count frequency

[realestate]

how come the count freq at 0 is 24.54, isn't it suppose to be around 40%? And also how come the count frequencies for <=-1 and >=1 dont equal to each other?

count freq.PNG

[RS]

I'm not an expert with this stuff, but my initial thought is it has to do with the way you find the TC: Rounding, truncating, or flooring. If I'm not mistaken, flooring is when you basically always round down if there's a decimal.

So if the RC is +2 with 5 decks remaining, TC is +0.4 and that gets floored/rounded down to TC 0.

If the RC is -2 with 5 decks remaining, TC is -0.2 and that gets floored/rounded down to TC -1.

[Bodarc]

how come the count freq at 0 is 24.54, isn't it suppose to be around 40%?

As noted by RollingStoned, these frequencies will change depending on your count, the rules of the game, your TC computation method and other factors.

how come the count frequencies for <=-1 and >=1 dont equal to each other?

There is no relationship between <=-1 and >=1. They do not have to match. The frequencies of your 500 mil round simulation are the results of the above factors.

[Three]

My first thoughts were what rounding technique is used and is this a balanced count or an unbalanced count?

[DSchles]

Unfortunately, you didn't get complete answers, below, so here goes:

1. In your example, CVCX uses flooring for the true count calculation. That was explained correctly. So, the "bucket" for TC = 0 comprises all TCs from 0.00 to 0.99 (including exactly 0 is important, as it accounts for about 10% of the frequency). The larger value you were alluding to for TC = 0 (slightly more than 40%) occurs when you truncate the true count. When that happens, not only do you get TC = 0 for the interval I just quoted but ALSO for the interval -0.99 to -0.01. So, you are almost doubling the width of counts that get cataloged as zero. Since you must count exactly zero in the TC >=0 bucket, you don't double THAT entire value when you include the negatives Clear?

2. As for the apparent asymmetry of the <=-1 counts compared to adding all the >=+1 counts, that is because the top bucket of <=-1 actually includes the -0.99 to -0.01 interval that I just discussed (which is FLOORED to -1 when you play) and so contains this extra interval that is not represented in the +1 and higher counts. So, the 46% is actually reflecting all counts strictly below 0.00 (not just below -1.00), while counts starting with +1 and higher do NOT include the (symmetrical) interval of 0.01 to 0.99, which is why they add to a lower number (29.46%) than the very top bucket in your illustration. Clear?

Don

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Don,

Extremely clear.

[dharmaprija]

cvbj and the others are great programs!

[dharmaprija]

crystal and clear