Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Calculating True Count

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Calculating True Count

    Hello All,

    I received my Stanford Wong's "Professional Blackjack" yesterday and I have a question.

    On page 49 (chapt 4) Wong is explaining what he calls 'Count per Deck' which appears to be the same as True Count. Please correct me here if I am wrong.

    In the example Wong uses a running count of +2 and the remaining cards is given as 3 halves left out of 2 decks. In some examples I have seen, in other books and on line, true count is shown as running count divided by the number of half decks remaining. So for the example given it would appear as 2 divided by 3. But Wong is showing the calculation as 2 divided by 3/2. It appears that he is using 3/2 because there is 3 halves. He does not give a very good explaination here and I would like to make sure I have the correct method fixed in my mind. Can someone explain to me what Wong is doing here and the proper method of calculating Count per Deck and/or True Count if they are not the same? Of course I plan to use the High/Lo system.

    Hope this makes sense...

    Thanks

    Night_Rider

  2. #2
    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
    The most common usage of true count is count per deck (RC/N where N is the number of decks remaining). That is what you described. RC/1.5 decks. There are also counts/every half deck or every 2 decks. You need to use the same TC that the indices you use were generated for. With 1.5 decks remaining you could also divide by 3 to get TC/(1/2 deck) or divide by 3/4 to get the TC per number of 2 decks remaining. HILO typically uses count per deck so you would divide by 3/2 with 1.5 decks remaining. I have seen advocates for 2 deck resolution. The idea is to increase accuracy by having more accurate index play.

    You see we tend to use integers for indices but the truth is the actual index is not an integer. By dividing by how many 2 decks are left an index of 1.5 (which would either be an integer of 1 or 2) becomes 3. If you like integers this is great but by going to decimal indices rather than integers and sticking with TC/deck even higher accuracy is achieved. Most people use integers and TC/deck. Just make sure your indices are for the type of TC conversion you use.
    Last edited by Three; 06-25-2014 at 05:13 PM.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Tthree: Thanks for the explaination. Certainly much better than Wong's - not saying anything bad here about Wong. But, he just does not elaborate much in the example.

    Ok, I had to read it a few times to make sure I understood you completly. Maybe because he uses the term 'count per deck' and then relates it with an example where 1/2 deck had been used - I don't know but it seemed confusing. My first inclination was to use 3/4 (3 of 4 parts remaining) and thought, perhaps, that his example was wrong. But as long as I know what to do I guess that's all that counts.

    In your example you used the decimal 1.5 to relate the remaining decks. I think that I will use fractions to relate the remaining decks due to the math. It seems easier, at least at this time, to determine the number of 1/2 decks and then carry out the calculations with fractions rather than decimals. 3/2 (3 half decks) seems easier to handle in my head than the 1.5. To divide the RC by the number of decks all I have to do is invert and multiply. 2/(3/2) = 2/1 x 2/3 = 4/3 =1.33 just seems easier than 2/1.5 to me at this time.

    In his book, wong, does not specifically state what TC method his indices are for. But, since his discussion is about Count per Deck it would be my assumption that this is the method used to generate the indices. Perhaps he specifically states it later in the book but I don't recall seeing it up to now. I figure as long as I follow along with what he is doing in his book I should be ok. If this is not a correct assumption would someone please let me know?

    Thanks

    Night_Rider

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Night_Rider View Post
    To divide the RC by the number of decks all I have to do is invert and multiply. 2/(3/2) = 2/1 x 2/3 = 4/3 =1.33 just seems easier than 2/1.5 to me at this time.
    Any time half decks come into play just double the RC as well as decks remaining, for easier division. So using a running count of 2 with 1.5 remaining instead of doing 2/1.5 if you just double them both then you can work with whole numbers. It would then be 4/3, which is much easier to work with.

  5. #5
    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
    I used 1.5 decks to show that 3/2 decks would result in TC/deck because you seemed confused about Wong. I would need to use the fraction for the math invert and multiply just as you did. Math has many ways to work the same problem. Find what is easiest for you while inducing the lowest likelihood of errors. When I used to review my play after a bad turn the only way to insure a lower probability of mistakes being the cause was to change the math used to eliminate the possibility of certain mistakes. I doubt anyone does the math with the same method I do. We all get the same answer.

  6. #6
    Senior Member bigplayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,807


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Don't ask the reason why, just invert and multiply. (Grade School Flashback). If there is 1.5 Decks remaining that is the same as 3/2 decks. The TC = RC/Decks Unseen so that is +2/(3/2) which is the same as +2 * (2/3) = 4/3 or 1.33

Similar Threads

  1. True Edge vs. True Count
    By spassky962000 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-06-2020, 01:25 PM
  2. Converting KO Running Count to TKO True Count
    By MercySakesAlive in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-15-2014, 06:33 AM
  3. 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
  4. jim: true count ko
    By jim in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-24-2003, 06:56 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.