> 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 did not mean to contradict. I thought Nomad might have a similar method to my own - for which I find the current CVBJ options adequate - but perhaps not.
My only point is that, in practice, we don't always 1) estimate the number of decks remaining to a particular resolution, 2) Divid the RC by this number, 3) Floor (or Truncate or Round) this value, 4) compare it with the relevant index number. The True Calc options in CVBJ are based on this method but even so, you can sometimes get them to work with your own method. In this case it seems not.
> I did not mean to contradict. I thought Nomad might
> have a similar method to my own - for which I find the
> current CVBJ options adequate - but perhaps not.
> My only point is that, in practice, we don't always 1)
> estimate the number of decks remaining to a particular
> resolution, 2) Divid the RC by this number, 3) Floor
> (or Truncate or Round) this value, 4) compare it with
> the relevant index number. The True Calc options in
> CVBJ are based on this method but even so, you can
> sometimes get them to work with your own method. In
> this case it seems not.
Magician,
In any case of a comparison against index = 0, I like you,
skip the TC calc. In all other cases I do the calc (but do not round). That's just my preference, though, and other short cuts are certainly a possibility.
Nomad
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks