M.: Norm:

[M.]

- this question is about Slippery's post, about the Zen and true counts. between the Zen true counted every 1/4D, 1/2D or 1D which do you think would perform best overall with any number of decks? also, can you clear this up, with TC@1D, you still divide by every half deck right, i mean not just by 5, 4, 3, etc... but by 5.5, 5, 4.5, and so on. correct? i've never used a balanced count so i really don't know. and one more thing, is TC@1/2D enough for accurate 1 and 2 deck play.

thanks for all the help.

P.S. i just checked out Casino Verite?, nothing comes close, i'm literally hooked all day playing that thing!

[Norm Wattenberger]

- this question is about Slippery's post, about the Zen and true counts. between the Zen true counted every 1/4D, 1/2D or 1D which do you think would perform best overall with any number of decks?

I haven't looked closely at this. But, it appears that Zen dividing by quarter decks does not work too well at six decks. I doubt if there is much difference between half and full.

also, can you clear this up, with TC@1D, you still divide by every half deck right, i mean not just by 5, 4, 3, etc... but by 5.5, 5, 4.5, and so on. correct? i've never used a balanced count so i really don't know.

Yes if you wish. To avoid confusion, remember there are two concepts here - Calculation of the TC divisor and resolution of the TC divisor. If you are dividing by full decks with a resolution of half-decks, then 4.4 decks remaining would mean a divisor of 4.5. Dividing by full decks with full deck resolution would mean dividing by 4. Dividing by half-decks with a resolution of half-decks would be a divisor of 9. In shoe games, resolution doesn't make a great deal of difference unless penetration is very deep. When I get around to it, I'll post some charts on the effect of TC resolution.

and one more thing, is TC@1/2D enough for accurate 1 and 2 deck play.

I stick to shoes. There are additional methods for single deck including counting rounds or hands. Someone else should answer this question.

[M.]

OK, i'm looking forward to those then. thanks for the answers.

[Slippery]

> - this question is about Slippery's post,
> about the Zen and true counts. between the
> Zen true counted every 1/4D, 1/2D or 1D
> which do you think would perform best
> overall with any number of decks? I
> haven't looked closely at this. But, it
> appears that Zen dividing by quarter decks
> does not work too well at six decks. I doubt
> if there is much difference between half and
> full.

> also, can you clear this up, with TC@1D,
> you still divide by every half deck right, i
> mean not just by 5, 4, 3, etc... but by 5.5,
> 5, 4.5, and so on. correct? i've never used
> a balanced count so i really don't know.
> Yes if you wish. To avoid confusion,
> remember there are two concepts here -
> Calculation of the TC divisor and resolution
> of the TC divisor. If you are dividing by
> full decks with a resolution of half-decks,
> then 4.4 decks remaining would mean a
> divisor of 4.5. Dividing by full decks with
> full deck resolution would mean dividing by
> 4. Dividing by half-decks with a resolution
> of half-decks would be a divisor of 9. In
> shoe games, resolution doesn't make a great
> deal of difference unless penetration is
> very deep. When I get around to it, I'll
> post some charts on the effect of TC
> resolution.

> and one more thing, is TC@1/2D enough for
> accurate 1 and 2 deck play. I stick to
> shoes. There are additional methods for
> single deck including counting rounds or
> hands. Someone else should answer this
> question.

Here is my reasoning why it does not matter whether you should true count by 1/2 deck, full deck or 1/4 deck. Let's talk about the Zen count because that is what I am familiar with. When determining your betting ramp what you really are determining is at what percent advantage does one add to his/her bet. If you are using a true count per deck, then a true count of 4 equals a 1% advantage. If you use a true count per half deck, then a true count of 2 equals a 1% advantage. If you use a true count by 1/4 deck, then a true count of 1 equals a 1% advantage. It really should not matter which one of these true count methods you use, they are all providing the same results.

[Norm Wattenberger]

If you use a true count by 1/4 deck, then a true count of 1 equals a 1% advantage.

1. But why do you think this is true? The advantage by TC depends on the situation. Obviously the advantage for a TC of +1 is not the same for H17, D10 as it is for S17, DAS, LS. Or 50% penetration vs. 80%. Before BJA, the books tended to compromise and advise a fixed betting ramp. When an optimal betting calculator, like those in BJRM or CVCX, calculates optimal betting ramps, they look at the actual advantage for each TC.

2. To maximize the SCORE, you will want to start ramping up at an advantage of less than 1%. You cannot due this if TC+1 is 1%.

norm

[M.]

i feel that TC@1/2D is the best compromise between accuracy and ease of use, except maybe in single deck. this way you can begin the betting ramp at a 0.5% advantage.

[Norm Wattenberger]

[Slippery]

> If you use a true count by 1/4 deck, then a
> true count of 1 equals a 1% advantage. 1.
> But why do you think this is true? The
> advantage by TC depends on the situation.
> Obviously the advantage for a TC of +1 is
> not the same for H17, D10 as it is for S17,
> DAS, LS. Or 50% penetration vs. 80%. Before
> BJA, the books tended to compromise and
> advise a fixed betting ramp. When an optimal
> betting calculator, like those in BJRM or
> CVCX, calculates optimal betting ramps, they
> look at the actual advantage for each TC.

> 2. To maximize the SCORE, you will want to
> start ramping up at an advantage of less
> than 1%. You cannot due this if TC+1 is 1%.

> norm

Granted, I was a little oversimplistic in my explanation. Depending on the number of decks, rules etc., you start out out a certain disadvantage. During the counting of cards, all positive counts decreasing the original disadvantage and at some point in time this disadvantage turns to an advantage. The betting ramp indicates what units one should bet in these positive situations and the amount one bets or the betting ramp is determined by the percent advantage one has not by the true count. Now whether one uses a count per deck or 1/2 deck or quarter deck makes little difference. What is important is that one knows the percent advantage each true count has whether you use true count per deck, per 1/2 deck or per quarter deck. Once you know the percent advantage you have, one can set the betting ramp. The percent advantage should be the same at any given point in the deck regardless of the true count method you are using.

[Norm Wattenberger]

That covers problem 1, but not problem 2. Unless you are using fractional TCs you are losing resolution. When '98 Zen first came out I had a problem. It occurred to me that a reasonable ramp would require that you raise your bet by half-TCs in shoe games, something not supported by any simulators. I added a feature to CVSim called True Edge betting that assigned bets by half-TC, provided all TC statistics by half-TC and allowed Wonging in and out at a half-TC. I haven't yet bothered to implement this feature in CVData or CVCX because I don't think anyone actually bets this in this manner. However, it is described on page 16 of the CVData manual. In running the Zen '98 CVCX canned sims I noticed the problem again. With CVCX the sub-optimal performance is immediately noticeable.

norm

[Slippery]

> That covers problem 1, but not problem 2.
> Unless you are using fractional TCs you are
> losing resolution. When '98 Zen first came
> out I had a problem. It occurred to me that
> a reasonable ramp would require that you
> raise your bet by half-TCs in shoe games,
> something not supported by any simulators. I
> added a feature to CVSim called True Edge
> betting that assigned bets by half-TC,
> provided all TC statistics by half-TC and
> allowed Wonging in and out at a half-TC. I
> haven't yet bothered to implement this
> feature in CVData or CVCX because I don't
> think anyone actually bets this in this
> manner. However, it is described on page 16
> of the CVData manual. In running the Zen '98
> CVCX canned sims I noticed the problem
> again. With CVCX the sub-optimal performance
> is immediately noticeable.

> norm

Norm, Thanks for your answers, I know I have been long winded. With the last explanation, I finally understand the point you have been making.