I said that I would no longer respond to our original poster, as he has no desire to learn, but I am reposting here a message that Norm recently furnished for his forum readers, as a service and a courtesy for some of our more open-minded and rational members, whose brains still function properly.
Don
On another site, there have been a large number of statements made which come from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of card counting indices. I thought I’d try to add a bit of clarity to the issue.
First, indices are not created by a mathematic process. That is, there is no formula, there is no way to calculate them exactly, and different generators use different methodologies and arrive at different results. Further, they vary by circumstances. Now, there are some people that have created indices by what appears to be a mathematical process using spreadsheets. However, these algorithms begin with effects of removal (EORs). The problem is that EORs are also not created by a mathematic process, are not exact, depend on circumstances, and don’t take into account index interaction. They are estimates based upon assumptions: number of decks, penetration, rules, and which other indices are to be used. Indices interact, and RA indices interact more than EV-maximizing indices. That is, if you drop an index, other indices might change a tad. So, even the selection of the indices used is not an algorithmic process, and can affect the values. Additionally, the choice of which indices to use can vary by the counting tags as some tags work better with some decisions. On top of that, the creation of indices using EORs invalidates the original EORs upon which they are based. On top of this, EOR-based indices are less accurate.
You might notice that even different printings of the same books have differences in the tables as authors have made tweeks to improve performance. Wong changed all negative indices and then changed a few individual indices in later printings. Carlson also tweeked individual indices. Synder produced multiple versions of Red7 and Zen; some dramatically different. KO has multiple versions. Beyond Counting has tables for common strategies that are not the same as the originals.
Basically, we have non-algorithmic upon non-algorithmic processes begun with a large number of human decisions to try to provide the best results for what the author thinks are the most useful present conditions given the limitations of the current technology.
Now the question arose as to why there isn’t a free library of indices. Well, there has been since before the web existed. The CV products have free demo downloads and those downloads contain hundreds of index tables by counting system, rules, and decks as published in various books. The reason that I have not published them online is that my agreements and contracts with the various authors to use their intellectual property only go so far as to include them in software. Since they were created by processes that are not purely mathematic, and in nearly all cases not reproducible by other people, they are protected by copyright. Now, the published indices were generally created when compute power was less available, before newer techniques were established, without risk-aversion, usually with the assumption that large numbers of indices were needed, with a limited number of rule sets, with higher penetrations than are now available, and mostly without flooring. So, better indices can be created. That doesn’t mean the older indices are no good. In some cases, for example AOII, they’re excellent. They are certainly usable with today’s rules, and the gains in using better indices aren’t generally huge. Which is to say that there is nothing wrong with using them with standard blackjack games.
[Don again]: I would add that it is painfully obvious, for all those who have some history and perspective of researching index numbers, that they are definitely NOT a clearcut, indisputable, mathematical "fact." They are subject to myriad methodologies for generation and, therefore, differ among authors and researchers. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical fact. The area of a circle equals pi r squared is a fact. The Hi-Lo index for surrendering 8,8 vs. T, with DAS = +2 is NOT such a "fact." Wong gives zero, which is wrong. Others give +1, which is correct for NDAS but is probably too low for DAS.
In any event, the point is a simple one: indices are not facts; rather, they are subject to interpretation, as Norm has outlined above. And, when a researcher goes to great lengths to provide a complete set of such indices, after expending a great deal of time, effort, and intellectual expertise, the result of such published work is undeniably copyrightable.
Again, this is for the edification of our more enlightened readers; it is not intended as a response to the OP, who is not interested in learning.
Don
But, silly to call me selfish. Anyone can download the CVData or CVBJ demo and get the published indices for free. Just not as accurate as creating new RA indices or customizing them for your own play. Basically, I’ve already created the free library that this poster says he wants to create turning BJInfo into a piracy site. Only I did it legally by getting authorization from every author, which wasn’t easy in some cases. The UN Declaration of Human Rights includes intellectual property rights. Anyone that doesn’t respect IP rights doesn’t respect human rights.
