Jean Jacques Robert: Question to Fred Renzey (or others)

[Wolverine]

> Right. That's why you shouldn't use
> half-deck reckoning with a level-one count,
> which I've now said a couple of times. But,
> that has nothing to do with whether a) you
> should use half-deck reckoning for a
> level-two count, or b) whether you should
> use two-deck reckoning for a level-one
> count.

Okay, I'm not the brightest bulb in the string. I need more clarification. I use hi-lo, Ill-18 plus a few others, vs a DD game. I've used CVindex to generate my GAME SPECIFIC indices using half-deck reckoning.

Obviously right off the bat, I divide the RC by 2 to get a TC (i.e., RC of 2 divided by 2 gets me a TC of 1). As I get to the 1/2 deck gone (3/2 remains) I reckon the RC to TC using the 2/3 multiplier so a RC of 6 is a TC of 4. At 1 deck or below, I just keep the TC and RC the same (the game I play is a 60% MGM-Mirage cut slot placement, 60% is it). Why is reckoning that middle level with 3/2 decks remaining hurting my TC calculation using hi-lo? Remember, simple words: I'm an idiot. Thanks.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Okay, I'm not the brightest bulb in the
> string. I need more clarification. I use
> hi-lo, Ill-18 plus a few others, vs a DD
> game. I've used CVindex to generate my GAME
> SPECIFIC indices using half-deck reckoning.

> Obviously right off the bat, I divide the RC
> by 2 to get a TC (i.e., RC of 2 divided by 2
> gets me a TC of 1). As I get to the 1/2 deck
> gone (3/2 remains) I reckon the RC to TC
> using the 2/3 multiplier so a RC of 6 is a
> TC of 4. At 1 deck or below, I just keep the
> TC and RC the same (the game I play is a 60%
> MGM-Mirage cut slot placement, 60% is it).

All perfectly clear.

> Why is reckoning that middle level with 3/2
> decks remaining hurting my TC calculation
> using hi-lo?

It isn't at all. It's making it better. What we're talking about is if you were to divide by 4 at the beginning and then three, two, and one -- using number of half-decks remaining, not whole decks remaining, but with half-deck precision (which is what you're doing).

If you're confused, you're only about the thousandth person to be so. :-)

Don

[Fred Renzey]

What we're talking about is if you were to divide by 4 at the beginning and then three, two, and one.

snip> Guys. Please remember that the main reason I advocate truing up to the "count per two decks" rather than one, particularly for shoe games, is that as you approach the shuffle, there is little or no T/C converting to be done (at this most important part of the shoe).
Earlier on, you simply multiply the R/C by .4, then .5, then .6, then .8, etc.
The fact that this method gives you more finely incremented indices is just a tiny side benefit that may never be able to be measured.

[Wolverine]

> It isn't at all. It's making it better. What
> we're talking about is if you were to divide
> by 4 at the beginning and then three, two,
> and one -- using number of half-decks
> remaining, not whole decks remaining, but
> with half-deck precision (which is what
> you're doing).

Thanks Don. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't making a mistake using the 2/3 multiplier in the middle of the DD game. So, I take it when you use a traditional TC, it is to the FULL DECK but the precision of the calculation is based upon how often you change your multiplier/divisor (by the deck, by the half deck, or by the quarter deck, or egads, by the 1/8 deck). It is just a decision of whether you are relating your personal TC back to a full deck or 2D as Mr. Renzey has proposed? I think I've got it now--I hope. Thanks.

Mr. Renzey, I enjoyed your book. The Mentor Count looked very interesting to me, but I didn't like the TC back to 2D either (since I play DD almost 99% of the time). It didn't make sense to become less accurate with my TCing in the DD game. I understand that Mentor was made for shoe games from the book. I just read it once, maybe I need to go back and read it again. I did score a 29 on your pre-quiz though. That was cool.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Guys. Please remember that the main
> reason I advocate truing up to the
> "count per two decks" rather than
> one, particularly for shoe games, is that as
> you approach the shuffle, there is little or
> no T/C converting to be done (at this most
> important part of the shoe).

