brownian bridge: How to reflect effect of depth in counting

[brownian bridge]

How to reflect effect of depth in counting
I am talking about counting for betting, not for playing.
EV of TC=2 is different when remaining deck size is different.
How about start counting RC from X instead of 0 (for example, X= +1)
to indicate EV more accurately reflecting effect of depth?

[OldCootFromVA]

> EV of TC=2 is different when remaining deck size is different.

I'm not sure I understand the question. AFAIAC, if calculated properly, a TC of +2 is a TC of +2, and the calculation of TC involves the "remaining deck size."

[brownian bridge]

> I'm not sure I understand the question. AFAIAC, if
> calculated properly, a TC of +2 is a TC of +2, and the
> calculation of TC involves the "remaining deck
> size."

I mean,
for example, 6 deck game, using Hi-Lo,
RC=10 and remaining deck size=5, then TC=10/5=2. (A)
RC=2 and remaining deck size=1, then TC=2/1=2. (B)
but, EV of (A) and (B) are not same.

[OldCootFromVA]

Where are you getting stats which say they are not the same? Are you looking at the number of decks in the game?

Both the examples you gave are highly unlikely -- especially a 6D game with > 83% pen.

[brownian bridge]

> Where are you getting stats which say they are not the
> same? Are you looking at the number of decks in the
> game?

> Both the examples you gave are highly unlikely --
> especially a 6D game with > 83% pen.

those are just examples.
more generally, I remember there were an article about FLOATING ADVANTAGE in Don's BJA3.

and I remember Norm did empirical work about this.

[Don Schlesinger]

> I mean,
> for example, 6 deck game, using Hi-Lo,
> RC=10 and remaining deck size=5, then TC=10/5=2. (A)
> RC=2 and remaining deck size=1, then TC=2/1=2. (B)
> but, EV of (A) and (B) are not same.

You are, of course, talking about the Floating Advantage. Do you have BJA3, where I devote a very extensive chapter to the concept?

Bottom line: I wouldn't worry about the differences. They aren't significant, and you rarely get the penetration necessary for them to be valuable in a shoe game.

Don

[brownian bridge]

> You are, of course, talking about the Floating
> Advantage. Do you have BJA3, where I devote a very
> extensive chapter to the concept?

> Bottom line: I wouldn't worry about the differences.
> They aren't significant, and you rarely get the
> penetration necessary for them to be valuable in a
> shoe game.

> Don

Yes, I have your book BJA3.

In a very few casinos, they offer very good rule and
very good penetration.
It is true they are very rare, but exist.
In those casinos, it can happen I need to indicate EV
even only 1 deck was dealt, and also I have to deside
betting amount even TC is very small at remaining deck
is only 1 deck.