I have both Wong and Snyder's books. snyders high lo-lite varies a lot from wongs hi-low on certain plays, such as doubling down a 10 vs a dealers 7 up card. Wong says to double when the count is greater than -6 while snyder says to double when the count is greater than -2. thats a difference of 4. i find it hard to believe that an aditional 4 tens in single deck game doesnt make a difference?????
What indices would any pros recomend?
thanks
I assume this means that you sacrifice a small degree of accuracy for greater simplicity. If such is the case then it probably does not make a great deal of difference.
Snyder says that his values stimulated for millions of hands are the same as wongs. but i find this hard to believe. how can 4 tens not make a difference.
anyone??
--the less there will be difference between hitting or standing, for different true counts. The reason that radical rounding does not impact using hi-lo is that hi-lo has a rather poor overall correlation to effects of removal for various playing decisions.
It would have been better if Snyder,in developing hi-lo lite, had considered how each different Corelation Coefficient to Effects of Removal for Playing allows for different breaths for rounding.
I doubt that Snyder's hi-lo lite simplifications are optimal, but the reasoning behind this concept is valid. bjmath.com has several threads that involve chem nerd and T-hopper, where both discuss Excel spreadsheets that can optimize such simplifications, for both "lite" type index rounding, and which decisions are optimal for i18 type index condensation. So stay tuned.....
"It would have been better if Snyder,in developing hi-lo lite, had considered how each different Corelation Coefficient to Effects of Removal for Playing allows for different breaths for rounding. "
Im just a beginner card counter. could you explain this more??
thanks
A player total has different, sometimes radically different, corelation coefficients, against different dealer upcards, yet Snyder generally rounded most indexes for given player totals. This was not always a good idea. A more detailed answer should perhaps wait for the new tools for analysis of such questions that are being authored by chem nerd and T-hopper. The programs they have been working on will set new and very high standards for blackjack software.
I take it you dont use Hi-low, probably a level 2 or 3?
but i was curious to know what charts you would use for Hi-low?
I think ive learned more form your posts over the past few months than any book i have read yet.
thanks again,
Musky_Slayer
I use the Uston +/- for most games and Zen for really deep single deck games. The choice is so as to get more playing power, but only where it does the most good, but to still avoid as many index changes, between different numbers of decks, but still be able to use as many indexes (for cover), as possible. I use every index that has a correlation coefficient, with Playing effects of removal, above 50%.
Hilo does a good job overall, but its main strength is betting, not playing, efficiency. I am just one of the strange people that does not find it difficult to switch between counts, but who still wants to take it easy for shoe games and in long playing sessions.
For hi-lo I would use Wong's older charts if you could find an older edition of PBJ. His older explanations about the relative importance of betting and playing, and his discussions of how to side count if you must (not much gain there) are priceless, and missing from the 1994 edition. You also don't have the rounding he used in the 1994 edition. Much was taken out of the 1994 edition, that has unnecessarily been the subject of new discussions recently, that I hope is put back in any potential 2002+ editions.
I would suggest waiting for T-hopper and chem nerd to start distributing their new programs, before delving into new ways to customize i18 index condensation. chem nerd has a kind offer to answer some of these questions, in a thread below, as to what i18 type condensations are best for different numbers of decks and penetrations.
well all i have is a new edition of PBJ
would you use those charts or are there any other new ones on the internet somewhere?
There ARE index number charts out there that are better and more accurate than anything else currently for sale.
It might also be a good idea to check over your indexes with the Excel spreadsheet that is on bjmath.com
Try to understand it is not the indexes you use, which can be a bit off with little or no impact, but which decisions you don't use. The i18 is not optimal in all conditions. Some index sets include indexes for decisions that a count is just plain not very good at. And some indexes are better canadates for rounding radically to match with others, while some, usually those with high corelations, should be used with as little rounding as possible.
I did mine by using Snyder's original algebraic approximation, and programed this into a range of computers, starting with a CPM box during a drafting course, then a Timex-Sinclair 1000, which was how the final Zen indexes for the 2nd printing of the first edition of Blackbelt in Blackjack originated (I originally sent Snyder a correction sheet and his indexes were algebraic done on a programable calculator). I then moved the program to an Atari 800XL, then an 386 PC, and then to a windows PC. I selected indexes by dropping out those with CCs less than 50% to avoid possible indexes that have the potential of actually costing money compared to basic strategy. This is unlikely, and only Norm Wattenberger of Qfit ever confirmed that such indexes exist, but it meant only about 7 indexes were dropped from the Zen charts I use, from those which had EORs available.
You can decide roughly, which indexes are more important, by taking Griffin's scores, in later editions of Theory of Blackjack, and multiplying them by the EOR CC, for your count. You can refine this by weighting them according to your actual spread.
But this all takes time and some computer knowledge. The better programs for this are being developed by T-hopper and chem nerd. They are the ones to ask for specific systems and conditions. The optimal i18 for spreading 1-12 in 6 decks, is different from the i18 for 8 decks with 1 cutoff, and is different still with Wonging 1-6, and with playing all 1-12.
My charts for the Uston +/- and the Zen, and Victor APC can be found by the link I have in the Books and Software page here.
or where there may be some online books for download that have them.
how do i switch the rules on the bjmath index spread sheet? i cant seem to change the rule options and # of decks?? it asks me for a password>?
thanks, as always
Go to www.1stbooks.com and type "blackjack" in the search box. You will see something there called "True Count Tables".
Never seen Snyder's Hi-lo indices. Does he count 10's as -1 or -2? Since Wong's Hi-lo counts them minus 2 maybe that's the reason?
Unbalanced count. Which I prefer.
