How I estimated uncertain hole card indexes...

Again I will omit my sim output, to avoid the flack from some software authors.

I will just discuss hit/stand indexes also.

I composed decks until I got into compositions where the compostion prediction would go past the recomendation to stand, to where still higher counts recomended hitting. I used this to set a boundary to the confidence that the hole card prediction has to be. That is what I did for ten hole card predictions, with similar for the non ten predictions. Wong did this for Winning Without Counting, but for more normal decks. Then I used this count to estimate a linear range of how the hole card prediction raises or lowers the index.

The objection raised by ETF is one that is entirely bogus. Any prediction accuracy above or below 4/13, for predicting a ten, containes useful information. If below you are actually getting a non-ten prediction. This was addressed long ago in regard to Warps, when a player back in 1982 pointed out that warp bends are reversed when a dealer would peak by bubbling the cards, rather than lifting themm from the rear. 4/13 is the null prediction for tens. Indexes move still at that range because of the difference between a one card estimate and a composition estimate.

And the math is very much that used in QM. Notice how with higher hole card prediction accuracys you move to essentially - and + infinity counting indexes, because of the hole card info. That is known in QM as renormalization.

those 2 ranges of always hit and always stand. Only when you can show regions, where counting or the hole card play supercede the two combined, can you show definitely that a region exists where the two approaches show added information. Think of when the count can be so low that you always hit, no matter what the hole card, or when the hole card is definite enough to always hit.

The hole card probability to change basic strategy is mapped against where the count would make the same play. You are then equating the hole card information to the main count the same way you use a side count, by making the lack or excess of that side tracked card equal to having X number of true count points.

This existence of having two always hit regions, when combining uncertainties of two types of playing prediction, is precisely the same as that found in quantum electrodynamics for having renormalizable infinities as a necessary component of showing the effects of an electrical interaction as that of a definite carrier (electron) or sum over histories of virtual particles.

I will be a little cryptic but I will leave it at that unless some discussion starts!