KidDangerous: On True Counts

[KidDangerous]

I have sealed up and put away my hard cover BJA3. I know there was some mention or discussion about what I'm fixing to ask. But I want to leave my book wrapped up and plus I would like to get input from as many people as possible.

When converting RC to TC I think I remember there being 2-3 different ways to handle the RC to get your TC. (Floored, Truncate,Round? If these aren't the terms that apply, excuse my memory and see following) I use half decks to get my TC. Just for numbers sake I will use 6D 0r 12 half decks.

At 12 half decks I need a RC of 12 to get TC 1.
RC 24 to get TC 2 etc,...

My RC is 12, it then jumps to 19. Do I still have a TC of 1. Or is it now 2? I think I remember this is where the different terms come in. Does it depend on the system you are using or just personal pref?

Would like to hear how some of you guys handle this. Also I did a search on the internet trying to find definitions of the terms truncate and floor/ed? and their usage. No luck. Someone know where I can get an in depth understanding of these terms.

Also if it is easier to just reference me to somehwere to find these answers thats fine too. I'm not loking for anyone to have to write an essay.

Thanks for any kind of input.

Kid

[Don Schlesinger]

> When converting RC to TC I think I remember
> there being 2-3 different ways to handle the
> RC to get your TC. (Floored, Truncate,Round?
> If these aren't the terms that apply, excuse
> my memory and see following)

They're the terms that apply, but you're not doing any of them to the RC; rather, you're doing them to the TC.

> My RC is 12, it then jumps to 19. Do I still
> have a TC of 1.

You have an exact TC of 19/12 = 1.58 (actually, you may be dividing by 11 at this point, but no matter). Truncated, it is 1. Floored, it is also 1 (truncating and flooring produce the same results for positive TCs). Rounded, you would have 2 -- the nearest whole integer.

>Or is it now 2?

See above.

> I think I
> remember this is where the different terms
> come in. Does it depend on the system you
> are using or just personal pref?

No, it doesn't depend on the system. But, however the indices are generated for your system is the method you should use when you are playing and applying that system.

> Would like to hear how some of you guys
> handle this. Also I did a search on the
> internet trying to find definitions of the
> terms truncate and floored? and their
> usage. No luck. Someone know where I can get
> an in depth understanding of these terms.

Flooring means always rounding down to the next-lowest integer. 1.6 floored is 1. -2.4 floored is -3. Truncating means dropping the decimal and keeping the remaining whole integer. 1.6 becomes 1, but -2.4 becomes -2, when truncated.

Don

[KidDangerous]

Thank you Don for the response. My system doesn't address this issue. I suppose I will give them a call to see which way I am supposed to do this with my indices.

Thanks!

Kid

[poboy]

Right now I'm not fully comfortable with estimating half decks (Those 6 deck shoes are more horizontal than the vertical decks used in Casino Verite). If I estimate in full decks (using the hi-lo) how would I determine how 'off' I am were I to be able to accurately estimate half decks? Does that make sense?

Put another way, I truncate for the true count. I usually truncate for number of decks (though if it seems fairly close I'll round up). Does this effect my expected return substantially, or when I'm finally comfortable with figuring out the true count in half-decks would I not expect too much additional advantage?

[stainless steel rat]

> Right now I'm not fully comfortable with
> estimating half decks (Those 6 deck shoes
> are more horizontal than the vertical decks
> used in Casino Verite).

Are you looking at the discard tray or the shoe to estimate decks? The discard tray is the right place, and all I have seen are perfectly vertical, just as in CV...

> If I estimate in
> full decks (using the hi-lo) how would I
> determine how 'off' I am were I to be able
> to accurately estimate half decks? Does that
> make sense?

> Put another way, I truncate for the true
> count. I usually truncate for number of
> decks (though if it seems fairly close I'll
> round up). Does this effect my expected
> return substantially, or when I'm finally
> comfortable with figuring out the true count
> in half-decks would I not expect too much
> additional advantage?

[KidDangerous]

> Right now I'm not fully comfortable with
> estimating half decks (Those 6 deck shoes
> are more horizontal than the vertical decks
> used in Casino Verite). If I estimate in
> full decks (using the hi-lo) how would I
> determine how 'off' I am were I to be able
> to accurately estimate half decks? Does that
> make sense?

I'm not really clear on what you are asking (thats not reflection of you, I'm poor reader sometimes.) but I would have to say what SSR said and be sure you are looking at discard tray and not shoe to estimate decks or half decks remaining.

[Wolverine]

the discard tray is correct 99% of the time, but be careful since there are casinos that now "lop off" some of their decks and place them in the discard tray right from the beginning of the deal. Just thought I would provide a head-up to a newbie that is only looking there for TC purposes.

[stainless steel rat]

> I have sealed up and put away my hard cover
> BJA3. I know there was some mention or
> discussion about what I'm fixing to ask. But
> I want to leave my book wrapped up and plus
> I would like to get input from as many
> people as possible.

