On pages 112 and 113 of MDBJ, the tc indices are given as follows: Hit 12 vs 4 at 0 or less, Do not double 9 vs 2 at 0 or less, Do not soft double A4 vs 4 at 0 or less, Do not soft double A3 vs 4 at +1 or less, Do not soft double A2 vs 4 at +2 or less,Do not split 9,9 vs 2 at 0 or less, Do not split 6,6 vs 2 at 0 or less, Do not split 6,6 vs 3 at +1 or less, Do not split 2,2 vs 3 at +3 or less. I'm uncertain if my interpretation of these strategy index related decisions is correct. Someone please help!
Uston APC Indices
- Thread starter Simeon
- Start date
Abraham de Moivre
Well-Known Member
Sounds okay.
Don't see anything really wrong with your indexes. Get the "Catch 22" down (The Illustrious 18 + 4 other plays) and if you play with surrender the "Fab 4" is a must. This is where the profits are, the rest is just fluff.
On your examples, 12 vs 4 is the only one that is going to be worth much money.
Splitting and soft double indexes are not worth much because of the rarity that the hand occurs. You could also just say NEVER soft double A4 vs 4 and A2 vs 5 -- and you will probably do just as well for the first million or so hands you play.
Don't see anything really wrong with your indexes. Get the "Catch 22" down (The Illustrious 18 + 4 other plays) and if you play with surrender the "Fab 4" is a must. This is where the profits are, the rest is just fluff.
On your examples, 12 vs 4 is the only one that is going to be worth much money.
Splitting and soft double indexes are not worth much because of the rarity that the hand occurs. You could also just say NEVER soft double A4 vs 4 and A2 vs 5 -- and you will probably do just as well for the first million or so hands you play.
are those accurate
Not sure how old MDBJ is but anyone know if the indices would be accurate?
I would generate the indices with software just to be sure.
Believe it or not, I simmed Stanford's Basic Hi-Lo indices that are supposed to be old and out-of-date alongside CVDATA's generated indices for Basic Hi-LO and Stanford came out a winner by like a dollar more an hour. 250 million rounds were used in the simulation.
Not sure how old MDBJ is but anyone know if the indices would be accurate?
I would generate the indices with software just to be sure.
Believe it or not, I simmed Stanford's Basic Hi-Lo indices that are supposed to be old and out-of-date alongside CVDATA's generated indices for Basic Hi-LO and Stanford came out a winner by like a dollar more an hour. 250 million rounds were used in the simulation.
Abraham de Moivre
Well-Known Member
Doesn't sound right
Might re-check your sim to make sure you are doing an apple to apple comparison. Unless on set of numbers is really way off, there shouldn't be that big of a difference.
Might re-check your sim to make sure you are doing an apple to apple comparison. Unless on set of numbers is really way off, there shouldn't be that big of a difference.
yep
you know too much
Hands Hands Dollars/Hour Dollars/Hour Units Advantage Advantage Advantage Std. Dev. Std. Dev. Std. Dev. Std. Dev.
Seat Played Skipped Action WinRate W/L TBA% IBA% SE Hand Hour 100 Shoe DI
1 3.9701e7 2.1131e8 $1,354.60 $12.85 1,285,334 0.949 1.096 .018 5.30 53.0 53.0 12.0 6.27
2 3.9771e7 2.1131e8 $1,361.41 $13.36 1,336,363 0.982 1.139 .018 5.33 53.3 53.3 12.0 6.48
3 2.5699e8 $2,838.28 ($13.11) -1,311,032 -0.462 -0.524 .007 1.16 11.6 11.6 6.7 0.00
4
You are right. Here is my sloppy posting of the results.
Seat 1 was Basic Hi-Lo created by CVDATa
Seat 2 was Wong's basic Hi-Lo
I have trouble posting things from an html file.
you know too much
Hands Hands Dollars/Hour Dollars/Hour Units Advantage Advantage Advantage Std. Dev. Std. Dev. Std. Dev. Std. Dev.
Seat Played Skipped Action WinRate W/L TBA% IBA% SE Hand Hour 100 Shoe DI
1 3.9701e7 2.1131e8 $1,354.60 $12.85 1,285,334 0.949 1.096 .018 5.30 53.0 53.0 12.0 6.27
2 3.9771e7 2.1131e8 $1,361.41 $13.36 1,336,363 0.982 1.139 .018 5.33 53.3 53.3 12.0 6.48
3 2.5699e8 $2,838.28 ($13.11) -1,311,032 -0.462 -0.524 .007 1.16 11.6 11.6 6.7 0.00
4
You are right. Here is my sloppy posting of the results.
Seat 1 was Basic Hi-Lo created by CVDATa
Seat 2 was Wong's basic Hi-Lo
I have trouble posting things from an html file.
BlackJackHack
Well-Known Member
I believe your interpretations are correct. However....
I have generated my own indices for Uston APC using SBA, and have discovered that some of the indices in MDBJ (written circa 1980?) are wrong.
For example, my indices show that (if DAS is allowed) you should split 2,2 v 3 at -6 or higher, and you should split 6,6 v 3 at -4 or higher (with very slight variations depending on the # of decks). These are basic strategy plays, so the index must be 0 or lower.
I have generated my own indices for Uston APC using SBA, and have discovered that some of the indices in MDBJ (written circa 1980?) are wrong.
For example, my indices show that (if DAS is allowed) you should split 2,2 v 3 at -6 or higher, and you should split 6,6 v 3 at -4 or higher (with very slight variations depending on the # of decks). These are basic strategy plays, so the index must be 0 or lower.