Stanford Wong and Other Black Jack Gods

ive read both blackbelt in blackjack and proffesional black jack. After reading both books, i find Snyders numbers for his high lo lite count to be as accurate as wongs, hard to believe. But yet he claims that they are exactly even after 100 million hands. I am not familar with how the simulators work, but i am very very very curious to hear what some of you who do have to say about this. I have no trouble counting, converting R.C. to T.C,and betting. but if Snyders Charts are just as good as wongs and are easier ill use his. he aslo says you should split using Basic Strategy all the time????? but then he gives charts on how to split acourding to the count??? anyone have any thoughts on this.

thanks for all the great advice in advance.

After reading both books, i find Snyders numbers for his high lo lite count to be as accurate as wongs, hard to believe. But yet he claims that they are exactly even after 100 million hands.

There is a problem with the Hi-Lo Lite study. That is, for any given bet spread and penetration level an optimal set of indices exist.
The gain from using these indices would be very marginal over the generic ones we tend to use calculated on the assumption of flat betting and typical penetration. However, when you try to measure very small differences between things, such as Hi-Lo vs Hi-Lo Lite, the issue becomes important.
What could easily have occured here is that Snyder's simplified indices may have been closer to the "optimal" indices for that spread and penetration, giving the illusion that the indices would perform as well as Wong's full indices over a range of conditions.

You have been doing better math homework lately.