Playing indices between AO2 and I18 and qFit data contradicting?

For my first post here I wanted to get some feedback on a snag that I've been running into. I have been counting for only a few months and feel comfortable going further, I have been playing basic omega 2 with the +6 and -6 strategies accurately, so now I feel that I can progress into using some more playing deviations. In BJFB Bryce talks about learning the "fabulous 18" ,which I know is the illustrious 18 and fabulous 4, but when looking at the tables in his book, comparing them with the tables for the same game on casino verite software I'm seeing variations in the indices so I'm not sure which one to go with. Any help would be greatly appreciated! 

 

In BJFB the I18 values are as follows:

 

Insurance= take at +6 or greater                               

16 v 9  = stand at +7 or greater

16 v 10 =stand at 0 or greater 

15 v 10 = stand at +6 or greater

13 v 2 = stand at -1 or greater (hit at -2, -3 etc)

13 v 3 =stand at -3 or greater (hit at -4 -5 etc)

12 v 2 =stand at +5 or greater

12 v 3 = stand at +2 or greater

12 v 4 =stand at 0 or greater

12 v 5 =stand at -2 or great (hit at -3 -4 etc)

12 v 6 = stand at -2 or greater (-5 for H17 games)

11 v A =double at +2 or greater

10 v 10 = double at +9 or greater

10 v A =double at +8 or greater

9 v 2 =double at 0 or greater

9 v 7 =double at 7 or greater

10,10 v 5 =split at +9 or greater (for when DAS is permitted)

10,10 v 6 =split at + 8 or greater (for when DAS is permitted) 

 

on casino verite software though the values change slightly, according to them the I18 for multi deck H17 DAS permitted the table legend states "hit < value" so hit if the value is greater than (more positive)  the number shown correct? 

 

Insurance= same

16 v 9 = shows always hit

16 v 10 = hit at +6 or greater stand at less then +6

15 v 10 = hit at +6 or greater stand at less then +6

13 v 2 =hit at -5 or less (stand at -4 , -3 -2 etc)

13 v 3 = hit at -5 or less (stand at -4, -3 ,-2 etc)

12 v 2 = hit at +6 or greater (stand at +5, +4, +3 etc) 

12 v 3 = hit at +6 or greater (stand at +5 +3 etc)

12 v 4 =hit at -5 or less (stand at -4, -3 etc)

12 v 5 =hit at -5 or less (stand at -4, -3 etc)

12 v 6 =hit at -5 or less (stand at -4, -3 etc)

 

For doubling the legend says "DD > = value" so I'm assuming that means, double down if the count is less than (more negative) the value shown? 

11 v A = double at -5 or greater (hit at -4, -3, etc)

10 v 10 = says never double 

10 v A  = says never double

9 v 2 = double at -5 (hit at -4, -3 etc) 

9 v 7 = double at +6

10,10 v 5 = says never split 10s

10,10 v 6=says never split 10s

 

I'm sure I'm reading the table wrong but I wanted clarification, to me it would make more sense to stand 16 v 10 if the true count was +6 or greater, so I'm guessing I just read the table wrong and I should be standing then instead of hitting like the table seems to read to me. 

 

so even if that were the case if I read the table wrong and I do in fact stand 16 v 10  at a t.c. of +6 or greater, in BJFB it says stand at t.c. of 0 or greater, so which one am I supposed to go off of? The two sources seem to give different answers and I don't know which one to learn. Any help would be appreciated, as a new card counter this stuff is still foreign to me a little bit so I want to make sure I'm learning the right way so I don't make a costly error. 

Gunner82,

First of all: Welcome to bj21! Always good to see new posters here.

As for your question, I don't know what tables you consulted in CV, but I have two comments about that.

1. The numbers appear to be the Basic Omega II indexes: the positive ones all appear to be +6, and the negative ones all appear to be -5. Those are not the Advanced Omega II indexes.

2. You've misinterpreted the indexes: "hit < value" means "hit if your TC is less than the given value". Thus, if the index for 12 vs. 2 is +6, then you would Hit if the TC is +5 or less, and Stand if the TC is +6 or more. Similarly, "DD > = value" means "double down if the TC is greater than or equal to the given value", so for example if the 9 vs. 2 DD index is -5, you would DD on any TC of -5 or more (so -4, -3, etc.) and NOT DD on any TC of -6 or less (so -6, -7, -8, etc.).

By the way, the TC here is the Playing TC, not the Ace-adjusted Betting TC.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Thanks for the welcome! 
that's a good point I think maybe the casino verite software was telling me the indexes for the basic omega 2 strategy and not the I18 for the advanced strategy like I wanted. So with that said does the I18 index I posted above the casino verite messed up I18 look correct? 

as for misinterpreting the indexes thank you for clarifying that I was thrown through a loop there, I knew I should've paid more attention in high school math class lol 

Thanks for your reply dog hand. 


EDIT:
 Just changed my strategy in casino verite from basic omega 2 to advanced omega 2 with keeping the illustrious 18  and you're right it changed it to very closely match what the BJFB book was saying. There are only a few plays that are off, only by one point from the few that I found, so I'm guessing that with that said it is fair to say that I should trust the casino verite output over the book since I am able to choose my exact rules, decks, etc? Only one point shouldn't make that big of a difference right? Or is that an ignorant thing to say? 

Gunner82,

I'm glad we resolved the issue of BOII vs. AOII.

As for the indexes being off by one...

First, that's not a big deal. The difference in EV between the best and second-best plays is minimal right at the index.

Second, unless you have run an "index generation" sim using CVData (and believe me, you wouldn't have done this unintentionally), the software simply uses the indexes from the published source: in this case, that's Blackjack for Blood, by Bryce Carlson. Norm (the genius behind the CV software) may have used a different edition of the text than you are using.

Why don't you post the differences, and also indicate which edition of the book (in particular, the copyright year) you're using?

Dog Hand

My pm to Gunner described my intake on the overall deterioration of blackjack games. I never have been a fan of taking shortcuts via the illustrious 18 and my opinion stands more true now than ever as you need every single tiny particle of a percentage in your favor to beat  the greedy bastards
furthermore, most if not all long-term Pros like myself should agree taking shortcuts is just being lazy