See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 20

Thread: True Edge vs. True Count

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    True Edge vs. True Count

    Hi Norm,

    You've probably answered this question many times before (I did do a search of the postings, but didn't find the answer yet), but can you explain why you think the Zen count (latest, copyright 2005) is more powerful using the true count = running count / # decks, rather than the true edge = running count / # quarter decks?
    Is it something to do with what happens when the penetration is above 75%? It seems that if you use Arnold's conversion system (multiply by 4), that it wouldn't change anything. Or maybe you're talking about an older Zen count? Thanks again for your thoughts!

  2. #2
    Senior Member bigplayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,807


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Simulations say that True Edge version is inferior likely for two reasons

    1. Getting a TC by quarter decks and then flooring results in compromised index numbers, which is fine, but if you've bothered to learn a two level system for better playing decisions you're probably not interested in compromise index numbers
    2. Unless you use fractional true counts for betting dividing by quarter decks results in sub-optimal (less exact) betting ramps. The more optimal your ramps are the better your system will perform. Divide the RC by quarter decks and that makes Zen each TC worth 1.28%, so in that regard True Edge calling a +1 TC = 1% over the house edge is incorrect by 0.28%.

  3. #3


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I would also say that the errors increase since counting quarter decks is a lot harder than counting decks. In my opinion and experience, I would rather use a system with less errors than a system that is more complex to use. The problem with using sims is it only shows true mathematical numbers. It doesn't calculate real life situations where errors come in to play.

  4. #4
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by winnawinna View Post
    The problem with using sims is it only shows true mathematical numbers. It doesn't calculate real life situations where errors come in to play.
    I wish people would stop saying this. You can sim errors.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Norm....how. I have CVCX and how do I put errors in?

  6. #6
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    CVData supports this. Has for 15 years. A CVCX-type simulator can't.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  7. #7
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern U S A
    Posts
    6,830


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Following a sh*tstorm of negative feedback, Snyder published a complete set of ZEN COUNT indices to use in shoe games.

    That set was far more complete than his published generalized matrix (in the original BBiBJ) from long ago.

    See: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...nt_Indices.htm

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thank you bigplayer. I don't use fractional true counts, so this is very helpful.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thanks winnawinna! I do make plenty of errors.

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thanks ZenMaster_Flash. I did see this posting, but my book of BBIBJ (copyright 2005) has tables that don't seem consistent with the tables he gives here (after multiplying the indices by 4). I think I'm missing a version!

  11. #11
    Senior Member bigplayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,807


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by spassky962000 View Post
    Thanks ZenMaster_Flash. I did see this posting, but my book of BBIBJ (copyright 2005) has tables that don't seem consistent with the tables he gives here (after multiplying the indices by 4). I think I'm missing a version!
    You should generate your own indexes if you have CV-Data, if you'll private message me with your e-mail address I'll send you a complete set from +15 to -10 using Count Per Deck for Zen (Multiple Deck) including indexes for both late and early surrender. Just multiplying the True Edge indexes by 4 is not going to be very accurate.

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Think for a second of how the two are calculated differently, do a fee examples, then you'll see why the True Edge is more "rounded" that the True Count method. Also look at the indices for both types and see what is going on.

    Say the count is +6 and there are 2 decks (8 quarter decks) remaining. That's very simple and accurate in TC, it's 6/2 = 3.0. But for true edge, you do 6/8 = 3/4 or 0.75. What number do you use, 0 or +1? If the RC is 8, the TC is 8/2 = 4.0, very accurate. For true edge, its 8/8 = 1.0. So every 1 true edge is the same as 4 TC (correct me if I'm wrong).

    If you look at the index charts, the TC charts have a big variety of numbers, whereas the true edge indices tend to be around -1 to +1.
    "Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by spassky962000 View Post
    Thanks ZenMaster_Flash. I did see this posting, but my book of BBIBJ (copyright 2005) has tables that don't seem consistent with the tables he gives here (after multiplying the indices by 4). I think I'm missing a version!
    You are not working the problem the right way. Dividing the indices by 4 to get the quarter deck estimate fractional indices will show you why the 1/4 deck is weak without the fractional indices. With the approach you took (multiplying the 1/4 deck by 4) you are simply taking the error slot for integer indices in 1/4 deck and forcing it to show up in full deck estimates. By working the problem the other way and getting fractional indices you can see why 1/4 deck has such poor performance by comparison. That doesn't even factor in the deck estimation accuracy issues which may or may not factor in depending on your skill level for 1/4 deck estimates.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Norm Wattenberger: True Count Compression and True Edge
    By Norm Wattenberger in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-02-2005, 10:38 AM
  2. poboy: hi-lo lite, true edge and TC
    By poboy in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-11-2005, 04:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.