Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 36

Thread: thall: index #'s

  1. #1
    thall
    Guest

    thall: index #'s

    just curious, when the index for 12 vs dealer 3 shows (2) two, does it mean stand at 2 and above, or stand above 2. Also, for true count do we divide by number of decks left or the number of 1/2 decks left? (i've heard both)

  2. #2
    gorilla player
    Guest

    gorilla player: Re: index #'s

    > just curious, when the index for 12 vs
    > dealer 3 shows (2) two, does it mean stand
    > at 2 and above, or stand above 2. Also, for
    > true count do we divide by number of decks
    > left or the number of 1/2 decks left? (i've
    > heard both)

    That is an index I use. It means "stand at 2 or higher, hit at < 2...

    I personally use deck accuracy in 6d games. I use 1/2 deck accuracy in 2d games unless the penetration is really good, once the first full deck is gone, I use the normal 1/4 deck accuracy for the remaining single deck, although many games won't go very far into that remaining deck before shuffling.

    I don't think you would lose _that_ much by using deck accuracy until you get into the last deck, although I find multiplying by 2/3 to be not that hard if you have 1.5 decks left. Probably depends more on how well you can do the division/multiplication without screwing up your counting...

    I do it that way because I find estimating to the nearest whole deck easy in a 6d game, but to the nearest 1/2 deck it gets pretty hard (for me) anyway. But once I get to 2d, going to 1/2 deck resolution is not hard, and for one deck, 1/4 deck accuracy is also not hard. A little practice will go a long way.

    I have a bunch of estimation decks. I took 2 decks, clamped them together with wax paper between the cards and the vise, and touched each edge of the deck with a drop of thin CA glue (available at your local hobby show, they have thick and thin, you want thin.) It will turn that 2 deck stack into a solid "block. Do this for 1d, 2d, 3d, 4d, etc. Then for 1.5, and finally for .75, .5 and .25. I got a bunch of decks from a friend that is a security supervisor at a nameless casino. Now I have all these "blocks" that are accurately sized. I made sure to put a deuce on the bottom so I have plenty of room to use a big marker to write "4" or "1.5". Now I can pull 'em out of a sack, one at a time, lay them down and then "name those decks". You can get pretty quick and accurate with not much work.

    One warning, make sure your wife doesn't see one of the decks and pick it up to play cards. They will _not_ separate after the thin CA glue fires, which takes just a few seconds...

  3. #3
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Much misunderstanding

    > Also, for
    > true count do we divide by number of decks
    > left or the number of 1/2 decks left? (i've
    > heard both)

    I think, of all the questions that we get over and over again, and that are the most misunderstood, this, along with "how many hands should I play?" is the most common.

    Despite "gorilla player's" answer, above, you need to understand the following: If there are, say, 2.5 decks left, and we reckon the TC by dividing by 2.5, we are dividing by WHOLE decks, not half decks!! Had we been dividing by number of half-decks remaining in that situation, we'd be dividing by 5, not 2.5. Do you understand the difference?

    Reckoning TC by whole decks remaining can be done with whole-deck accuracy or half-deck accuracy, but neither is the same as reckoning TC by the number of half-decks remaining. Too many people just don't understand the difference.

    For most level-one counts, you reckon TC by whole decks (although you still might make divisions by 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, etc.). For some level-two counts (such as RPC), you divide by half-decks remaining.

    Don

  4. #4
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: Much misunderstanding

    Short, quick, and concise; an excellent repsonse!

    It is so mis-understood because the explanation you just gave is very hard to find in print and stated that clearly.

    Thall should also know that if he does truly decide to count half deck, he will need to adjust his indexes down -'roughly' by half.

    Snyder's HiLo Lite (which is true counted by half decks, and rounded) would give that 12v3 index a value of zero, not two. Add'ly 12v2 would carry an index of two, not four.

  5. #5
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Much misunderstanding

    > Short, quick, and concise; an excellent
    > repsonse!

    > It is so mis-understood because the
    > explanation you just gave is very hard to
    > find in print and stated that clearly.

    Shamefully, it isn't even in BJA3! I should add it to the last chapter, where there are random questions. I'll see if we have room (looks like I might be able to squeeze it onto p. 386).

    > Thall should also know that if he does truly
    > decide to count half deck, he will need to
    > adjust his indexes down -'roughly' by half.

