Conditions: 6-deck, H17, DAC, DAS, Surrender available
With the above conditions, my basic strategy chart says that on a player 11 v. dealer A I should double. However, the I18 says to double if the TC is +1 or greater. Is the I18 based on an S17 chart? Is there an ammendment for the H17 chart? Which should I follow. With a fresh shoe, if I am dealt an 11 and the dealer upcard is an A, what should I do?
Thanks!!
CVBJ says double 11 vs A at TC of +1 also...
That is the index I use for both H17/S17...
"Conditions: 6-deck, H17, DAC [DOA], DAS, Surrender available."
OK.
"With the above conditions, my basic strategy chart says that on a player 11 v. dealer A I should double."
Correct.
"However, the I18 says to double if the TC is +1 or greater."
No, not for h17. See BJA3, p. 213. The footnote to Table 10.1 clearly states: "Where two indices are shown, the second is for h17." And, the entry for 11 v. Ace is "+1/-1," which means +1 for s17, but -1 for h17, which makes sense, given what the BS is.
"Is the I18 based on an S17 chart? Is there an ammendment for the H17 chart?"
See above. I18 charts all have dual entries for the plays that change because of h17.
"Which should I follow. With a fresh shoe, if I am dealt an 11 and the dealer upcard is an A, what should I do?"
Double.
Don
"CVBJ says double 11 vs A at TC of +1 also..."
Not for h17. Can't be.
"That is the index I use for both H17/S17..."
Then, you've been making a mistake.
Don
that I have been making a mistake, but I find it easier to use the same set of indices and the loss is not huge.
But CVBJ definitely has the index I gave.
If anyone has it, click options, then basic playing strategy, then click the H17 option and select hi-lo full-indices. Click "display tables" and look at the hard double-down table. 11 vs A is +1 to double...
rats. Just checked again. The difference is between "94 basic hi lo" and "hi-lo complete indices". 94 basic has +1. full hi-lo has the index at zero. Also full hi-lo has the index at 0 for H17, +1 for S17.
So to recap the confusing stuff above.
full hi-lo says double 11 vs A at 0 for H17 games, at +1 for S17. I have used +1 for both although I do my best to play S17 and accomplish this most of the time...
Not quite sure what the 94 hi-lo is, but I don't ever use it in CVBJ so I'm not losing sleep over it...
Thanks for the answers. I obtained a generic I18 listing which I am sure was meant for S17 games. I have "Blackjack Attack" on order, so I will be sure and study all the basic variances. Thanks.
"full hi-lo says double 11 vs A at 0 for H17 games, at +1 for S17. I have used +1 for both although I do my best to play S17 and accomplish this most of the time..."
The most recent and accurate work in index generation and use, by the most respected authorities in the field, points to using flooring, rather than truncating or rounding, for TC indices.
Page 213 of BJA3 has the floored (and, therefore, most accurate) indices for the play in question, and the floored doubling index for 11 v. Ace is -1.
You, of course, are free to use any index you please.
I'm just telling our poster what the correct, and most accurate, one is for the play in question. Note that, no matter what your holding is to total 11, doubling is clearly superior to hitting, by as much as a full one or two percent for 6-deck, h17. Using zero as the index, when the actual cards comprising 11 v. Ace most always give a RC of zero, in Hi-Lo, would imply that the play is a toss-up when the count is zero. In fact, that simply is untrue, and that's why -1 is the superior index.
Don
"You, of course, are free to use any index you please. "
"I'm just telling our poster what the correct, and most accurate, one is for the play in question. Note that, no matter what your holding is to total 11, doubling is clearly superior to hitting, by as much as a full one or two percent for 6-deck, h17. Using zero as the index, when the actual cards comprising 11 v. Ace most always give a RC of zero, in Hi-Lo, would imply that the play is a toss-up when the count is zero. In fact, that simply is untrue, and that's why -1 is the superior index. "
This wasn't an attempt at arguing... It is more an issue of "accepted/published standards."
I simply use what was published when I first learned this hi-lo stuff for myself, namely PBJ. And my current "reference" is CVBJ, where Norm has included the same "published indices" from the actual developers of the included counting systems.
I think this is just another confusing problem. Note that I was quoting "hi-lo complete indices" which I hope everyone would realize comes from Wong's book. I assume (based on previous comments) that this is also Norm's approach to including counting systems in CVBJ as well. Fortunately, this is not exactly a frequent occurrence (11 vs A, where the difference between TC of -1 or TC of 0 really impacts EV. I'm personally not worried about what happens at -1. It is those +4 hands where I care about the results.. :)
But in any case, it seems (to this humble author anyway) that the correct index for general discussions about Hi-Lo is the index that is published in the defining system book. Even though I personally use a couple of risk-averse indices myself, but I don't quote those on public fora without specifically qualifying them as such. Otherwise there is plenty of room for argument about a specific index, depending on whether it comes from Arnold's hi-lo lite, or the hilo-98, or the hilo-bja3 or the original hilo-pbj. At least adding the initials to the end reduces the confusion somewhat. Maybe if Stanford would do a new PBJ, and publish floored indices (assuming they are better) then the confusion would vanish...
> I simply use what was published when I first learned this hi-lo stuff for myself ..
I first started using 'Blackjack Your Way to Riches.' I love the book, but I no longer rely on it as a technical manual.
> Maybe if Stanford would do a new PBJ, and publish floored indices (assuming they are better) then the confusion would vanish
Respectfully, you seem to be the one confused. Here is a tip, don't wait for Wong, the work has been done. It's in BJA3 -H17 and all.
When a "term" is defined by a publication, then in reality, that ought to be the "definition" of that term, would you not agree? What if you go out and buy a new car with a 4 liter v6 engine, but it won't pull the hat off of your head. And upon further investigation, discover that the 4.0 liter designation now includes intake manifold volume, exhaust manifold volume, etc, and not just piston swept area + combustion chamber. Would that be confusing?
Of course it would.
In the case of Hi-Lo, it is much ado about nothing. I could run a sim to see what the overall EV impact is when using -1 instead of 0 or +1. But I already have a pretty good idea. "not much". When discussing something in an open fora, using the well-known definition appears (to me, anyway) to make more sense from a communication stand-point. The "online blackjack school" gives +1 for the hi-lo 11 vs A double index. Doesn't it seem a bit confusing to use a number that is contrary to what has become pretty well-known?
Note that I don't believe there is a thing wrong with -1. It is probably a better number as I don't believe Don produces bogus data. But it would be better to call that "The DS indices for Hi-Lo" or something similar as otherwise everytime a -1 index is mentioned, someone is going to say "but my PBJ has +1, did you get the sign wrong or is there a typo in the book?"
That was my point. 802.11g is a standard. A very precise standard. It doesn't just mean "wireless" but is much more specific, so that when we talk about that flavor of wireless, there is absolutely no confusion about what is specifically being discussed...
> When a "term" is defined by a publication, then in reality, that ought to be the "definition" of that term, would you not agree?
No; not if in May 2005 that definition is found to be wanting.
The answer you gave was clearly wantng, and three posts later, you are still trying to justify it.
This string is headed for the Twilight Zone. I'm getting off at the next stop.
Sun Runner,
Just don't get off at Willoughby!
in other words. communication is impossible. Because in your world, 98.6 is one temperature, while in mine it is another entirely. And when I rely on the actual "system description" that isn't good enough, I need to rely on several _different_ indices for the same play, and somehow communicate to someone that I am really talking about Hi-Lo, but not the Hi-Lo from Thorp, or the Hi-Lo from Wong, but yet another set of indices (whether the newer ones are better or not is really not the issue).
How can one communicate without a common definition of terms? My framitz is getstaken un passant, dammitgertin strobe displacement...
Get the point?
When someone talks about Arnold's Hi-lo indices, they _always_ use a term like "snyder's hi-lo" or "hi-lo lite" which makes it clear. But they don't say "hi-lo".
And I should keep trying to justify consistency?
deja vu all over...
I assume you won't be using CVBJ, or CVCX or CVData, nor any of the published SIM data from those, since they all have the _wrong_ indices for hi-lo, according to this discussion?
Standards is the name, adhering is the game...
... you suck me in everytime. Have we seen Rod Serling yet? Man, I'm pathetic.
> Standards is the name, adhering is the game ...
Agreed.
For me and my house, the BS charts and index tables in Blackjack Attack III are the standard. If I'm wrong, I trust someone with standing will let me know.
