Top 40 indices

[laserjet]

I use approximately 40 indices for High low in pitch games. I am thinking of learning either Zen, UBZ2, or Halves. I think a good case could be made for any of these 3 counts. My questions are:
1. do the most important 40 indices change with the count system? (I'll guess little if any)
2. do the most important 40 indices change with penetration in the same count?
(I'll guess no)
3. do the most important 40 indices change with the number of decks? (I'll guess they might)

I've been thinking about these questions a lot the last few days, so any answers or thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Halves is the natural step up from hi lo.
Once you get past catch 22, fab 4 there is not a lot of difference in indices.

PS you already know most of halves including indices. Focus on counting 2 cards at once.

Don't waste time with this issue.

 

[zengrifter]

I use approximately 40 indices for High low in pitch games. I am thinking of learning either Zen, UBZ2, or Halves. I think a good case could be made for any of these 3 counts. My questions are:
1. do the most important 40 indices change with the count system? (I'll guess little if any)
2. do the most important 40 indices change with penetration in the same count?
(I'll guess no)
3. do the most important 40 indices change with the number of decks? (I'll guess they might)

No, no, and no.
If you are comfortable with TC and you really want to make the switch, consider mentor. zg

 

[ycming]

No, no, and no.
If you are comfortable with TC and you really want to make the switch, consider mentor. zg

Zen ? Thats the one am switching up to.

Ming

 

[zengrifter]

Zen ? Thats the one am switching up to.

Make sure its NOT the inferior ZEN "true edge" (1/4DTC). You want to learn either a 1DTC or 2DTC version ZEN. But I recommend Mentor. zg

 

[FLASH1296]

The power of your indices do NOT change with the count.

The best explication and illustration of this is found in the 6th ed. of The Theory of Blackjack by the late great Peter Griffin, Ph.D.
where there are two tables; the first gives the value of each of your indices (in thousandths of a percent) and another which displays the same,
but for an infinite deck, from which you can easily extrapolate to any number of decks.

I seriously suggest that you peruse it.

You will find that there are many indices that are worth so little that they are worth virtually nothing.

After all, take a moment and figure out what 0.001% of your Max bet is worth, not in cash, but in percentage of theoretical gain.
If you bet $5,000 and the hand in question has a gain for you of, lets say 3%, then your gain for using one of these weakling indices will
be 3% of $5, or all of a scintillating 15¢ [FIFTEEN CENTS.]

 

[laserjet]

Thank you BA and ZG. I went out to the library and picked up Theory of Blackjack, 6th edition. Very interesting stuff in it, things I've not seen anywhere else. I'll have to buy a copy for sure. My personal top 40 indices will need a few small revisions. A couple of these surprised me like 12v10 and 13v10. Not hitting these hands will certainly get a lot of attention.

 

[FLASH1296]

Standing on 12 or 13 vs. TEN

? ? ? ?

 

[zengrifter]

My personal top 40 indices will need a few small revisions. A couple of these surprised me like 12v10 and 13v10. Not hitting these hands will certainly get a lot of attention.

Take Theory of BJ back to library immediately. Learn Grifter-60 indices from ZGI. zg

 

[laserjet]

Sorry about that!!! On page 30 of the book it lists 12v10 and 13v10 as two of the more valuable indices to vary from basic strategy. Obviously Griffin meant in regard to surrender, probably early surrender. I play only pitch games and I almost never think about surrender situations.

 

[tthree]

Sorry about that!!! On page 30 of the book it lists 12v10 and 13v10 as two of the more valuable indices to vary from basic strategy. Obviously Griffin meant in regard to surrender, probably early surrender. I play only pitch games and I almost never think about surrender situations.

The situation you are referring to there are 6 remaining cards, 4 are fours and 2 are tens. It seems to be an example akin to thinking more than one move ahead in chess. Drawing one card only has the worst expectation of -0.6. Standing is favored over that with an expectation of -0.4667. But by drawing 2 cards exactly the expectation is best at -0.2. It is an example of how programs or the human mind have trouble discerning optimal strategy. The combinatorial programming is often overlooked by programmers and rarely is the remaining deck so easy to deduce the correct play.

 

[FLASH1296]

Ahhh in Single Deck.

 

[FLASH1296]

I do not think that SURRENDER is referenced on page 30

I urge you to look at the additional tables with figures for 4 and 6 decks.