    > Snyder's HiLo Lite (which is true counted by
    > half decks, and rounded) would give that
    > 12v3 index a value of zero, not two. Add'ly
    > 12v2 would carry an index of two, not four.

    This is why half-deck TC reckoning is usually reserved for level-two and higher point counts. You lose some accuracy when you divide the smaller, level-one running counts by the larger, half-deck integers. Also, this is why indices for the RPC and Hi-Lo are so similar. RPC tags are basically just double those of Hi-Lo, and the TC divisor is also doubled (half decks instead of whole decks), leaving the indices relatively the same.

    Don

  6. #6
    gorilla player
    Guest

    gorilla player: Re: Much misunderstanding

    > I think, of all the questions that we get
    > over and over again, and that are the most
    > misunderstood, this, along with "how
    > many hands should I play?" is the most
    > common.

    > Despite "gorilla player's" answer,
    > above, you need to understand the following:
    > If there are, say, 2.5 decks left, and we
    > reckon the TC by dividing by 2.5, we are
    > dividing by WHOLE decks, not half decks!!
    > Had we been dividing by number of half-decks
    > remaining in that situation, we'd be
    > dividing by 5, not 2.5. Do you understand
    > the difference?

    My answer was based on the idea "TC = running count divided by decks remaining."

    My answer was also based on the idea of "when you divide by decks remaining, do you use whole-deck resolution or half-deck resolution."

    IE since I am a "HiLo'er" my perception is based on the HiLo TC concept. Never tried any others, and so have never thought about the idea that some counts might divide by number of half-decks as opposed to dividing by number of whole-decks remaining.

    If my answer was imprecise, it was more due to ignorance of other counting systems that have a different concept of "true count" (a really bad idea IMHO as it leads to different definitions of the same term, something that I occasionally see in computer science and something which I generally hate because it causes more confusion than good...

    When I play a 6d game, I divide RC by 6,5,4,3, or 2, in general. If I am lucky enough to find a 6d game with 1d cut off, I might do the last two decks to 1/2 deck resolution and divide by 2, 3/2 or 1. Obviously for DD I use 1/2D resolution as I mentioned. I haven't played SD in a long while now thanks to 6:5, but on those few occasions where I did earlier, I divided by 1, 3/4 or 1/2 and would love to have the opportunity to divide by 1/4. And if a casino would make the offer, I'd even try 1/8 and learn to estimate that accurately.

    > Reckoning TC by whole decks remaining can be
    > done with whole-deck accuracy or half-deck
    > accuracy, but neither is the same as
    > reckoning TC by the number of half-decks
    > remaining. Too many people just don't
    > understand the difference.

    Some of us didn't even know there +was+ a difference. IE I have read lots of BJ books, but I have _not_ tried to read every different BJ strategy book. IE I have Canfield's book and quickly got tired of being told how it was so much better than all the other counting systems, and how a narrow spread was good enough to beat a 6D shoe, etc...

    Fortunately BJA didn't try to do that.

    > For most level-one counts, you reckon TC by
    > whole decks (although you still might make
    > divisions by 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, etc.). For some
    > level-two counts (such as RPC), you divide
    > by half-decks remaining.

    > Don

    Is there any significant gain in using 1/2 deck resolution in (say) the first half of a 6d shoe? Not that I want to divide by 11/2 of course... But I find that not very hard (mult by 2, divide by 11, using what a computer scientist would call "integer math" which truncates...)


  7. #7
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: Much misunderstanding

    > IE I have
    > Canfield's book and quickly got tired of
    > being told how it was so much better than
    > all the other counting systems, and how a
    > narrow spread was good enough to beat a 6D
    > shoe, etc...

    In defense of Canfield, the only knock on his book, now, is it has become dated.

    I happen to love that book.

    At the time, I would say the 'Expert' system described in the book was good as any other level one count and the one he sold in the back of the book was probably as good as it got.

    The 'Expert' was designed primarily to use against SD and DD and would, by the way, probably beat yours and my HiLo count all to hell in these games. The PE far surpasses HiLo's.

    I have not read his book in some time, but I don't recall him speaking much (if any) about 6D shoes or that a narrow bet spread would beat them. Again, his 'Expert' count was built for SD and DD games. I recall him speaking some about 4D -but not giving 6D much notice.

  8. #8
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Much misunderstanding

    > Is there any significant gain in using 1/2
    > deck resolution in (say) the first half of a
    > 6d shoe? Not that I want to divide by 11/2
    > of course... But I find that not very hard
    > (mult by 2, divide by 11, using what a
    > computer scientist would call "integer
    > math" which truncates...)

