Who's idexes do we use? (newbie question)

I just read Professional BJ by Stanford Wong and was disappointed to discover that its indices did not match the ones given in the online BJ School. In fact, they're way different in places. Case in point: the online lesson plan (6-deck, S17) shows a hard 15 & 16 vs. a dealer's Ace with indices of 5 & 3, respectively. Wong's book (pg. 46, soft cover [also 6-deck, S17] shows indices of 10 & 8, respectively). Now that's a big difference!!! Interestingly, the indices that Wong uses for H17 are 5 & 3, respectively - same as the lesson plan's matrix for S17!!! Am I missing something here?

Another question I have...the lesson plan (lesson 1) BS chart shows a hard 16 vs. ten as a "H". shouldn't it be an "S" instead? The lesson plan gives it an varation index of "0" which I interpret to mean: if > or = to zero then stand; if < than zero then hit. So shouldn't the BS chart read "S"?

This is my first post so I hope i have crossed any boundaries that I shouldn't have!(?) Happy counting!!!!

I agree. Perhaps I was too detailed and therefore not very clear. What I need to know is...Are Wong's charts and data the most current and widely accepted data that we have for HiLo? (Has the mathmatics evolved since 1994 when Wong's Professional BJ was revised?) Please advise....thanx

to compute his indexes...there are other methods which vary mainly in how the indexes are rounded or whether they are truncated (fractions ignored) or floored. Modern indexes can also be slightly different if created for specfic games/spreads using risk averse methods.

That said, Wong's charts are the industry standard and Professional Blackjack is the HiLo bible. Creating slightly more exact or newer indexes won't gain you enough extra money in your lifetime to make an iota of difference in whether you are a success or failure as a counter. Just pick a set and learn them.

"Wong's charts are the industry standard and Professional Blackjack is the HiLo bible"

Ouch. Better be ultra-careful making that statement here. I caught a week's worth of grief saying _exactly_ the same thing...

.. it was your initial response to an S17 question that was only off by two full integers that was the problem. That, and your inability to never quite acknowledge it yet.

The weeks worth of grief was avoidable.

Look at my +second+ post. I included both the S17 _and_ H17 indices.

But the argument turned into "there is no standard reference for Hi-Lo" in contrary to what I had posted. Yet along comes bigplayer who says "PBJ is the hi-lo bible" and I simply warned him that the naysayers and wannabe-arguers are waiting for such a statement.

So, is there a "hi-lo bible" or is there not? Don says _NO_. SSR says _YES_. At least one other person has not said "yes" as well.

If you think the thread was about S17 vs H17, you can't read...

Here is a summary of the thread I referenced. Post by post. The numbers are the post numbers in the thread in order. If two are at the same "level" then I will number them 4a and 4b.

1. T.A. asked about 11 vs A doubling index for a H17 game, but then mentioned S17.

2. SSR (me) responded that CVBJ gives +1, which is the index I use for H17 _and_ S17 games.

3. Don responded "can't be" and then said using +1 for S17 and H17 is a mistake. No problem yet.

4. I responded H17 is 0, S17 is 1, as verified in CVBJ. I again said I use +1 in both games, but almost all of my play is in S17 games because they are better.

5. Don introduced the idea that flooring is better/more accurate, and that it produces -1 for the index. No problem yet.

6. I responded that my 0/+1 indices are _the_ indices published by Wong in PBJ. And that is the accepted reference for Hi-Lo. I pointed out that following the accepted "standard" is a reasonable way of answering a specific hi-lo question, unless one wants to say "here is a better index computed using a better algorithm, in spite of what is actually published in the Hi-Lo reference. Start of problem.

7. You jumped in with a reference to an older book that you no longer use. All some vage "you are confused" comment which is irrelevant since I'm not confused about the _actual_ hi-lo index number here at all...

8. I responded that the Wong book is generally regarded as the "definition" of Hi-Lo by current players. In the current thread, it would seem that Bigplayer agrees since he stated _exactly_ that, if you noticed...

9. You made an irrelevant comment about "if the index has been found 'wanting'" which it hasn't. PBJ is _still_ the hi-lo book most will cite.

10 & 11. I responded with a brief discussion about "standards" and why they are important in communication. I also noted that CVBJ uses that "faulty Wong standard" for all the provided sims, and that if you just select "complete hi-lo" you _also_ get the 0/+1 indices as well.

12. This was really a post of no useful content. I've not tried to justify 0/+1 as being _better_ than -1. I have justified them as being the _published_ numbers for Hi-Lo.

13. I again cited my "sources" for the 0/+1 indices. I said, on several occasions in this thread "-1 is probably a better number based on Don't comments" but that doesn't make it the best number to discuss when talking about Hi-Lo in general. The poster already was questioning a published index, and we get off on an index that was only recently published in a new book, which is not the "hi-lo standard" book at all.

14. You then responded that you use 0 in all games, where that seems a lot like my comment about using +1 in all games since 90% or more of what I play _is_ S17.

15. I then pointed out that I was not claiming "right or wrong" for the indices at all. I just claimed they were "the published indices for the hi-lo system as defined by Wong."

16. Don wades back in saying there is _no_ "accepted Hi-Lo standard" whatsoever. Which is utter poppycock. Perhaps _he_ doesn't recognize one, but I do. And without speaking for BP, apparently he recognizes the same standard I do. And others I have talked with via email also recognize that same standard. Of course, this is where the name-calling/insulting starts.

17. This post of mine only commented on the name-calling and insulting type of writing Don supplied.

18. Don tries to explain some imaginary version of events on AP.com, which simply is incorrect.

19. I pointed out the errors in the AP.com scenario he described, and did say that I would give him the benefit of the doubt as what he was told was incorrect. But incorrect it was, and in major ways.

20. Don then says that the part of AP.com I was talking about does not have his name associated with it. Of course, if he would look at the link (advantageplayer.com, hosted by Don S., Parker, etc) he would see that his name _is attached" whether it is "Don's Domain" or "Parker's Pages". But that's moot anyway. He also said "I'm waiting for someone to agree with you ...". See Bigplayer's post in this thread. Seems like he got what he was waiting for, in reference to "Wong's HiLo 'bible'"???

That ought to be enough to get the point across. The thread was about "is there an accepted standard for Hi-Lo or not?" after post #4. The specific indices were not really mentioned beyond that point. it turned into a classic pissing contest.

Of course it happens to others as well. "Francis Salmon" has run afoul of the same style of discussion with Don about using 1 decimal place of accuracy in TC calculations and betting ramp. "It won't work". "It is pointless". Etc. It would probably be too hard for a beginner to learn, but some of us do this already. For example, insurance. I insure at the "right" count, Not at an integer approximation. Not that it makes any huge difference, but I don't find it difficult to do and so I do it. If it is a +.001 EV decision, so what. +.001 is > 0.0, so it is worth something (note that +.001 is not what this is worth, just an example number).

Now, you have a summary of the thread you apparently didn't follow although you posted in it.

Make of it what you wish. But it wasn't about +1 vs 0.