system indicies

[byplayaa]

Hey, I was looking at the system indicies for the high low method in this site at http://www.cardcounter.com/. On this site, they state that for the 6D game, they are:

"-1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1"

6D, DOA
DAS, S17

Insurance 3
9 V. 2 1
9 V. 7 4
10 V. A 4
10 V. T 4
11 V. A 2
12 V. 2 4
12 V. 3 2
12 V. 4 0
12 V. 5 -1
12 V. 6 -1
13 V. 2 0
13 V. 3 -2
15 V. T 5
16 V. 9 5
16 V. T 1
T-T V. 5 5
T-T V. 6 5

These however differ from the ones listed at the Gamemaster blackjack school, lessons 14 and 15 at (Dead link: http://www.blackjack-school.com/indexa.shtml)

Do you know which ones are correct? Is gamemaster just wrong?

Thanks

 

[Anon]

There's more to it.

(No, I haven't looked.)
Are there any differences greater than one?
When there is a difference, is it always the same system that is the higher?
Is the meaning of the change indices indicated as GT or GTE?
Remember that the raw indices derived, by whatever technique, are decmalized. They are converted to integers by truncation, flooring or rounding.

 

[Anon]

In addition

Those who compute indices responsibly do so based upon card composition of the hard hitting and doubling totals. (Obviously, pair and [two card] soft totals are already defined.) Before packaging departure tables for public consumption, system peddlers homogonize the results, blending the several composition indices together, and presenting the two, three or (more commonly) four decimalized indices as one integer value. For shoe games, for decisions other than surrender, this is fine.

For single deck, just as there are multiple correct basic strategy decisions based upon hand composition, there are useably different departure decisions based upon hand composition. And the competant single deck player also observes densities of ranks crucial in common decisions, making departures that seem like nonsense to the surveillance workers trained in High-Low.

Composition dependence for surrender is profound, even for six deck play. When the Canadian psychology professor passing himself off as a gambling expert called Lance Humble bought the single deck decision indices for the Stepine count from Julian Braun, which he homogenized and peddled as HiOpt2, he was unable to condense the surrender indices which are idiosyncratic in the extreme. These he passed along in their raw form to his $200 a crack system customers.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Don't agree with that completely

It's true that composition dependent does have some significant value in a SD game and maybe even in DD less frequently. But in 6D or 8D? No I don't buy it- the difference in playing efficiency between something like HO2 and perfect playing strategy isn't large enough to allow it, in a shoe game. You're right that the surrender indexes are very powerful and they do make the difference between LSR being of marginal value to a Basic Strategy player to very valuable to a counter especially an ace-neutral one. Nonetheless the only ones I know of that could be considered comp-dependent are 8,8 and 7,7 vs. X, and those are really more like split indexes than comp-dependent.

 

[Anon]

Q: How many decks must be shuffled together to make surrender of 78 v T correct basic strategy?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

That comp-dep index not worth the time it takes to calculate it

 

[Anon]

Okay. Basic strategy just isn't worth knowing.

 

[The Mayor]

your question is not basic strategy...

In basic strategy, one gives a specific game, then for that game all proper non-composition-dependent plays are specified.

Your question would require a separate sim for each combination of decks and rules, to determine a play in a composition dependent setting. This is a very challenging undertaking to ask this community to do, with no obvious payoff for completing the study.

Best,

--Mayor