Modern Blackjack nth Edition

There has been much discussion about the different methods of integerizing Blackjack true counts: flooring, truncating and rounding. Card counters simplify true count indexes because non-integer indexes simply provide no appreciable gain. Studies have shown that truncation is slightly less preferable when the player estimates remaining cards exactly. However, players do not estimate cards exactly. Two studies I have not seen. First, comparing these three methods when the player estimates remaining cards in a realistic manner. Secondly, what is the penalty for generating indexes using one method, but using a different method. For example, specifying flooring when generating indexes, but rounding during play. So, I decided to perform both studies.

I decided on a double-deck Blackjack game, H17, DAS, 75% penetration using Bryce Carlson’s Advanced Omega II with no side count and about 70 indexes. Remaining cards were estimated by quarter decks. Now, this last bit is important. When you do not use the exact number of remaining cards in calculating true counts (for index creation or play), then sometimes you will have too high a count and at times too low. This will interact with the indexes in various ways. For the simulations, a huge number of rounds are required to see the differences when comparing Blackjack strategies that are so similar. So, for each of the nine combinations of playing and index generation for flooring, truncating, and rounding, I ran 50 billion rounds. Between index generation and simulation, nearly one trillion Blackjack hands were simulated.

The results? IT DOESN’T MATTER. Due to the inaccuracies inserted by estimating by quarter deck, the results were statistically equal. Note: With deeply dealt, single-deck, and over 100 indexes, and closer estimation, you probably can find a difference.

Just sitting on the dock of the bay — Wasting time