Again, there is a difference between doing something for ease and expedience (the whole premise of K-O, for example) and/or also claiming that the methodology is more accurate or produces higher SCOREs than one-deck true counting. That's what I thought we were discussing.

> Earlier on, you simply multiply the R/C by
> .4, then .5, then .6, then .8, etc.

Hard to see how the above reconciles with two-deck true counting, as .4 corresponds to dividing by 2.5 decks, which in two-deck chunks would be 1.25. So, now are you advocating resolution to quarters of two-decks?

> The fact that this method gives you more
> finely incremented indices is just a tiny
> side benefit that may never be able to be
> measured.

I don't see the benefit. When two decks remain, or 1.5, or 1, you're still dividng (multiplying) by different numbers, right?

I'll wait for the sims, but frankly, I see no benefit.

Don

[Fred Renzey]

> Hard to see how the above reconciles with
> two-deck true counting, as .4 corresponds to
> dividing by 2.5 decks, which in two-deck
> chunks would be 1.25. So, now are you
> advocating resolution to quarters of
> two-decks?
> Don

>snip: Don, the full matrix of multipliers is:

off top x 1/3rd
1 deck in x .4
2 dks. in x .5
2.5 dks. in x .6
3 dks. in x 2/3rds
3.5 dks. in x .8
4 dks. in x 1
4 and a fraction dks. in x 1.2

I almost never get pen beyond this.

[Fred Renzey]

> Mr. Renzey, It didn't
> make sense to become less accurate with my
> TCing in the DD game.

>snip: Wolv, when you play DD, the R/C equals the T/C off the top if you're truing to two decks. The rest of the way through, you simply multiply by twice the number you'd use for truing to one deck. The accuracy of both conversion methods are essentially the same. The only difference is, with the "count per two decks", you arrive at indices which are split into finer increments.

I'd like to mention that the Mentor Count is a strong performer for DD play with a BC of 97% and a PE of 62% using no side counts. You could easily use it while truing up to the "count per one deck" by simply cutting all the index numbers in half.

[Don Schlesinger]

... is that this is a strange mixture of some half- and even quarter-"slug" resolution. To compare to whole-deck division, one would have to allow also for quarter-deck resolution, to make a fair comparison.

I'm reasonably certain that it won't matter at all in the long run.

Don

> off top x 1/3rd
> 1 deck in x .4
> 2 dks. in x .5
> 2.5 dks. in x .6
> 3 dks. in x 2/3rds
> 3.5 dks. in x .8
> 4 dks. in x 1
> 4 and a fraction dks. in x 1.2

[Wolverine]

> I'd like to mention that the Mentor Count is
> a strong performer for DD play with a BC of
> 97% and a PE of 62% using no side counts.
> You could easily use it while truing up to
> the "count per one deck" by simply
> cutting all the index numbers in half.

Yep, I noted that when I read through the book. Figured I needed to master the hi-lo before I went after another count. I've only added index plays in 2005, even though I have been counting hi-lo for (weak, 1-4 spread maximum) betting purposes for years. Now I know I have to spread much higher and have learned WHEN to do that from this board and many new books.

I was intrigued by the Mentor count, and I may still switch to it someday in the future for exactly the reason you pointed out, DD is my game of choice. We'll see. Thanks for the reply.

[Jean Jacques Robert]

I generated different indices ( Don's ill 18) concerning th Mentor Count with TC = RC/Deck and RC/2 Deck, with different Deck Estimation resolution (full deck, half deck and quarter deck), using the "beat to death" method. True Count Division and deck estimate were truncated.

The Scores generated by CVCX (using 10 billion rounds as simulation), allowed a difference of less than $ 1 for the TC= RC/Deck and TC= RC/ 2 Deck counting methods. When I rounded the optimal betting ramp to realistic betting figures for both TC methods, the difference was still negligible.

What was revealing was a 7 - 8 % difference in Scores between the full deck estimation resolution and the quarter deck estimation resolution.

I haven't done the sims with a rounded or floored True Count division or Deck estimation, but I don't think it would make any difference.