Divide the difference by the ratio of cards unseen by total number of cards. There would be a bell curve around this calculation with a width dependent on the number of neutral cards. With 8 as the only neutral card you have a 4 card range of unknown that determine the width of your bell curve in a single deck game.
This is a good illustration of the power of ratios rather than true count. The RC in your above examples is -6, -5, -4, -3 respectively but they all have the same ratio of cards remaining in SD: 24,18; 20,15; 16,12; 12,9 of 4:3. Now the actual TC would be affected by the number of 8's removed which could be 0 to 4 eights in SD but the count would assume the 8's are removed 1 per 13 cards seen. Possible range of exact true count including neutral card info (the first column is the TC for exact card resolution everyone would use. It's application assumes 1 card seen for each neutral rank for every 13 cards seen. So the bell curve for that application would reflect this range but be centered around that number):
-6/(46/52) to -6/(42/52) = -6.78 to -7.43
-5/(39/52) to -5/(35/52) = -6.67 to -7.43
-4/(32/52) to -4/(28/52) = -6.5 to -7.43
-3/(25/52) to -3/(21/52) = -6.24 to -7.43
That is with 1 neutral card. Imagine the range of possible TC with 4 times as many neutral card (HILO and many other counts), it would only change the second column above:
-6/(30/52) = -6.78 to -10.40
-5/(23/52) = -6.67 to -11.30
-4/(16/52) = -6.5 to -13.00
-3/(9/52) = -6.24 to -17.33
There would be a bell curve of distribution in these ranges. So you would be most likely to be in the middle with a linear count but you would be 100% accurate every time using the ratios for your decision. The two ranges show the combined affect of pen and number of neutral cards on a counts accuracy. the pen is deceiving as the deeper you get the more likely you will visit the extremes represented by the range.
Bookmarks