RPC surrender indices

bjcount

Well-Known Member
After reading through all the old posts, other then the zen indices which I believe I listed below, I couldn't find any other accurate account of all index values for surrender play.
After using just a few of the more common ones in my own play, I want to expand my list. Using RPC w/ 1/2dtc are the index values I plan to use listed below accurate?
Would you include all the surrender values in your play or would you just stick to the more common few.
For LS, 6d, das, s17 :
7,7 v T TC=>2
7,7v 9 TC=>4
8,8 v T TC=>2
14 v T TC=>2
14 v 9 TC=>5
15 v A TC=>1
15 v T TC=>-1
15 v 9 TC=>2
15 v 8 TC=>6
16 v A TC=>-1
16 v T TC=>-3
16 v 9 TC=>0
16 v 8 TC=>7

BJC
 
bjcount said:
After reading through all the old posts, other then the zen indices which I believe I listed below, I couldn't find any other accurate account of all index values for surrender play.
After using just a few of the more common ones in my own play, I want to expand my list. Using RPC w/ 1/2dtc are the index values I plan to use listed below accurate?
Would you include all the surrender values in your play or would you just stick to the more common few.
For LS, 6d, das, s17 :
7,7 v T TC=>2
7,7v 9 TC=>4
8,8 v T TC=>2
14 v T TC=>2
14 v 9 TC=>5
15 v A TC=>1
15 v T TC=>-1
15 v 9 TC=>2
15 v 8 TC=>6
16 v A TC=>-1
16 v T TC=>-3
16 v 9 TC=>0
16 v 8 TC=>7

BJC
Being the 7,7 indices are present I suspect these are single deck indices. The ones that are worthwhile are: 16 vs. 8-A, 15 vs. 9-A, 14 vs. 9-A, and 8,8 vs. 10.
 

bjcount

Well-Known Member
Automatic Monkey said:
Being the 7,7 indices are present I suspect these are single deck indices. The ones that are worthwhile are: 16 vs. 8-A, 15 vs. 9-A, 14 vs. 9-A, and 8,8 vs. 10.
Thanks for the response AM.
Do you have one for the 14vA?
Since there are no single decks that I know of near NYC region, I stick with 6d & 8d, so I'll take the 7s out of my arsenal for those games.
 
From the Mobile MonkeyLab

Here are some risk-averse surrender indices I derived with a sim. 6D, S17, DAS, LS

16 vs. 8: +8
16 vs. 9: +1
16 vs. A: -2
15 vs. 9: +3
15 vs. 10: 0
15 vs. A: +2
14 vs. 9: +5
14 vs. 10: +2
14 vs. A: +5
13 vs. 10: +6
8,8 vs. 10: +1

And being you seem really interested in playing RPC with half-deck resolution, here are the rest of the indices-

12 vs. 2: +3
12 vs. 3: +2
12 vs. 4: +1
12 vs. 5: -1
12 vs. 6: -1
13 vs. 2: 0
13 vs. 3: -1
16 vs. 9: +5
16 vs. 10: 0
15 vs. 10: +4

DD 11 vs. A: +2
DD 10 vs. 10: +6
DD 10 vs. A: +4
DD 9 vs. 2: +1
DD 9 vs. 7: +6
DD 8 vs. 5: +5
DD 8 vs. 6: +3

DD A8 vs. 5: +2
DD A8 vs. 6: +1

Split 10,10 vs. 5: +5
Split 10,10 vs. 6: +5
 

bjcount

Well-Known Member
Automatic Monkey said:
Here are some risk-averse surrender indices I derived with a sim. 6D, S17, DAS, LS

16 vs. 8: +8
16 vs. 9: +1
16 vs. A: -2
15 vs. 9: +3
15 vs. 10: 0
15 vs. A: +2
14 vs. 9: +5
14 vs. 10: +2
14 vs. A: +5
13 vs. 10: +6
8,8 vs. 10: +1