    There is little to gain. A sim would probably show mere pennies on the dollar. But, I've been doing it for 29 years, so it comes naturally to me.

    Don

  9. #9
    Gorilla Player
    Guest

    Gorilla Player: Re: Much misunderstanding

    > In defense of Canfield, the only knock on
    > his book, now, is it has become dated.

    > I happen to love that book.

    > At the time, I would say the 'Expert' system
    > described in the book was good as any other
    > level one count and the one he sold in the
    > back of the book was probably as good as it
    > got.

    I wouldn't doubt that his expert count was as good as other level 1 counting systems. however, after having re-read it within the past couple of months, he continually makes some claims that I consider a bit "over the top". IE spread 1-4 and beat a 6d game???

    My favorite was probably Thorp's book, as the stories about his testing the system were a lot of fun, and make me wish time-travel was possible. I'd love to get in my DeLorean, go back to the 50's, and play a SD game dealt all the way to the bottom.

    > The 'Expert' was designed primarily to use
    > against SD and DD and would, by the way,
    > probably beat yours and my HiLo count all to
    > hell in these games. The PE far surpasses
    > HiLo's.

    > I have not read his book in some time, but I
    > don't recall him speaking much (if any)
    > about 6D shoes or that a narrow bet spread
    > would beat them. Again, his 'Expert' count
    > was built for SD and DD games. I recall him
    > speaking some about 4D -but not giving 6D
    > much notice.

    I'll look at the book when I get home tonight and try to find where he mentioned that. It is always possible that he said "shoe" and for me, shoe == 6d, I've not seen (personally) a 4d shoe anywhere although many have mentioned them in the past tense...


  10. #10
    Fred Renzey
    Guest

    Fred Renzey: Why I like "count pr 2 decks" w/half deck accuracy

    The above discussion is why I prefer to true up my RC according to how many "double decks" are left, then multiply rather than divide -- and do so every half deck (except the first 1.5 decks of a six deck shoe). There are a number of reasons.

    First, "count per double decks" gives a little more accuracy to its index numbers. A good example is 12 vs. 3. Most systems recommend standing at a count of +2 per deck -- a few others at +1. Plus 1.5 is closer to being right and if you do "count per double decks", an index generator will usually place that number at +3.

    Next, you simply memorize multipliers for each additional half deck in the discard tray; i.e:
    empty tray = 1/3rd
    1 deck = .4
    2 decks = .5
    2.5 decks = .6
    3 decks = 2/3rds
    3.5 decks = .8
    4 decks = 1.0
    4.5 decks = 1 1/3rd
    The beauty of this, aside from being somewhat automated is that the TC is nearly the same as the RC as the shoe runs through that critical range just before the shuffle.

    Now you've optimized your index numbers just a bit more, obtained half deck accuracy in your true count (where relevant) and required yourself to do less conversion work in the most critical part of the shoe.

    I think it's the next simplest thing to an unbalanced count.


  11. #11
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Shoe sizes

    > I'll look at the book when I get home
    > tonight and try to find where he mentioned
    > that. It is always possible that he said
    > "shoe" and for me, shoe == 6d,
    > I've not seen (personally) a 4d shoe
    > anywhere although many have mentioned them
    > in the past tense...

    At the time Canfield's book was written, 4D shoes were indeed the norm. I haven't simmed it, but a 4D shoe with good rules dealt down to the last half deck or so may well be playable with a 1-4 spread.

  12. #12
    thall
    Guest

    thall: Re: Much misunderstanding

    > Thall should also know that if he does truly
    > decide to count half deck, he will need to
    > adjust his indexes down -'roughly' by half.

    > Snyder's HiLo Lite (which is true counted by
    > half decks, and rounded) would give that
    > 12v3 index a value of zero, not two. Add'ly
    > 12v2 would carry an index of two, not four.

    Now I am confused. I use RPC count(level 2), are you saying my indexes are doubled. Ex. 8 vs dealer 6 index says 6/ been using this index for years, are you saying it should be 3(please say NOT)...

  13. #13
    Dog Hand
    Guest

    Dog Hand: Sounds Good to Me!

    There is little to gain. A sim would probably show mere pennies on the dollar.

    Don,

    I suspect you meant to say "pennies per hour", since "pennies on the dollar" is more than the 1-2% we get by counting.

    Dog Hand

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.