If I find a differential in Wong's PBJ, '94 HiLo' CV, Dubner, Braun, Revere .. today .. I'll defer to BJA3 for the technical stuff.
They are all 'published' if that's your measuring stick, so advise away. I'm sure someone somewhere published something at sometime that will back you up.
BTW, Theo's best answer was -1.
Your next post will be post #6 trying to justify +1.
Have at it.
I didn't try to "justify" anything. I simply answered a question on the index, and then stated where it came from, citing PBJ and then CVBJ/CVCX.
Can it be any simpler than that?
Apparently not simple enough.
Feel free to quote any number you want. -1 is most likely the best. But it is _not_ the "hi-lo index for 11 vs A". That distinction goes to the indices actually published by the system developer.
Again, I notice you won't say Norm is wrong to include +1 in CVCX/CVData/CVBJ. I think you simply like to argue...
You may have the last word, I've made my reasoning as clear as possible.. That "the blackjack school", "qfit suite developer", Shackleford, etc, all seem to quote the same index makes this at least a reasonable point of view. I'm hardly "alone"...
caio
> Again, I notice you won't say Norm is wrong to include +1 in CVCX/CVData/CVBJ.
This is important to you, for me to say Norm is wrong?
Norm clearly states what indices he uses in CVBJ and who developed them, so, no, I guess he's not.
When your answer was corrected concerning H17 you spun the string off on some "accepted/published standard" tangent while making it plain that you yourself was confused about the very standard you were relying on.
And now, it seems to be Norm's fault you gave an inferior answer?
But what the hell, I use zero in all instances for that play myself. I just don't quote it as gospel nor get all hot and bothered when I've been found to be in error. It happens to frequently.
Rod Serling just flew by, the right side of the Universe is coming in to view, so I really am bailing out.
Have a nice weekend.
Did I not say _specifically_ where I got the indices from? Did I say they were wrong? Did I say they were right? Or did I just say "these are the published Hi-Lo indices, pulled right out of CVBJ?"
I _really_ don't get your point. I don't get Don's point of "you are wrong" once again. I have no doubt his index is better. I see no reason he would make a false statement. But the "you are wrong" is wrong. Because when I gave the hi-lo indices for H17 and S17, those are _clearly_ not wrong. Because they are _the_ indices that are given everywhere I have seen with the exception of BJA3. Does that make them wrong? In some strange Alice-through-the-looking-glass world, perhaps. Don's might be better, but I don't see how Wong's is _wrong_.
I didn't give "an inferior answer". I gave the _published and accepted_ answer. I didn't quote a "personal index number" as you are describing. I quoted the number from PBJ/CVCX/etc. I didn't get "all hot and bothered". I just responded to what appears to be a bit of trolling...
Perhaps you can enlighten me about the _real_ issue here? I suspect it has nothing to do with 11 vs A, personally...
you're being just plain foolish ... and pig-headed to boot. Of course there are mistakes in books. I've been proofreading BJ books for 30 years, including my own, and I haven't come across one yet that isn't FILLED with errors -- some, obviously, worse than others.
Wong's surrender index of 0 for 8,8 v. 10 has been wrong since day one. What's more, he knows it's wrong. He simply never bothered to change it. It's either +1 or +2, depending on whether or not DAS is permitted.
There are no "official" indexes for Hi-Lo, just because they appear in Wong's, or anyone else's book. There are Dubner's Hi-Lo indexes, and Thorp's, and Braun's, and Wong's (who, in his own book, mentions that where his indexes differ from Braun, there's no reason for us to trust his numbers over Braun's!) and anyone else's who cares to generate them.
With today's simulation technology, we have the ability to generate indexes that are more precise or accurate than any that have come before. You may quote any author you please; no one has a monopoly on generating Hi-Lo indexes. You may also use any index you please. Just don't be naive and argumentative for the sport of it. Ask Wong personally, on this board, if he believes that the values published in his book are THE Hi-Lo indexes, or the "definitive," "official" version (there is no such thing). I'll be flabbergasted if he replies in the affirmative.
Now, can you do us all a favor and give this a rest? That is, after you have the last word and respond within the next ten minutes with more of your usual foolishness.
Don
I'll just let your last cut at foolishness stand...
foolish? pig-headed?
Nice form of debate, as usual.
Next do you attempt to get me kicked out here, as on AP.com?
Be my guest.
bye..
