1. ## Zenfighter: About one-decimal indices' delusions.

What we have below is a practical (and non-practical, too) table to get our TC?s computed, the fact given, precise quarterdecks estimation are second nature for a pro and/or semi-pro CC.

```

6 dks dealt out 4 ?

Gone	Multiplier	M.R.   M.Pract.   Div.

13	0.173913	0.17	0.2
26	0.181818	0.18	0.2
39	0.190476	0.19	0.2
52	0.200000	0.20	0.2
65	0.210526	0.21	0.2
78	0.222222	0.22	0.2
91	0.235294	0.24	0.2
104				           : 4
117	0.266667	0.27	0.3
130	0.285714	0.29	0.3
143	0.307692	0.31	0.3
156				           : 3
169	0.363636	0.36	0.4
182	0.400000	0.40	0.4
195	0.444444	0.44	0.4
208				           : 2
221	0.571429	0.57	0.6
234	0.666667	0.67	0.7

```

One decimal ?precise? indices.

The very notion of this concept is a phantom. No matter with an algebraic approximation (using proper EoR?s and fine formulas) and/or the use of chosen ?representative? subsets, the accuracy of both methods contains elements of limited accuracy and a certain dose of faith in the final results. This sensational statement is something about 25 years old! The whole thing about representative decks started with our father Thorp, Braun quickly improving them, only to see ol? Stan claiming the ?superiority? of his methodology, a couple of years later. What if our 21st century specialist Cac has definitely improved their accuracy? Will this help a player, with the purpose to obtain an increase in EV, while using exact one-decimal indices? Just the opposite is my educated guess.

How do you get your one-decimal TC?s?

Even if you?re an eagle-eyed card counter, estimating quarters, the employment of the practical column that contains the multipliers (for full-decks, the use of divisors is automatic and very precise) rounded to one decimal only, won?t help you anyhow, to achieve most of the time, precise one-decimal figures (with quarter-decks estimation, remember). The task worsens itself when actually having double-digit RC figures to be converted rapidly on the table. E.g.

2 ? dks gone. RC = 14 TC?

14 * 0.3 = 4.2 while the more precise yields

14 * 0.27 = 3.78 or 3.8

Computing mentally the last one requires at least (14 * 0.2 = 2.8) plus (7 * 0.1 = 0.7) = 3.5 plus (7 * 0.04 = 0.28) equals our 3.78. (14 * 0.07 = 0.98 + 2.8 = 3.78 works, too)
Another trick is (14 *0.3 = 4.2) minus (14 * 0.03 = 0.42) for a total of 3.78. There are other forms of mental masochism!

Any takers?

The final verdict can be inferred very easily:

A card counter using floored indices and affordable divisors/multipliers to get TC?s estimation figures will beat consistently his perfectionist colleague who insists in being more ?precise?. Here the illusion of ?exactitude? will work against him, undoubtedly.
More errors per hour are in sight. A precise border is a danger to deal with, while a floored index gives us more room for inaccuracies. Elementary, my dear Francis.

Regards

Zenfighter

2. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: About one-decimal indices' delusions.

>Elementary, my dear Francis.

Thanks, as always, Zen, for weighing in on this topic. And, of course, it was clear what your response would be.

In truth, I'm quite convinced that the above post is, indeed, elementary for just about everyone -- Norm, Parker, Myooligan, Roger Harris, T-Hopper, Cac, and me -- who has participated in this discussion over the years. That is, elementary for everyone except Francis.

I don't know if he's a member here, but, if he is, expect nothing but protests and, as always, a great deal more heat than light.

Again, thanks.

Don

3. ## Sun Runner: Nice; and thanks. *NM*

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•