See pages 229-230

 

[FLASH1296]

I do not think that SURRENDER is referenced on page 30

I urge you to look at the additional tables with figures for 4 and 6 decks.

See pages 229-230

 

[laserjet]

Griffin mentions on page 29 that the table assumes 10 to 49 cards remaining, approximating dealing 75% of the single deck. Professional Blackjack doesn't even list an index number for 12v10 (meaning the number would be greater than 20). So if this is a valuable deviation from basic strategy, my conclusion is he must be inferring surrender. He doesn't specifically mention any surrender though.

 

[tthree]

This is what Griffin is illustrating

6 cards remain, 4 fours and 2 tens (4444TT).
Match up: 13 v T
I) first card T: 2/6 you lose
II) first card 4: 4/6
.A) second card 4: 3/5
..i) third card is a T: 2/4
.B) second card T: 2/5

IF you stand you win when dealer busts if cards fall 4 then T (II then B) = 4/6*2/5 = 8/30 =.2667

IF you hit once you win if you draw a 4 and dealer draws a 4 and then a T (II then A then i) = 4/6*3/5*2/4 = 24/120 =.2

IF you draw twice you win if the cards fall 4 then 4 (II then A) = 4/6*3/5 = 12/30 = .4

If you draw exactly 2 cards (Rainman play of hitting 17 v T by drawing a second card) you win 40% of the time.
If you stand you win 26.67% of the time.
If you draw one card you win 20% of the time.

Griffin was showing how deciding the correct play is dependent on seeing past were standing dominates drawing one card to the possibilities opened by drawing more than 1 card.

 

[laserjet]

tthree, how did you figure out that was what Griffin had in mind? Any others in that chart have similar tricks? Hope you're feeling better now.

 

[tthree]

tthree, how did you figure out that was what Griffin had in mind? Any others in that chart have similar tricks? Hope you're feeling better now.

I read p. 31 carefully. The chart on page 30 shows all the opportunities that will exist whether we perceive them or not. The example in my previous post was an unperceived opportunity by the count and computer and likely the brain. But the opportunity was there. This is single deck. Linear decision models, such as count and indices, are going to miss many of these opportunities. A nonlinear system (multidimensional) will flag most of these opportunities but few people are willing to do the work to gather and process the information necessary to do nonlinear analysis of the remaining cards.

 

[laserjet]

Thank you tthree and flash. I obviously didn't read carefully the entire chapter. I wasn't expecting Griffin to throw something that wasn't practical to use. I wonder if any other gains (besides 13v10 and 12v10) could be isolated from page 30 that are likewise impractical. The reason I've been spending time on this was to generate my own Top 40 indices. By the way using pages 30, 229, and 230, I have found no difference in the top 20 for 4 and 6 decks. Single deck has only 1 difference in the top 20 from the others. No (practical) difference as a wise man said here recently. Thanks for patience.

 

[tthree]

Thank you tthree and flash. I obviously didn't read carefully the entire chapter. I wasn't expecting Griffin to throw something that wasn't practical to use. I wonder if any other gains (besides 13v10 and 12v10) could be isolated from page 30 that are likewise impractical. The reason I've been spending time on this was to generate my own Top 40 indices. By the way using pages 30, 229, and 230, I have found no difference in the top 20 for 4 and 6 decks. Single deck has only 1 difference in the top 20 from the others. No (practical) difference as a wise man said here recently. Thanks for patience.

I wouldn't worry about the gain that exists from deviating from BS but is not flagged by linear counting for your top 40 indices. Single deck is an odd duck where exact deck composition has a lot of correct plays that aren't predicted by linear counting. SD specialists track as many cards as they can for this reason. If you have the ability to gather and process the information your added gain is huge. Most don't take the trouble to realize this advantage.

The types of plays you will flag with your count will be close to the gain for 4 deck. Where the change looks ridiculous. You almost always play BS in 4 and 6 deck. In single deck, opportunities arise that aren't in these other games. Many of these opportunities will not be identified by your count. For SD the extreme TCs will have a much higher frequency of occurrence. This will make many of these plays within reach. But if you don't even have an index for the match up these plays are flagged with side counts and exact deck composition.

If you are going to memorize the entire list of 40 indices their order is a triviality. The book mentions that 1/1000% gain for not doubling 10 or 11 against a stiff is understated in SD because it doesn't consider drawing more than one card.