note

"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...