I18 question:

... who are making an attempt to follow any of this, I'll try to be brief. This explanation is for everyone other than SSR. I've long since given up trying to explain anything at all to him.

First, a point of clarification, lest you think that SSR was "kicked out" of ap.com. That simply isn't true. Rather, after repeated warnings, by the site moderator, to stop cluttering the board with what amounted to excessive and incredibly long-winded posts, he was asked to "tone down" his act. When he refused, his posts were put on "bypass moderation," which meant that they had to be approved by the moderator before they would automatically go through to the board. Apparently, SSR took umbrage at this, and so he voluntarily left the site.

On ap.com, bypass moderation is a kind of "purgatory," or intermediate step to actually "barring" an individual, which rarely, if ever, happens. I believe that, not too long ago, SW did, in fact, bar someone from one of your non-gambling pages -- also for being argumentative and disruptive to an alarming degree.

Finally, to discuss a little blackjack (!), it should be noted that in my own book, BJA2, the Hi-Lo index for doubling 11 v. Ace in a multi-deck h17 game was originally 0. It agrees with Wong's 4-deck index in PBJ, because those indices were truncated, not floored. Without getting into a long-winded explanation, most blackjack researchers (Norm Wattenberger, Cacarulo, Zenfighter, Karel Janecek, and I) now agree that flooring is the superior approach to index generation and use. So, for BJA3, we floored all indexes, and this one turned out to be -1.

It's easy to see why. The precise value is probably something like -0.3 or -0.4. Rounded or truncated, that value becomes 0. But floored, it becomes -1. Simple as can be.

The point that I was trying to explain -- without success, as usual -- to SSR was that there is neither one, definitive, "official," set of Hi-Lo indexes, nor is there one, official manner in which to calculate them. Different authors -- or, the same author, with different approaches (Wong changed his approach to negative index values for the 1994 edition of PBJ) -- can and will come up with different indexes. And, of course, should an author make an error in the generation of an index, we should be quick to point it out (as I did long ago with surrendering 8,8 v. 10), rather than blindly accept the ensemble of indexes as "the Gospel." I should note that Uston's MDB, featuring his UAPC, is replete with typos and errors in the indexes. There must be 6-8 mistakes, if not more. So, if anyone out there is using them blindly, as the "official" version, I've got some bad news for you! :-)

Hope this helps most of you. I've given up trying to help SSR. :-)

Don

As much as I hate to get involved in this thread, I am compelled to say

I agree with Don about the indices

I didn�t want to post anything, because I thought the thread was dying out, and I didn�t want to prolong it.

But like a bad scary flick where the bad guy keeps dying, but comes back in the next reel, this thread is going on and on, and on and on.

I like SSR's "long winded" posts and have learned a lot from him.

"First, a point of clarification, lest you think that SSR was "kicked out" of ap.com. That simply isn't true. Rather, after repeated warnings, by the site moderator, to stop cluttering the board with what amounted to excessive and incredibly long-winded posts, he was asked to "tone down" his act. When he refused, his posts were put on "bypass moderation," which meant that they had to be approved by the moderator before they would automatically go through to the board. Apparently, SSR took umbrage at this, and so he voluntarily left the site. "

Completely false. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what goes on on the message board bearing your name. I was in the middle of a discussion with bfbagain about DD games, when suddenly no post of mine went through. And when I mean "no" I do mean "no". I submitted 3-4 posts, none of which had anything to do with you, all of which had to do with a discussion with bfbagain, and _zero_ of them were posted. Not that day. Not the next day. Not the next week.

If you call that "had to be approved" then you have a strange definition. I didn't "take umbrage". I simply could not post. As I said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in not knowing this, but this _is_ exactly what happened. And no, I won't bother going back, even though I've been emailed a couple of jabs you like to make over there. Which is fine..

