Norm,
For those who use an unrounded TC result for comparisons against the indices, under Settings - TC Division add an "Unrounded" selection, and next to that, an entry area labeled "#dec. pl.". Using these would then cause the TC to be displayed to the specified # of decimal places wherever TCs are put up on the screen - most particularly in the Tray popup.
Thanks
Nomad
Can you explain how you use the index such that it is not the same as rounding it in some manner? That is, give an example where it makes a difference in a decision.
> Norm,
> For those who use an unrounded TC result for
> comparisons against the indices, under Settings - TC
> Division add an "Unrounded" selection, and
> next to that, an entry area labeled "#dec.
> pl.". Using these would then cause the TC to be
> displayed to the specified # of decimal places
> wherever TCs are put up on the screen - most
> particularly in the Tray popup.
> Thanks
> Nomad
> Can you explain how you use the index such that it is
> not the same as rounding it in some manner? That is,
> give an example where it makes a difference in a
> decision.
Norm,
There is no case where it makes a difference in a decision.
That said, what I'm suggesting is to make CVBJ's TC display format coincide with the TC value calculated by a player who does not round. What this buys such a player is the ability to quickly compare their unrounded TC calc result to an independently calculated value from CVBJ in the same display format. Right now a player that does not round TC must do so to compare against the always rounded TC value displayed by CVBJ in the Tray popup. Also, providing an unrounded TC in the drills would more closely approximate the actual TC vs. index decision such a player will face at the tables.
Nomad
I share Norm's curiosity. If the indices are generated, in the first place, by one of the traditional methods, such as, say, flooring, then what is the purpose of your using "unrounded" indices for your playing decisions? What would that mean?
Or, are you suggesting that you generate a set of playing indices that, themselves, are "correct" to one decimal place, for example?
Don
> I share Norm's curiosity. If the indices are
> generated, in the first place, by one of the
> traditional methods, such as, say, flooring, then what
> is the purpose of your using "unrounded"
> indices for your playing decisions? What would that
> mean?
> Or, are you suggesting that you generate a set of
> playing indices that, themselves, are
> "correct" to one decimal place, for example?
> Don
Don,
It's not unrounded indices I'm asking to have displayed. It's an unrounded *TC*.
If I recall correctly, in BJA you included an aside that says you do not round the TC for comparisons against the indices. I've checked and other pros don't either. Figuring that collectively you all must be on to something, that's how I learned to use the TC as well. So, I'm asking Norm to make it easier for me to use CVBJ to practice with by having it display the TC as I have it "in my head". With all the flexibility CVBJ already has with respect to TC calcs, this would seem to be another useful extension - at least form those of us who do not round the TC.
Nomad
Can you give me an example? You may be making incorrect decisions.
> Can you give me an example? You may be making
> incorrect decisions.
Norm,
15 v. 10
AO2 index: stand TC >= 6
2 decks remain in shoe, RC=13, TC=6.333
I stand.
Nomad
I can make the change. But it makes no difference and I'm afraid it would confuse people.
> Norm,
> 15 v. 10
> AO2 index: stand TC >= 6
> 2 decks remain in shoe, RC=13, TC=6.333
> I stand.
> Nomad
> It's not unrounded indices I'm asking to have
> displayed. It's an unrounded *TC*.
I understand.
> If I recall correctly, in BJA you included an aside
> that says you do not round the TC for comparisons
> against the indices. I've checked and other pros don't
> either.
That's true. Rounding (or flooring, in most cases), includes an unnecessary step that serves no purpose, at least for me. In your example, the index is 6, and you calculate 6.33. Why would you then go to the trouble of flooring 6.33 to 6? What purpose what that serve?
> Figuring that collectively you all must be on
> to something, that's how I learned to use the TC as
> well. So, I'm asking Norm to make it easier for me to
> use CVBJ to practice with by having it display the TC
> as I have it "in my head".
Understood.
> With all the
> flexibility CVBJ already has with respect to TC calcs,
> this would seem to be another useful extension - at
> least form those of us who do not round the TC.
Gotcha.
Don
> I can make the change. But it makes no difference and
> I'm afraid it would confuse people.
Norm,
I think it does make a difference. Not to the ultimate playing decision, I grant you, but there is more to it than that. It has to do with using CVBJ to condition the mind to respond correctly by approximating as closely as possible the actual comparisons/decisions a player will face given the way the player has decided to play.
If a player decides to go the TC route, he/she will soon have to get involved with the usual: do I use a multiplier or do I divide; and, sooner or later, can/should I round?