> When converting RC to TC I think I remember
> there being 2-3 different ways to handle the
> RC to get your TC. (Floored, Truncate,Round?
> If these aren't the terms that apply, excuse
> my memory and see following) I use half
> decks to get my TC. Just for numbers sake I
> will use 6D 0r 12 half decks.

> At 12 half decks I need a RC of 12 to get TC
> 1.
> RC 24 to get TC 2 etc,...

> My RC is 12, it then jumps to 19. Do I still
> have a TC of 1. Or is it now 2? I think I
> remember this is where the different terms
> come in. Does it depend on the system you
> are using or just personal pref?

> Would like to hear how some of you guys
> handle this. Also I did a search on the
> internet trying to find definitions of the
> terms truncate and floor/ed? and their
> usage. No luck. Someone know where I can get
> an in depth understanding of these terms.

> Also if it is easier to just reference me to
> somehwere to find these answers thats fine
> too. I'm not loking for anyone to have to
> write an essay.

> Thanks for any kind of input.

> Kid

Don explained the math of round, floor and truncate, here's how I chose what to do myself.

There are two ways to measure remaining decks.

To the nearest 1/2 deck, or in half-decks remaining. I don't cope with half-decks remaining, as that is contrary to most things you will read about Hi-Lo which will lead to mass confusion when you talk to someone else and you don't realize that your TC is 1/2 of his if you are dividing by 10 rather than 5 (10 half-decks rather than 5 full decks). Doing that is OK if the fractions bother you. But for shoe games, I don't deal with the fractions at all anyway although I know that several do. Norm has said he uses 1/2 deck resolution (5.5, 5.0, etc) himself.

1. I decided that for 6D shoes, 1 deck resolution is close enough. I practiced deck estimation for a good while and decided that I liked "rounding to nearest deck" better than anything, as this seems to be (to me anyway) the easiest and least error-prone approach. I will add that for DD games, I go in 1/2 deck increments (yes, I know some do 1/4 but not me). And for SD I do use 1/4 deck accuracy.

2. OK, now you have chosen your deck estimation accuracy and method (you can round to nearest deck, so that 1.5 decks in the discard tray means 4 decks left to play) or you can truncate so that 1.5 becomes 1, meaning you have 5 decks left to play. Rounding tends to over-estimate the TC as once you see 1.5 decks in the discard tray, you round this to 2.0 decks, which means your remaining decks is a bit under-estimated, which will tend to over-estimate your TC. Truncating the deck estimate under-estimates the TC (compare 12 / 5.5 as compared to 12 / 6 for example).

3. I now truncate the TC. For example, in a DD game, where I estimate there are 1.5 decks left to play (3/2) I now take 2/3 of the running count. If the RC is 3, I get 2. If the RC is 4, I _still_ get 2. My reasoning is that I slightly under-estimate the decks remaining, which slightly over-estimates the TC conversion, so truncation tends to fudge the TC back down a bit. (note that for DD, you multiply by 2/3, 1 and 2 for 1.5 decks left, 1.0 decks left, and .5 decks left which are easy to do IMHO.)

That's it from the "beginner" section of the bleachers, now perhaps someone from the "pro" side will offer a contrasting opinion.

Just one important point. Do whatever you can do accurately. I can do the TC math without thinking about it the way I do it now, although it takes a bit of practice (CVBJ is the way to go of course).

One warning. I'm a computer scientist. So "truncation" on integer division is quite natural to me since that is the way integer math is done by digital computers. That is, 9/10 is always zero in the digital world (integer, not IEEE floating point). If that bothers you, then take all of this with a grain of salt. As I said, it is natural to me. I settled on what seemed to be the easiest for me to learn, the most accurate/consistent for me to do, and away I went. I don't believe that an error of even 1.0 in all of your indices and betting ramps is going to be a killer. It is important to be consistent in how you do it.

There may well be better ways than what I am doing, but I can attest to the fact that what I am doing works reasonably well, based on casino results...

good luck. I'll now duck my head waiting for all the rotten fruit to be thrown this way.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Right now I'm not fully comfortable with
> estimating half decks (Those 6 deck shoes
> are more horizontal than the vertical decks
> used in Casino Verite). If I estimate in
> full decks (using the hi-lo) how would I
> determine how 'off' I am were I to be able
> to accurately estimate half decks? Does that
> make sense?

Yes. You won't be "off" by enough to matter.

> Put another way, I truncate for the true
> count. I usually truncate for number of
> decks (though if it seems fairly close I'll
> round up). Does this affect my expected
> return substantially,

No.

or when I'm finally
> comfortable with figuring out the true count
> in half-decks would I not expect too much
> additional advantage?

You would not expect too much additional advantage.

Don

[Don Schlesinger]

What you're doing is fine, provided the indices that you use for Hi-Lo were generated by truncating, also. In other words, it is important to actually play the system the same way that the system provider generated the indices in the first place.

Don