scott: indices / penetration

[scott]

what would be the result when using an unbalanced count of memorizing indices for different deck penetrations: 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and 0.5 and using them as approapriate. would this be an improvement over our esteemed balanced counts or just the same.

cheers.

[Don Schlesinger]

> what would be the result when using an
> unbalanced count of memorizing indices for
> different deck penetrations: 8, 7, 6, 5, 4,
> 3, 2, 1 and 0.5 and using them as
> approapriate. would this be an improvement
> over our esteemed balanced counts or just
> the same.

It would be an improvement over that same unbalanced count, which uses a single set of indices, averaged over all depths of penetration.

Whether you now have a more powerful system than some other balanced count isn't worth pursuing. There are too many other variables.

Don

[Karel]

You could also use one set of indices with very APPROXIMATE true count conversion. For example, you either divide by 3, 2 or 1 depending if you are at the beginning of the shoe, in the middle, or in the last part.

Karel

> what would be the result when using an
> unbalanced count of memorizing indices for
> different deck penetrations: 8, 7, 6, 5, 4,
> 3, 2, 1 and 0.5 and using them as
> approapriate. would this be an improvement
> over our esteemed balanced counts or just
> the same.

> cheers.

[scott]

... or just a balanced count

thanks for the answers.

[Karel]

The advantage of an unbalanced count may be that it more accurately reflects the betting or playing value of each card.

Moreover, it is okay to do a very rough TC conversion for an unbalanced count. The error of a very rough TC conversion becomes more serious for a balanced count. The reason is clear: The unbalanced count is "okay" even without any TC conversion at all.

Regards,

Karel

> ... or just a balanced count

> thanks for the answers.

[scott]

Karel,

so, for example, generating TC indices for, say, the UBZII and true counting it at full decks would yeild a more accurate count. what was brett harris refering to with the unbalanced true count?

thanks.

[Karel]

Brett Harris was refering to an unbalanced count with precise TC coversion. Same way as for balanced counts, except you start the IRC at --pivot*n. of decks. What I am saying is that you get practically the same power, say 90% of the value of this TC conversion for unbalanced count, just by using a very approximate TC conversion, which is very easy to do, no need to estimate remaining decks properly, etc.

> so, for example, generating TC indices for,
> say, the UBZII and true counting it at full
> decks would yeild a more accurate count.
> what was brett harris refering to with the
> unbalanced true count?

> thanks.