Hi-Lo Index generation problems with CVData

Hi. I'm trying to generate the indexes for the Hi-Lo as they appear in Stanford Wong's Professional Blackjack I've just received. My problem is that the index data generated with CVData differs from the ones in the book.
I'm using CVData entering the exact parameters as defined in the Benchmark Rules in the book. An example follows: Generating the index with CVIndex for the whole line of Table 8, Hard Standing, S17, Player hand=hard 15. Page 43. The book says -5 -6 -7 -7 -9 10 10 etc. I get one unit differences in every of them: -6 -7 -7 -10 11 11 etc. Trying to generate other numbers gives the same kind of errors. I use the Accurate and Beat to Death (or whatever) settings with the same results. I've noticed that between the included strategies in CVData, the 94-Hi Lo has the book numbers, but the
Complete Hi Lo has the same numbers I'm getting from the generator. What I'm doing wrong?. Is Wong's book wrong?. I don't think so. The program?. Maybe Wong used fewer rounds to generate the numbers, as computers where slower when this book was published.
Please, someone enlighten me ;-)
Thank you very much.

ProBJ was written almost 30 years ago. I don't know what technique was used, but BCA uses a technique that is very quick but quite not as accurate. For Hit/Stand indexes, CVData uses a combination of combinatorial analysis and simulation with the correct representation of all hands of all lengths and it removes dealer and player cards. (This is unusual for hit/stand index generation.) Having said that, ProBJ indexes are still very good.

I've noticed that between the included strategies in CVData, the 94-Hi Lo has the book numbers, but the Complete Hi Lo has the same numbers I'm getting from the generator.

Negative indexes in the 1994 version of ProBJ and the 1981 and earlier versions of ProBJ differ by 1. See ProBJ page 254. Note that the TC calculation settings and penetration change indexes. This is expanded in CVData V3 where you can define exactly how you personally calculate the TC using different multipliers or divisors for up to 24 sections of the shoe.

Thank you very much, Norm, for this answers. This is what I was thinking. The book says the simulations were run by BCA that is probably totally outdated by today standards and power of computation. Just got curious about the results differing in one unit each from the ones in the book.
Thanks again.