Floating Indexes
Thanks for both the comments from both of you.
While I would consider learning a few penetration-based indexes for a balanced count, I agree with AZBL that retrieving those numbers could use up concentration that there would be better uses for. However, Snyder's rounding ends up uses indexes that are 'off' by as much as 2 from what a Wong HiLo counter has (divide by 2 then round to an even number), so there is the possibility for improvement if the reasons for that change not hurting results could be turned to our advantage. My hope was mostly that an unbalanced count could have a 'built-in' exploitation of a penetration effect on indexes. Another possibility is that somebody who exclusively back-counts would have a different average penetration level when they bet, and could have different indexes in a few cases.
My assumption would be that the further an index is from zero the greater the possible effect, and that an index at zero would not show any penetration effect. Of course the floating advantage improving expectation at a count of zero suggests I'm maybe wrong. With my assumption interesting indexes would be 15 v 10, 10 v 10, 10 v A, 16 v 9, 12 v 2. I ignore the 10 splits.
I realize that looking for increased advantage from playing efficiency is 'unfashionable', and probably for good reason. But, until you look you can't know whether there is an advantage to be gained that is worth the mindshare it will occupy.