indices

[L.J.]

is it important to follow the indices accurately? i mean they are approximations anyway. different systems have different indices but they dont differ more than some hundredth of a percent in efficiency.

if i use ill. 18 . can i mix my play with indices from hi lo lite when i feel like it?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

is it important to follow the indices accurately? i mean they are approximations anyway. different systems have different indices but they dont differ more than some hundredth of a percent in efficiency.

if i use ill. 18 . can i mix my play with indices from hi lo lite when i feel like it?

Yes, indices can be severely rounded and they still work just fine.

 

[BJinNJ]

Then why does Renzey use indices...

based on 2 decks TC for his Mentor Count? He reasons they're more accurate.

If rounding errors aren't very important, why would Renzey bother to do this?

BJinNJ

 

[zengrifter]

1D-TC HiLo #s would be the same as 2D-TC Mentor #s, yes? zg

 

[Automatic Monkey]

based on 2 decks TC for his Mentor Count? He reasons they're more accurate.

If rounding errors aren't very important, why would Renzey bother to do this?

BJinNJ

They are more accurate. Just not by a heck of a lot. In fact you can use Counter's Basic Strategy and no indices at all, and you don't lose very much, especially in shoe games where your spread is high and you're avoiding negative counts.

 

[L.J.]

i read in the zengrifter interview about "extreme rounded" index numbers:

"Whether one uses an index “granularity-scale” of 0-1-2-3-4-5-6 or 0-2-4-6 or
even 0-3-6 it will make absolutely no difference in actual casino play spanning three million hands,
which is ten years of full time play"

so this means i can re write the hilo indices as i please?

 

[21forme]

Sure. KO does the same thing for 6 and 8D games. 16 v T is at 0 and all the others (not quite the I-18, some are eliminated) at +4. For 1 and 2D games, it's probably more significant.