
MJ: Question for Norm
Norm,
Assuming one is rounding the discards using half deck resolution, can it lower SCORE to be off by one bracket when using HiLo?
Here is an example of what I mean:
Cards in Discard Rack:
91116 2 decks (104 cards)
117142 2.5 decks (130 cards)
Let us say there are 118 cards lying in the discard rack. I then incorrectly estimate that 2 decks have been played when it is really 2.5 decks according to the chart.
So, my estimate is in the wrong bracket but only 118104 = 14 cards off. This sort of thing occurs quite frequently when I practice at home. Is this anything to be worried about?
That was an example of a slightly incorrect estimate. What if 141 cards were in the discard and I estimated it was 2 decks? According to the above chart I am still only one bracket off but now the estimate is 141104 = 37 cards off, which is more then 1/2 a deck!! Now would the error be significant enough to warrant concern?
Thanks Norm!
MJ

Norm Wattenberger: Re: Question for Norm
Well any inaccuarcy can lower SCORE. But, this doesn't sound like a large impact.
norm
> Norm,
> Assuming one is rounding the discards using half deck
> resolution, can it lower SCORE to be off by one
> bracket when using HiLo?
> Here is an example of what I mean:
> Cards in Discard Rack:
> 91116 2 decks (104 cards)
> 117142 2.5 decks (130 cards)
> Let us say there are 118 cards lying in the discard
> rack. I then incorrectly estimate that 2 decks have
> been played when it is really 2.5 decks according to
> the chart.
> So, my estimate is in the wrong bracket but only
> 118104 = 14 cards off. This sort of thing occurs
> quite frequently when I practice at home. Is this
> anything to be worried about?
> That was an example of a slightly incorrect estimate.
> What if 141 cards were in the discard and I estimated
> it was 2 decks? According to the above chart I am
> still only one bracket off but now the estimate is
> 141104 = 37 cards off, which is more then 1/2 a
> deck!! Now would the error be significant enough to
> warrant concern?
> Thanks Norm!
> MJ

MJ: Re: Question for Norm
Not quite sure what a large impact is.
Assuming the player is ALWAYS off by one bracket in his half deck estimation, roughly how much money would this cost him?
I recall looking at the chart you posted for deck estimation with full deck, half deck, quarter deck, and exact card resolution. Surprisingly, there was barely any difference in SCORE between full deck and exact card resolution. Would that be an example of why it is ok to be off by 1 bracket in my estimation? Thanks.
MJ
> Well any inaccuarcy can lower SCORE. But, this doesn't
> sound like a large impact.
> norm

Norm Wattenberger: Re: Question for Norm
This is not as simple as halfdeck vs. fulldeck estimation. No one is off by a halfdeck all the way through the shoe, since you can't be a halfdeck off at the start. Generally, people are less accurate a third of te way through than half through or at the start. CVData has a custom TC calc feature that allows what I call deck contouring. This allows you to vary the error through the shoe. I've done sims along these lines in the past and i general the error isn't that expensive. But, it clearly matters how far and often you are off. I would expect somewht more impact than the difference between full and half deck estimatin as this would generally cause some over or under betting.

MJ: Re: Question for Norm
> This is not as simple as halfdeck vs. fulldeck
> estimation. No one is off by a halfdeck all the way
> through the shoe, since you can't be a halfdeck off
> at the start.
So if someone is using half deck resolution, and their estimate of the discard is one bracket off, is this considered to be half a deck error regardless of how many cards difference there is? For example:
3964 cards in rack = 1 deck.
6590 cards in rack = 1.5 decks
If there are 66 cards in the rack but I misjudge it and call it one deck, would this be considered a 1/2 deck error or 1/4 deck error? 6652 = 14 cards off. My estimate is about 1/4 deck off...but technically my bracket is 1/2 deck off. So which one is it?
Generally, people are less accurate a
> third of te way through than half through or at the
> start.
I agree. My estimation is stronger in certain areas of the shoe then others!
> CVData has a custom TC calc feature that allows
> what I call deck contouring. This allows you to vary
> the error through the shoe. I've done sims along these
> lines in the past and i general the error isn't that
> expensive.
Can you post the results? :) Your notion of expensive might be different then others.
> But, it clearly matters how far and often
> you are off. I would expect somewht more impact than
> the difference between full and half deck estimatin as
> this would generally cause some over or under betting.
Do you think it would be better to use full deck resolution nearly perfectly then use half deck resolution and be 1 bracket off 20% of the time? This 20% would occur 1/3 into the shoe and toward the last 1/3 of the shoe.
This is why I tend to think maybe I should have stuck with KO. No discard estimation error worries and no TC conversion rounding. Perhaps Vancura and Fuchs were correct after all.
MJ

Norm Wattenberger: Re: Question for Norm
We think of brackets as a convenience; but the physical world doesn't work in brackets. The point is to be as accurate as you can. But if you can estimate to halfdecks quickly and accurately, there is little gain in greater accuracy unless you are tracking.
> Can you post the results? :) Your notion of expensive
> might be different then others.
Tossed them long ago.
> This is why I tend to think maybe I should have stuck
> with KO. No discard estimation error worries and no TC
> conversion rounding. Perhaps Vancura and Fuchs were
> correct after all.
There is a simple beauty to KO
Blackjack Scams
Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads
 You may not post replies
 You may not post attachments
 You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules
Bookmarks