16 v. 7 ; 16 v. 8

I had to pause when reading "Professional Blackjack" (P. 220) when Wong indicated the Dubner count original index numbers from the second edition of "Beat the Dealer" if cut in half would better coincide with his index numbers. I had to pause because Peter Griffin (P. 98 "Theory of Blackjack") stated he knew for a fact that the Dubner index of .1 for 16 vs 7 was in reality .2. Here are three top people in the field and none of them agree and the margin appears wide.

Reviewing Griffin-1 in "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic" by Epstein I notice that Griffin has not provided index numbers for 16 vs 7 or 16 vs 8. Griffin-3 (a.k.a. UAPC) provides index numbers for 16 vs 7 and 16 vs 8 of 18 and 20 respectively. Numbers that are seldom if ever reached.

One could purchase simulation software to get different index numbers but again it falls back on the algorythm. Not an important issus but something I am perplexed about. Any comments would be appreciated.

No, it does NOT " fall back on the algorithm" (spelling corrected)

You are referring to the algebraic approximation that was used long ago before high speed simulation became practical. That is how indices for basic Strategy Departure are computed.

You stated: " ... Dubner index of .1 for 16 vs 7 was in reality .2"

This is thoroughly meaningless.

Comments on countings of 7,8, and 9 go along with Wong's assessment of the differences. This may be so in how I guess Braun ran the computer calculations but a quick glance at Thorp's Ten Count ratios do not show the same disparity between current count systems and the numbers Griffin speaks of when refering to the first Dubner Count. I assume Wond asked Thorp how the simulations were run and that Thorp told him that 6,8, and 9's were left in the deck. But this disparity does not appear to show in his original Ten Count ration tables.

Is there someone who could run the 16 vs 7 and 16 vs 8 play on their sim software using the UAPC and tell me what index numbers one comes up with? I am just curious and any assistance would be greatly appreciated!!

The more sim software packages to run these numbers the better for comparison purposes. My thinking is that the UAPC numbers that I have will be higher than those generated by current simulation software?

Thank you for going through the trouble to explain this to me.

You meant the (very accurate) EXACT True Count.

I too get frustrated practicing endlessley at this game. I have recorded over 700 hours of 21 home play on six and double deck. My results are about 5 units per hour using various betting techniques, trying shuffle tracking and Ian's Ultimate Gambit techniques. Largest drawdown is about 500 units, average bank doubled in about 130 hours.