And being you seem really interested in playing RPC with half-deck resolution, here are the rest of the indices-

12 vs. 2: +3
12 vs. 3: +2
12 vs. 4: +1
12 vs. 5: -1
12 vs. 6: -1
13 vs. 2: 0
13 vs. 3: -1
16 vs. 9: +5
16 vs. 10: 0
15 vs. 10: +4

DD 11 vs. A: +2
DD 10 vs. 10: +6
DD 10 vs. A: +4
DD 9 vs. 2: +1
DD 9 vs. 7: +6
DD 8 vs. 5: +5
DD 8 vs. 6: +3

DD A8 vs. 5: +2
DD A8 vs. 6: +1

Split 10,10 vs. 5: +5
Split 10,10 vs. 6: +5
Thanks AM for all the info...I greatly appreciate it.

I have 80+ indices down pat at 100% recall..... now you threw me a curve ball.
Can we please discuss each set above for a minute?
The set from 12v2 thru 15v10, these are not surrender plays but stand at TC=> #, most of these are the same indices as I use while just a few are higher. Are these due to Risk Adverse?:
12 vs. 2: +3
12 vs. 3: +2
12 vs. 4: +1
12 vs. 5: -1
12 vs. 6: -1
13 vs. 2: 0
13 vs. 3: -1
16 vs. 9: +5
16 vs. 10: 0
15 vs. 10: +4

This set has some much higher #'s, (I Use #) is that also due to RA? I can see the higher numbers saving me many lost DD considering +5 and up TC's are once a night plays!
DD 11 vs. A: +2 (-1)
DD 10 vs. 10: +6 (4)
DD 10 vs. A: +4 (3)
DD 9 vs. 2: +1 same
DD 9 vs. 7: +6 (3)
DD 8 vs. 5: +5 (3)
DD 8 vs. 6: +3 same
DD A8 vs. 5: +2 (1)
DD A8 vs. 6: +1 (0)


Now if we have a surrender hand 15 v10 TC=>0 how can we have a stand at 15 v 10 TC=>4 unless we are playing no surrender and standing at 4? Same with 16v9?
I disregard the 10 splits to avoid undue heat from the players and pit even though I use them in practice. Besides Mo-Sun wont let you split them and playing at MGM HL is so quiet at times, the pit hangs from the side of the tables in boredom watching every move.

Thank you again... I added the surrenders indices to my CVBJ tables, while I consider changing the DD indices. I think in 2 weeks I'll have the surrender indices down pat. Got anymore oddballs like 4,4 splits, right now I only hit them at all times?
 
Last edited:
You've got the right idea. The hit/stand indices are rounded, and calculated specific to this game so they might deviate slightly from what Revere came up with, but not enough to make a difference. Indices don't have to be precise.

The DD indices are higher for exactly that reason- risk aversion. You never want to put an additional big bet on the table for an extra 0.1% advantage. So you are waiting until the additional advantage due to the doubling is 1-2%, that's why the number is higher.

The oddball plays just are not worth it, not worth it at all. They literally earn you a dollar a night.
 

bjcount

Well-Known Member
Automatic Monkey said:
You've got the right idea. The hit/stand indices are rounded, and calculated specific to this game so they might deviate slightly from what Revere came up with, but not enough to make a difference. Indices don't have to be precise.

The DD indices are higher for exactly that reason- risk aversion. You never want to put an additional big bet on the table for an extra 0.1% advantage. So you are waiting until the additional advantage due to the doubling is 1-2%, that's why the number is higher.

The oddball plays just are not worth it, not worth it at all. They literally earn you a dollar a night.
After sleeping on those higher DD indices, I have to agree that the risk is not worth the reward at the lower indices. I'll just bump up my indices as you suggested on the DD hands and forget about the oddball plays. I know I've just been slaughtered lately with losing 10/11 DD's so this little adjustment may solve that problem.
Thanks again for your assistance.
BJC
 
Top