Thanks for many clarifications.

The "base game" I was referring to is: 6 decks, S17, DAS and penetration at 4.5/6 with the use of the Sweet 16 index.

A 1-16 spread was used on one hand:

TC < 1 = $25

TC = 1 = $50

TC = 2 = $100

TC = 3 = $200

TC >= 4 = $400

*"For the Risk Adjusted Return I am comparing the average amount earned or lost per visit vs. how much the outcome of a visit can vary. It's an attempt to see how reliably one can expect the average amount as compared to how different the actual outcome visits can be. So the higher the average amount to the variation (standard deviation) in outcomes gives a higher index."*

This is interesting but why not used the well established DI and SCORE ?

I ran 300 million hands and got $56.70 with the settings.

One thing that could be causing the difference is the way true count is calculated. I divide the running count by the number of decks remaining. I assume the player can recognize and divide with 1/2 decks so I round to the nearest 1/2 deck and depending on where in the shoe, the divisor is either 6 decks remaining, 5.5, 5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1, and .5 deck although with 75% depth we never get that far. 1/2 deck is likely a pretty highly accurate divisor to recognize and divide with in terms of what can be done at the tables.

I tried rounding to the nearest full deck, so using 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and ran 300 million hands and I get $54.31.

I may try doing a ceiling round to the full deck and see how the result compares.

Another difference could be if insurance and insurance results are included in the total $ bet, and % EV that you have. I am assuming they would be.

I do include insurance in total $ bet and % won or lost.

Thanks,

Phil