They will search the Internet, just as I did, and see inumerable posts about round/trunc/floor. Believe me, that spawns plenty of confusion! Initially, I thought you *had* to round! CVBJ seemed to confirm this by displaying TCs in only whole number form. I was puzzled to say the least.
Next it occurs to the wannabe TC counter to ask someone like you, Don or some other authority. Since I wanted to play AO2, I asked Bryce Carlson, and he said he doesn't round. In BJA, Don says he doesn't round the TC. That was good enough for me. In a separate thread to my original post here, Don confirmed my thinking that rounding would seem to be an unnecessary extra step. The step could possibly slow you down when you can least afford complications, and adding yet another place for an error to creep in. In short, not rounding the TC works. I think that simplifies things, not confuses them.
OK, back to CVBJ. Having it display an unrounded TC to the player who does not round his TC calcs aids such a player in his/her training by presenting the TC in the format the player has in his mindseye. I know it would be of use to me in keeping sharp. I think others would find it helpful as well.
Regardless of what you decide to do, thanks for considering the idea.
Nomad
I think I can fit that in.
> Norm,
> I think it does make a difference. Not to the ultimate
> playing decision, I grant you, but there is more to it
> than that. It has to do with using CVBJ to condition
> the mind to respond correctly by approximating as
> closely as possible the actual comparisons/decisions a
> player will face given the way the player has decided
> to play.
> If a player decides to go the TC route, he/she will
> soon have to get involved with the usual: do I use a
> multiplier or do I divide; and, sooner or later,
> can/should I round?
> They will search the Internet, just as I did, and see
> inumerable posts about round/trunc/floor. Believe me,
> that spawns plenty of confusion! Initially, I thought
> you *had* to round! CVBJ seemed to confirm this by
> displaying TCs in only whole number form. I was
> puzzled to say the least.
> Next it occurs to the wannabe TC counter to ask
> someone like you, Don or some other authority. Since I
> wanted to play AO2, I asked Bryce Carlson, and he said
> he doesn't round. In BJA, Don says he doesn't round
> the TC. That was good enough for me. In a separate
> thread to my original post here, Don confirmed my
> thinking that rounding would seem to be an unnecessary
> extra step. The step could possibly slow you down when
> you can least afford complications, and adding yet
> another place for an error to creep in. In short, not
> rounding the TC works. I think that simplifies things,
> not confuses them.
> OK, back to CVBJ. Having it display an unrounded TC to
> the player who does not round his TC calcs aids such a
> player in his/her training by presenting the TC in the
> format the player has in his mindseye. I know it would
> be of use to me in keeping sharp. I think others would
> find it helpful as well.
> Regardless of what you decide to do, thanks for
> considering the idea.
> Nomad
> That's true. Rounding (or flooring, in most cases),
> includes an unnecessary step that serves no purpose,
> at least for me. In your example, the index is 6, and
> you calculate 6.33. Why would you then go to the
> trouble of flooring 6.33 to 6? What purpose what that
> serve?
Doesn't it depend on what index you're comparing to? If I'm deciding whether to hit my 16v10 or not, I don't divide at all - I just consider the sign of the running count. If the running count is sky high, I double my 9v2 without thinking, or dividing. On the other hand, if the RC is 6 and I'm deciding whether to insure, I'll want to be certain there are less than two decks undealt before I do.
I use floored (integer) indices and always keep a precise total of the RC, but the precision to which I calculate the TC depends on the decision I am making. In CVBJ I resolve this by setting my "TC Resolution" to "exeact".
> Doesn't it depend on what index you're comparing to?
> If I'm deciding whether to hit my 16v10 or not, I
> don't divide at all - I just consider the sign of the
> running count. If the running count is sky high, I
> double my 9v2 without thinking, or dividing. On the
> other hand, if the RC is 6 and I'm deciding whether to
> insure, I'll want to be certain there are less than
> two decks undealt before I do.
Sorry, but I don't follow your point. I don't see how it contradicts anything Nomad or I wrote. He wants exact TCs, because, while playing, he doesn't round or floor any of his TCs. Neither do I. To me, it's a wasted step that serves no purpose.
> I use floored (integer) indices and always keep a
> precise total of the RC, but the precision to which I
> calculate the TC depends on the decision I am making.
That's fine. Naturally, if an index is +1, and my RC is +35, I don't much bother making a calculation. Obviously, that's not what we're talking about.
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks