wapiti: TC Conversion in Shoes?

[wapiti]

Posted this on another popular board but received few replies. When playing shoes do most players true count by dividing by the nearest whole, 1/2, or 1/4 decks remaining? Obviously using the nearest whole deck is simpliest but is it accurate enough or does the playing system dictate which to use?

[suicyco maniac]

> Posted this on another popular board but
> received few replies. When playing shoes do
> most players true count by dividing by the
> nearest whole, 1/2, or 1/4 decks remaining?
> Obviously using the nearest whole deck is
> simpliest but is it accurate enough or does
> the playing system dictate which to use?
I use half decks but I think most players use whole decks...I doubt it would make any substantial difference unless you are getting very deep cuts. Just my two cents SM

[Don Schlesinger]

> Posted this on another popular board but
> received few replies. When playing shoes do
> most players true count by dividing by the
> nearest whole, 1/2, or 1/4 decks remaining?
> Obviously using the nearest whole deck is
> simplest but is it accurate enough or does
> the playing system dictate which to use?

Whole decks is accurate enough and is probably what most players use. Level-one counts work just fine with whole decks. Personally, for the level-two RPC that I've used my whole career, I use half decks. Quarter decks are a useless overkill for shoes.

Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

If you are betting optimally, quarter decks does not help unless you keep track of TCs by halves. The problem is that the larger divisor compresses the TC range decreasing resolution. The only book I know of that suggests quarter-decks is the second version of Blackbelt in BJ for Zen. Optimal betting with True-Edge Zen will sometimes require bet increases at TCs of 1.5 and 2.5.

Incidentally, as Don says RPC calls for half-deck divisor and that's what I use. But, when I created RPC-Lite I decided to use full decks.

Serious Blackjack Software

[wapiti]

Thanks for the answers. I use Brh-I running and was considering using the true count version which does increase gains/reduces bankroll requirements. It is an unblanced level 3 count which starts @ -24(6deck) and decrease by 4 for each deck dealt. RC of 0 is equal to HiLo of +2. What is a recommended method for dividing by 1/2 decks remaining? Seems I remember a method explained in Blackbelt in Blackjack but I no longer have the book.

Whole decks is accurate enough and is
> probably what most players use. Level-one
> counts work just fine with whole decks.
> Personally, for the level-two RPC that I've
> used my whole career, I use half decks.
> Quarter decks are a useless overkill for
> shoes.

> Don

[Don Schlesinger]

> If you are betting optimally, quarter decks
> does not help unless you keep track of TCs
> by halves. The problem is that the larger
> divisor compresses the TC range decreasing
> resolution.

There is always great confusion about this, and the above is another example. The poster asked if, when we estimate TC, we round to the nearest whole deck, half deck, or quarter deck. That is a different question from whether or not the system divides by whole decks, half decks or quarter decks to determine true count.

Let me give an example. Suppose someone plays Hi-Lo and announces that he rounds all TC calculations to the nearest whole deck. If, nonetheless, he estimates that 1.5 decks remain, he will divide by, say, 2 decks. If he were rounding to the nearest half deck, he would, of course, divide, quite precisely, by 1.5.

But what you mention, Norm, is different. For the RPC, not only do I estimate and round TC to the nearest half deck, I also divide the RC by number of half decks remaining, which is different. If 1.5 decks remain for me, a) I call it 1.5 decks (not 2), AND b) I divide by 3 (half decks). These are two separate ideas.

So, when you discuss quarter decks as creating a larger divisor, thereby compressing the TC range, you're talking about the second feature I describe, not the first, which was what the poster was inquiring about. It is conceivable that someone rounds to the nearest whole deck, but uses quarter-deck precision (estimation) to do so. Example: I estimate that 2 1/4 decks remain, so I divide by 2. This does nothing to "compress" the TC range.

However, in the above, had I decided to divide by 9 (quarter decks), that would be another story.

People reading this are going to be confused; I'm sorry. Read it again, slowly! There is always confusion discussing this point, but it's an important distinction to be made.

Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

[Norm Wattenberger]

It could be taken either way.

[Don Schlesinger]

> It could be taken either way.

But it shouldn't be, which is my point. Estimating number of remaining decks to half-deck precision is entirely consistent with dividing by the number of whole decks remaining. If 1.5 decks remain, you divide by 1.5 decks.

If, in the above, after estimating 1.5 decks left, you divide by 3, then you are dividing by number of half decks remaining.

Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

In practice people calculate TC in all manner of ways often differently by depth. I gave up on trying to express this in simple terms and added an optional table in the last release of CVData. You can divide or multiply and define up to 24 different depth ranges along with divisors or multipliers for each range.

[Fred Renzey]

>I round to the count per "two" decks, but use half deck accuracy. Six deck example:
w/ two decks in the discard tray, multiply by .5.
w/2.5 decks gone, multiply by .6.
w/3 decks gone, multiply by 2/3rds.
w/3.5 decks gone, multiply by .8.
w/4 decks gone, the RC is the TC.

It's that last line which I like about this method. As you come down to crunch time near the shuffle, there is little or no converting to be done. Also, since all your indices are doubled, there is less rounding/truncating of them.

In double deck play you simply begin off the top with a multiplier of 1.0 -- and go up from there.

[GT]

If you use Half Decks for TC Conversion, then you have to double the RC.

> I use half decks but I think most players
> use whole decks...I doubt it would make any
> substantial difference unless you are
> getting very deep cuts. Just my two cents SM

[suicyco maniac]