M: Important: TC@1/2D

[M]

yet another true count question, but i really wanna know this one...

in a 2-deck game, calculating the true count every half-decks, hence starting at four, is it true that:

1) you would only divide by 3 and 2. clearly on the last half deck dividing by 1 would give the same count, duh huh! and off the top you wouldn't gave a signifcant RC to really divide by 4.

2) you would never place a large bet in the first half deck of the pack unless the RC shot up way above +4.

3) actually, would you ever calculate the TC off the top, eg. dividing by 8 in the first quarter or half (?) deck of an 8 decker.

maybe i'm just confusing myself, but i need expert councelling.

thanx a ton!!!
M.

[Don Schlesinger]

> yet another true count question, but i
> really wanna know this one...

You didn't really want to know the other ones? :-)

> in a 2-deck game, calculating the true count
> every half-deck, hence starting at four, is
> it true that:

> 1) you would only divide by 3 and 2.

Yes.

> clearly
> on the last half deck dividing by 1 would
> give the same count, duh huh! and off the
> top you wouldn't have a significant RC to
> really divide by 4.

You might. The rest is correct. But, if two hands were dealt with nothing but small cards, why wouldn't I want to raise my bet?

> 2) you would never place a large bet in the
> first half deck of the pack unless the RC
> shot up way above +4.

26 is a lot of cards. You make it sound as if running counts above +4 are some kind of rarity.

> 3) actually, would you ever calculate the TC
> off the top, eg. dividing by 8 in the first
> quarter or half (?) deck of an 8 decker.

If you're dividing by half decks, then with 7.5 decks remaining, the divisor is 15, not 8 (or 7). You seem to be switching back and forth between division by whole decks and division by half decks.

> maybe i'm just confusing myself, but i need
> expert counseling.

I don't know if you're confusing yourself, but you're doing a pretty good job of confusing me! :-)

Don

P.S. A favor, please. Do a quick spell-check before posting, if you have the time. Thanks.

[M]

i didn't read any mistakes, Dan

my last question said would you EVER calculate the TC off the top, whether dividing by whole, half, or whatever decks; in that case TC@1D. sorry if i confused you, thanks for the answers.

[Don Schlesinger]

> i didn't read any mistakes, Dan

I corrected most of them as I went along, N. :-)

> my last question said would you EVER
> calculate the TC off the top, whether
> dividing by whole, half, or whatever decks;
> in that case TC@1D.

OK. I see.

> sorry if i confused you,

Won't be the last time I'm confused! :-)

>thanks for the answers.

Any time.

Don

[M]

i believe you are the world's #1 authority on blackjack, and with a great sense of humour to boot! and i mean that.

thanks again.

[Don Schlesinger]

> i believe you are the world's #1 authority
> on blackjack, and with a great sense of
> humour to boot! and i mean that.

I very much enjoy your posts and your contributions to the site. And, obviously, you are an excellent judge of people! :-)

Thanks for the kind words.

Don