Simplified strategy numbers

Greetings folks!

I am thinking of simplifying the playing strategy variation numbers given in the Professional BJ book (tables 9 and 10) in order to speed up my game and play more hands per hour. I speculate that the increase in win rate through more hands will outweigh the decrease due to loss of precision.

Am I correct in this speculation? What's the best approach - round up, round down or average? How would it affect the expectation? Are there any good books/websites/publications where this is nicely discussed?

Thanks in advance to all those who offer their much appreciated help.

If I understand correctly you feel that making strategy decisions is taking up much of your table time. This depends on how long it takes you to calculate the tc and recall the correct index number. Converting to a true count and recalling an index number should be nothing but a split second decision. If you are having problems calculating and have to think about the correct index numbers, then the problem is the card counting skills you are using, not the index numbers. You sound like you need a little more practice.

I tend to round index numbers up on the stiffs and insurance, while rounding down on doubledowns.

TG

I think this is discussed in Blackbelt in Blackjack by Snyder and in KO Blackjack by Fuchs and Vancura. I have simmed it myself as well. You can change your indices up or down by 2 and have no significant effect on win rate. Of course I would reccomend some thought when you adjust your indices. For example, I would not round insurance down 2 (I round my own insurance index up 1). Also increasing your doubling indices rather than lowering them is my preference.

Note that by raising index you will generally be correct when making that play; you might miss some plays, but the plays you make will generally be correct. Also, if you make a play not justified by the count, you definitely cost yourself money. Griffin discusses this on page 107 of The Theory of Blackjack (5th edition) where he concludes "the consequences of changing strategy too frequently will be more serious than than those of not changing strategy enough."

Bert

I'm not sure we're talking of the same terms.

"I would not round insurance down 2 (I round my own insurance index up 1). Also increasing your doubling indices rather than lowering them is my preference."

I use an index of +3 for insurance. My index numbers ALWAYS remain the same, what changes is how I round the tc. For instance if I have a tc of 2.7, I would round the tc (not the index #) down to 2 and not take insurance. I use the same strategy for double downs.

Basicly i'm rounding the tc's only. The index number remains unchanged. I would never think about lowering the index numbers this would have a negative impact on ev in respect to risk of ruin.

TG

I was pointing out that a player may change his indices either up or down by 1 or 2 and not lose any significant gain. This helps with memorization and make it easier to play. Even indices are easier for me to use than odd indices for example. Round was not the right term for me to use.

Bert

Blackjack Attack, which will answer all of the questions you asked in this post.

which I believe was a very detailed analysis of the effects of truncation vs rounding. It is probably in the bjmath.com archives somewhere. The conclusion was that it didn't make much difference.

is not important. You can group all of your index numbers into a few subgroupings (like -6, -2, 0, +2, and +6 and get most of the eV gain from play variation. It always makes me laugh when players ask about differences of one point (or in this case whether to round up, down, or truncate). It just really doesn't matter.

The way a cardcounter handles and rounds his TC's is important (at least to me). The precision of using 1/2 tc's can allow better optimal play in respect to betting. I dont think going too crazy on changing index numbers is a good idea.