Alexost: RPC TC conversion.

[Alexost]

Contemplating between learning Hi-Low or RPC. I have some positive experience playing RPC some 10 years ago playing DD games. I now live close to Vegas and want to be able to choose between 1-6 deck games depending on current favorability of rules/penetration in different casinos. The RPC seems to have the most user friendly integers for a level two count, +-2 with the occasional +1 for the 2 or 7, and it is ace reckoned which simplifies the action in shoe games. The TC conversion is where I am feeling the Hi-Low may win out. With RPC, (by the book) I have to divide by the number of half decks remaining to convert to the TC. In SD and DD this is easy, but if I find my best playable game is 6 decks, I think it will be more difficult to convert to TC thereby nulling the effectiveness of using the RPC over Hi-Low early in the shoe. Question: Is there a way to simplify the TC conversion using the RPC without severely negating the value of the PE,BE,IE correlations? All input is highly appreciated!

[Dancer]

> Contemplating between learning Hi-Low or
> RPC. I have some positive experience playing
> RPC some 10 years ago playing DD games. I
> now live close to Vegas and want to be able
> to choose between 1-6 deck games depending
> on current favorability of rules/penetration
> in different casinos. The RPC seems to have
> the most user friendly integers for a level
> two count, +-2 with the occasional +1 for
> the 2 or 7, and it is ace reckoned which
> simplifies the action in shoe games. The TC
> conversion is where I am feeling the Hi-Low
> may win out. With RPC, (by the book) I have
> to divide by the number of half decks
> remaining to convert to the TC. In SD and DD
> this is easy, but if I find my best playable
> game is 6 decks, I think it will be more
> difficult to convert to TC thereby nulling
> the effectiveness of using the RPC over
> Hi-Low early in the shoe. Question: Is there
> a way to simplify the TC conversion using
> the RPC without severely negating the value
> of the PE,BE,IE correlations? All input is
> highly appreciated!

The easiest approach would be to purchase either CVData or SBA and generate your own indexes. (Both programs have their strengths, but CVData has infinitely more features. See QFIT.com and SBA21.com)

You'll actually increase the accuracy of the system slightly since some indexes are necessarily rounded when dividing by 1/2 decks.

For example, if you're dividing by full decks, the index for a particular decision may be at a TC of +5. When dividing by 1/2 decks, the system author must decide whether +2 or +3 is more profitable. Either way, you'll get a slightly better index at +5.

Best of cards...

[Alexost]

I have recently purchased Professional Blackjack Analyzer. Will this software be accurate also if I select the true count equals running count at 1 deck instead of 1/2 deck and just re-run the strategy simulater? The more I read the more it seems as though I should have gotten SBA instead.. Thanks alot!

[Don Schlesinger]

> Question: Is there
> a way to simplify the TC conversion using
> the RPC without severely negating the value
> of the PE,BE,IE correlations? All input is
> highly appreciated!

Three choices:

1) Divide by whole decks and double all of the published indices. There will be some inaccuracies, so you may want to regenerate the set.

2) Use Chambliss and Roginski's C-R count.

3) Get some decks (or use the CV drills), do some serious practicing, and learn to eyeball half-decks (not so hard).

Good luck!

Don

[Alexost]