs 6 and 5