I?m so intrigued by this concept that I wanted to start a new thread about it.

> An extra 0.6 means an extra advantage of 0.3%.

Sounds good. Recognizing a greater advantage means that I can push out a bit more money and get more action per hour. Have you been able to simulate using this method? I would be interested to hear how much this method can add to a player?s win rate. Wouldn?t it be similar to just adjusting your TC by half-decks (or, in this case, tenths of a deck) instead of full decks? You would just double all of your indices instead of adding decimal places.

> In other words,I don't correlate my bets
> strictly with TC, I correlate them with the
> actual advantage.

That?s an interesting concept. So you have memorized the fact that a 2% edge occurs at, say, 3.3 and calculated your bet spread that way?

> My CA-program was designed with the infinite
> deck approach.They work extremely well with
> multiple decks but their might be some slight
> distortions for DD because of the increased
> influence of the initial hand.

What about the argument that, because of rounding and whatnot, indices are not terribly accurate in the first place? If the numbers are not completely accurate at the whole number value, why bother with the fractional part?

-Sonny-