Indices - work in progress.

[UK-21]

Comments from the experienced sought.

Below I have posted a table I have created in excel, detailing play indices (discussed in another thread), together with estimated edge (-50% off the top of the shoe), betting amount (based on spreading 1-12, table min £3.00 in this example) and the %age occurance that each level of edge will occur. The occurance data has been taken from Arnold Snyder's excellent Blackbelt in Blackjack. I'm looking at his Hi-Lo Lite system, where the count used isn't a true count conversion but a true edge conversion - seems to me this kills two birds with one stone, in that it gives a count that can be used to adjust play against and determines the basis for calculating the correct betting according to Kelly principles.

I'd be grateful for comments on whether any of the indices shown are in the wrong place (and if so the reasoning behind moving them up or down the table) or whether there are "essentials" missing. From what I've read there would seem to be little to lose or gain by adjusting a play a bit sooner or later than on a specific count (ie +1 and +3 plays being consolidated to a +2 index for convenience) ?

Many thanks to all in advance.

Newb99

 

[cardcounter0]

Do not play indices too early. Don't know where you read about it not mattering, but making a change too early is actually more costly than just sticking to basic strategy most of the time. Better to act late rather than early.

I would move your insurance indice to 3.

The rest looks pretty reasonable, although you are concentrating on all the 'aggessive' plays. Add some defense: A,4 vs 4 and A,2 vs 5 only double at + counts, 13 vs 2 at -1, 12 vs 4 hit when negative, etc.

 

[Sonny]

Now what?

So what are you planning to do with this information? You’ve got some TC frequencies, their advantages and some bet sizes. What is your goal and how will you process this data? What is the end result you are looking for?

-Sonny-

 

[UK-21]

Thanks for that, it makes a great deal of sense. I'll extend the table below the (TC=0) line and into the neg count territory. It does fly in the face of other advice I've had along the lines of don't bother with the neg indices as they aren't of very much real $$$ value. Advice from Arnold Snyder was not to bother with any of the split indices for the same reason, although I think splitting two 7s against an 8 could end up leaving one with a warm glow (especially if you're fortunate enough to pull a 2,3,4, double, and then a 10).

What am I going to do with all of this. A profound question. The simple answer is to apply it at the tables whenever I get the chance to play (which probably isn't going to be that often) in the knowledge I've a sound handle on what I'm doing. There are no financial goals as such (other than to come out in front over time), and I'm certainly not looking to throw in the day job.

An alternative question to ask might be why have I gone to the trouble of rustling this up when there are so many "out of the box" solutions available? It's largely due to my learning style - I like to understand why things are the way they are and then apply my understanding. That's is why I'm a terrible language student, as in languages so much doesn't follow any logical pattern (irregular verbs for instance) and you have to accept that it's "just the way things go". Having said that, there's little to be gained in re-inventing the wheel where others before me have done all of the sums.

So . . . version 2.0 - application of defensive neg count adjustments to play.

Thanks again.

Newb99