Secondly, there is a "recognized Hi-Lo system". At least for most of us. Otherwise why does norm have +1 in CVBJ/CVCX? Why do all the sims he has included use the +1 index? Why does the blackjack school online use +1? Etc. As I said, your index might well be more accurate. I'll take you at your word on that. But the +1 index seems to be the widely accepted index based on the books I have, the software I have, the online references I have, etc. Why is that so hard to understand?

Finally, go back to the _front_ of this thread to see where things started, and how insipidly far into left field things went. Someone asked about the 11 VS A index. I quoted directly from CVBJ. I then gave both the CVBJ indices for H17 and S17. "can't be". I even referenced PBJ, and "the blackjackschoolonline" that everyone links to, and every last one of them gives +1 for the S17 game.

Yet "I am wrong" as usual.

I once wondered why the "factions" in BJLand exist. At first I thought that a few kooks had gathered over at Arnold's new site, because they never have anything good to say about AP.com. It is beginning to become painfully obvious why that kind of "feeling" exists. You might think about that.

You might also notice that I didn't resort to the low-level name calling and other nonsense. I simply reported an index that I can provide a dozen citations for. And for that I am "pigheaded" and so forth.

Nice...

I've learned a lot from Don. But I have also found elevated blood pressure is one possible result from discussions with him.

Don quotes CVCX sim data, as do I, and is on one hand quoting data with an index that is "wrong" and on the other hand saying that +1 for S17 is wrong. So you either quote the data with the wrong index and accept that the "wrong" number is at least the number a +lot+ of people are using, or you completely excise the +1 and replace it with -1, but then stop refering to data that uses the old +1 index.

It would seem to me that this can't be had "both ways".

I've said enough.

As I said, his -1 is probably a better index. But I did quote my sources, including CVCX, PBJ, online references, etc. The +1 is a real index, and I'd bet that if we take a poll of all hilo users, and ask "what is your 11 vs A S17 index, we'd get +1 _FAR_ more often than we'd get -1, would you agree with that?

That was my point.

Not that a point matters much it seems...

Don: It is hopeless, pointless, and downright foolish of me to argue with you, because you are "incorrigible," whose literal definition means "incapable of being corrected." Still, readers here deserve the truth.

SSR: Completely false. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what goes on on the message board bearing your name.

Don: The message board you no longer post to does not "bear my name." That board is Don's Domain. You no longer post to the Free Pages, hosted by Parker. It is he who moderates your posts, not I.

SSR: I was in the middle of a discussion with bfbagain about DD games, when suddenly no post of mine went through. And when I mean "no" I do mean "no". I submitted 3-4 posts, none of which had anything to do with you, all of which had to do with a discussion with bfbagain, and _zero_ of them were posted. Not that day. Not the next day. Not the next week.

Don: You were told by Parker that he was going to put you on bypass moderation. So, your posts no longer automatically were approved. That is why they stopped appearing. And, you were warned several times that this would happen if you didn't tone down your act. But, I sense that the people here couldn't care less, so let's not belabor this point.

SSR: If you call that "had to be approved" then you have a strange definition. I didn't "take umbrage". I simply could not post. As I said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in not knowing this, but this _is_ exactly what happened. And no, I won't bother going back, even though I've been emailed a couple of jabs you like to make over there. Which is fine..

Thank goodness! :-)

SSR: Secondly, there is a "recognized Hi-Lo system". At least for most of us.

Don: No, there isn't. Go ahead, now. Say that there is. Say it again and again and again. Say it till we all puke. It won't make you any less wrong. There is a book by Wong with Hi-Lo indexes in it. There is a spectacular book by Braun, also. Most of the indexes are right. Some of them aren't. Most of them are rounded or truncated. None of them are floored.

SSR: Otherwise why does norm have +1 in CVBJ/CVCX?

Don: My God, you are thick! He has them because he decided to ask the author of a book in which they appear if he could use them for his software. Personally, were I creating the software, I would have generated my own indexes and offered them as a bonus to buyers, as being more accurate than the ones in the books in which they appear. Norm prefers to do it his way so that players/users can calculate their SCOREs based on the book values, wrong as they sometimes are. To each his own.

SSR: Why do all the sims he has included use the +1 index?

Don: You'll have to ask him. They're +1 for h17, as well? Why would that be, when Wong's index is 0? of course, Wong offers no index for a 6- or 8-deck game, which we were discussing, just a 4-deck game, but I'll let that slide.

SSR: Why does the blackjack school online use +1? Etc. As I said, your index might well be more accurate. I'll take you at your word on that. But the +1 index seems to be the widely accepted index based on the books I have, the software I have, the online references I have, etc. Why is that so hard to understand?

Don: I understand it perfectly well. Actually did the first time you wrote it. But, your questions above are pointless. All of these sites, software, etc. are self-perpetuating. One "authority" prints an index, and everyone else refers to it and jumps on the bandwagon. Go get your MDB, and I'll show you horrendous typos and asinine indexes. Wanna bet they're used in software and "online schools," as well? So, what's the point? Here it is: That you can get sucked into using incorrect indexes, when softare is available to generate more accurate ones!

SSR: Finally, go back to the _front_ of this thread to see where things started, and how insipidly far into left field things went. Someone asked about the 11 VS A index. I quoted directly from CVBJ. I then gave both the CVBJ indices for H17 and S17. "can't be". I even referenced PBJ, and "the blackjackschoolonline" that everyone links to, and every last one of them gives +1 for the S17 game.

Yet "I am wrong" as usual.

Don: Completely wrong. No one ever said +1 was wrong for the s17 game. Go find where I wrote that. I said that it was wrong for the h17 game. And, clearly, it is.

SSR: I once wondered why the "factions" in BJLand exist. At first I thought that a few kooks had gathered over at Arnold's new site, because they never have anything good to say about AP.com. It is beginning to become painfully obvious why that kind of "feeling" exists. You might think about that.

Don: Gimme a break. You read Mathprof's comment above. SunRunner's, as well. I'm waiting for anyone who actually agrees with you here. But, I won't hold my breath.

SSR: You might also notice that I didn't resort to the low-level name calling and other nonsense. I simply reported an index that I can provide a dozen citations for. And for that I am "pigheaded" and so forth.

Don: Absolutely, positively pig-headed, stubborn, incorrigible, and unwilling to accept logic and reason when it is hurled gently, and sometimes not so gently, directly in your face.

Don

1. I was _never_ told by Parker that I was going to be put on "bypass moderation = no." Can I possibly say that any clearer? If parker wants to produce such an email, I have an absolutely complete email log of every message ever sent to me, it would be easy to verify this phantom message.

2. I was _never_ warned once, much less repeatedly, that I would lose the "bypass moderation" status. Of course, you could ask Parker to produce such an email to me if you want. Or you can just continue to repeat something long enough that you hope it will become true. So far, what has been stated is simply false.

3. I clearly posted that CVBJ/CVCX uses 0 for H17 and +1 for S17. Any reason to keep clouding that issue? I clearly said that _I_ have been mainly playing S17 games, and that as a result, I have simply been using the +1 index all the time, even when playing H17 which I don't do very often. Why is _that_ so hard to get across? If you just click on the post titled "don't doubt" you will see both the H17 and S17 indices given. Overlook that?

4. Whether "I" got "sucked in to using an invalid index" is way off the topic. The original poster asked "what is the index". I cited a pretty reliable source (CVCX/CVBJ) and gave him +1. You could easily have added "recent results have shown that flooring is a better approach than rounding or truncation, and flooring produces a -1 index." You _could_ have said that, and that would have been that. But that wasn't all you said, now was it? "can't be". "you are wrong". Etc...

5. Sometimes "knowledge" is not all you hurl. "6D has lower variance than DD." To name just one. "you were warned multiple times" is another. And once the "bypass moderation flag" was cleared, not another one of my posts was approved. But as you say, the discussion is pointless. You believe Parker behaved one way. Facts say otherwise. Personally, I'll stick with facts. It was no great loss in any case...