Very good ! (nt)
At any stakes higher than red chip with 200+ playing hrs/year, the time spent learning 100+ indices is trivial compared to the extra EV.
I am not of exceptional intelligence or memory, but if I can learn ~90 indices in a few hours, it should take most of you less time than that. The index numbers are easy to remember for the most part because they follow a pattern, except for some of the soft doubles. I doubt that you will have to review index numbers on a frequent basis once you have them down.
At my betting level(green-black, not high stakes by any means) I estimate the EV from the additional index plays beyond Sweet 16/Fab 4 to be worth around a few thousand per year - a sound investment in my opinion.
"At any stakes higher than red chip with 200+ playing hrs/year, the time spent learning 100+ indices is trivial compared to the extra EV."
Now we know what's right for YOU! :-)
"I am not of exceptional intelligence or memory, but if I can learn ~90 indices in a few hours, it should take most of you less time than that."
That's plain silly.
"The index numbers are easy to remember for the most part because they follow a pattern, except for some of the soft doubles. I doubt that you will have to review index numbers on a frequent basis once you have them down."
Ten times sillier. You're deluding yourself. Learning them in visual patterns is great when you're RECITING them, and terrible for pulling the number up, instantly, when you're under pressure and trying to make a play. You don't have time for patterns then. You have to know the number COLD -- out of sequence, as if going through flash cards.
"At my betting level(green-black, not high stakes by any means) I estimate the EV from the additional index plays beyond Sweet 16/Fab 4 to be worth around a few thousand per year - a sound investment in my opinion."
Highly doubtful. Present your mathematical evidence.
Don
CVCX: 4.5/6, S17, DAS, four players, $25-$300 optimal spread. Sweet 16 hourly win: $48.88. Full indices hourly win: $52.83. Difference: $3.95 per hour. Play 200 hours, earn an extra $790.
Just so you don't delude yourself.
Again, money is money. If you're happy, I'm happy. Just didn't want you to be spending the multiple extra thousands that you were going to be earning from this. :-)
Don
For simplicity sake I chose 2 games to analyze: 6d S17 DS RSA 1.3 cut(250 hrs) and 2d S17 DS 0.7 cut(50 hrs). Both games are dealt at 100/hands/hr
I do not want reveal my actual bet ramp on a public board, but my expected win rate is similar to the numbers below.
2x50 @ TC 0 (2x50 for TC 0 or worse for 2d, no play for 6d under TC 0)
2x100 @ TC 1
2x150 @TC 2
2x200 @TC 3
2x300 @TC 4
2x400 @TC 5+
For 6d game:
(Sweet 16) $175.75/hr = $43937
(Full indices) $182.13/hr = $45532
For 2d game
(Sweet 16) $263.06/hr = $13153
(Full indices) $288.63/hr = $14431
Total
(Sweet 16) $57090
(Full indices) $59963
Difference is $2873
There are also some games that are unplayable without heavy cover, in which case, Hi-Lo Sweet 16 will perform significantly worse than Hi-Lo w/ full indices. Below is a link to my post which shows how poorly Hi-Lo Sweet 16 performs when you sacrifice 1% of your advantage for cover.
http://www.bj21.com/greenchip/handheld/index.cgi/md/read/id/26459/sbj/playing-style-at-pitch-games/
I did not mean to offend you with my post(s). If I did, I apologize.
It bewilders me though that so many players are apparently content with learning 20 or so indices. Memorizing 100 index numbers to perfection should take less time than say, memorizing everything from a 50-minute anatomy lecture. My feeling is more players would start using more indices if we could show them how easy it is.
I can't help being surrounded by great games! Some games are much better than the ones I simmed!
1) Indian casino periodically offers 10x and 25x points where value of points equal to 1-2% of bet.
2) places with promos like 2:1 suited where off the top is about +0.1%
3) place with exceptionnally good game and you are trying to maintain longevity. example casino in southwest that had s17, das, rsa, 3d with about 90% penetration at one time.
I would still stick to the Illustrious 18 + about 5 extra play variations.
Don's $790/year and CnW's $2873/year, are a little misleading. They imply that a player NOT playing more index plays, is leaving these amounts of money on the table.
But I see it a little differently. Many of these 'addition' index plays are negative index play. Playing hands properly at a -2 or -3 TC is a distant second to not playing that round at all for me. So learning extra negative index plays is not making me more money....it's making me more money if I don't play those hands, which I don't. :-)
If you wong in/out in the manner presented in BJA3 strictly playing 6d and 8d, there is no need for index plays below TC -1.
Wonging out of 1d/2d games is possible too.
The best way to learn Indicies is through grouping the similar strategy types together. It's much easier than learning an array and then trying to recall an index.
I won't post the link.
Interview with Johnny C, Manager of the MIT Blackjack Team
RWM: What if you didn�t make a play based on the index number?
LC: Index numbers were a separate checkout. People are not required to know the numbers to checkout.
JC: We found that playing index numbers, in general, hasn�t made a difference. In fact, some of our biggest winners didn�t play index numbers at all.
RWM: Not even insurance?
JC: Well, they knew insurance.
RWM: What about 16 against a 10?
JC: We modified basic strategy just a little bit because they are going to play only positive shoes. They had a +2 basic strategy. People make mistakes when they start dealing with index numbers, and they play slower. It can confuse their count. The guys who won the money weren�t playing the numbers. They were just out there betting it playing basic strategy.
RWM: I think this is going to bust a lot of the beliefs that people have about the way all this works.
They used a form of Counter-Basic Strategy. You can buy strategy cards for that....it's an alternative strategy that is based making the correct play based on a sweet spot of money wagered and the count.
I've read that interview too-eye opening!
