Question on non-whole integer true counts in Hi-Lo

**JohnDoeNumber3** · 10-17-2015, 09:39 AM

Hi All,

New to the forum and to the game of blackjack. I've dedicated myself for the last several months to learning basic strategy and training myself to quickly count down a deck of cards (My record is 19 seconds with no distractions).

I have recently taken the plunge and purchased 6 decks of cards, a shoe, and discard tray to practice counting an entire shoe and making true count conversions.

One thing that I'm concerned about is the way in which rounding is supposed to occur when the true count does not come to a whole integer. This question can be broken into two areas:

1.) How much to bet based on a non-whole number true count
2.) How to play your hand based on a non-whole number true count

I've read online that flooring the true count is the method used by most counters, so if, for example, the TC is 1.9, it would be rounded down to 1 - I can only assume for the sake of being extra conservative.

What I was hoping to have answered by you guys is if this is in fact the correct way to round the TC and, if so, does that only apply for betting purposes or does it apply the same way to the way you play your hand?

Example of what I mean - Basic strategy says to hit a 15 V T, while card counters are supposed to stand if the TC is 4 or higher. So, if the TC is say 3.5 before the hand is dealt, should I place my bet as If I am dealing with a TC of 3? Then when the hands are dealt, say that the TC remains unchanged at 3.5 and I have a 15 V T, do I still round the TC down to 3 and hit? Or is it different when it comes to playing my hand such that I should be rounding UP rather than down?

Any explanations on this would be greatly appreciated.

**DSchles** · 10-17-2015, 10:08 AM

Everything you've written (and, may I say, very accurately, as well!) is correct. Your understanding is quite excellent. But, it is important to realize that, if you are using commercially generated indices for the plays, it behooves you to know which of the various methods (flooring, rounding, truncating) the system creator used to produce the values. You should be using the same methodology to estimate the true count as was used to produce the indices.

Understand, also, that when an advantage is calculated for a certain TC, for you to determine bet size, it is actually for an entire interval, say, from 3 to 3.999. As such, that edge represents an average, and so, if you calculate the TC to be, say, 3.75, as opposed to 3.25, both of which are rounded down to 3, there is "wiggle room" to bet a little more at 3.75 than at 3.25, if you so desire.

Don

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 10-17-2015, 11:34 AM

RE: FLOORING:

For the sake of clarification, you have properly

truncated fractional POSITIVE True Counts.

With NEGATIVE True Counts it works differently.

e.g. -3.1 to -3.9 "drop" (hence "floored") to -4

and -0.1 to -1.0 are deemed to be TC -1 !

**Gramazeka** · 10-18-2015, 01:32 PM

http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/hilolite.htm

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 10-18-2015, 02:25 PM

Gramazeka,

What was your purpose of posting an article from

2 decades ago on an ultra-weak Counting System ?

I see no connection to the topic of this thread.

**Gramazeka** · 10-18-2015, 03:12 PM

Indexes and way of their rounding are not important ! These researches were made long ago by Snyder.

p.s. It you delivered minus to my post?

**Gramazeka** · 10-18-2015, 03:43 PM

"Because there are many differences among the recommended indices for these three systems, however, my simulation results led me to hypothesize that strategy index numbers may not be such precise indicators of when to alter basic strategy, or, at least, that the "borderline" for the coin-toss decisions may be a fairly wide line."

"From the practical, dollars and cents perspective, it doesn’t matter which of these systems you use. These simulation results indicate that you may use a vastly simplified Hi-Lo Strategy and maintain full power, even in a one-deck game!

What does this discovery mean to card counters? It means that learning and utilizing strategy indices for any system need not be the chore that it has been. Instead of memorizing a different index number of each individual decision, you may simplify the indices using the same methodology that I did, and learn your changes in blocks."

Arnold Snyder

KJ · 10-18-2015, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash

What was your purpose of posting an article from

2 decades ago on an ultra-weak Counting System ?

I see no connection to the topic of this thread.

Flash, please stop with the "ultra weak' type comments concerning hi-lo.

If you think a supposedly 'higher level count' is beneficial to yourself, so be it. If you want that to be the basis of your teachings and mentoring to newer players, well I guess that is between you and them.

While you have support for your position on this particular site, your position is a very small minority within the community as a whole and particularly among what I call "serious" players, players that play professionally or semi professionally for significant stakes.

It is just not fair for you to make such comments concerning your minority opinion as if they were fact. It is a disservice to new players. You really are losing or have lost all credibility among serious players in the community, even members that you consider friends send private messages and emails back and forth wondering what is going on with you. Your ridiculous claims are being viewed in the same light that J-stat used to be when he made such ridiculous claims.

I realize you are in ill health and this is nothing personal. I wish for a full and speedy recovery for you as I stated in several emails that you have not responded to. But please stop with this nonsense and these ridiculous attacks on hi-lo. Hi-lo, while maybe not your preference is not an "ultra-weak counting system", as evident by it's use among many serious and professional players.

**Norm** · 10-18-2015, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by KJ

While you have support for your position on this particular site

KJ, please stop with the "this particular site" comments. All sites have people that push all manner of systems and believe there is only one answer. Bjarg was one such. And the comparison with JStat, who claimed ALL strategies but his were frauds, and spent decades accusing scores of people of committing fraud, is out of line.

Having said that, I absolutely agree that HiLo is NOT a weak strategy. It is a strong strategy still in use by teams and experienced pros.

KJ · 10-18-2015, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Norm

KJ, please stop with the "this particular site" comments. All sites have people that push all manner of systems and believe there is only one answer. Bjarg was one such. And the comparison with JStat, who claimed ALL strategies but his were frauds, and spent decades accusing scores of people of committing fraud, is out of line.

Having said that, I absolutely agree that HiLo is NOT a weak strategy. It is a strong strategy still in use by teams and experienced pros.

Norman, the fact is of the handful of sites that I participate on and you know what they are, this site is the only one that has a core group of people that are outspoken opponents of hi-lo and say things like 'weak' and that you can't win using Hi-lo, when there are many players that are not only winning but making a living using hi-lo. This site also has fewer of those serious, professional type players as members (for a variety of reasons including some left of their own choosing) and some of the ones that are participants here like bigplayer or Munchkin have long since given up on participating in these discussions, even to the point that they no longer object to statements like Flash routinely makes. I am glad to see you step up and make the final statement of your post.

You will take my comment that that this site has fewer serious type players as an attack or negative comment and it isn't meant to be. BJ21 obviously has far more of these types of players among it's membership, but that doesn't necessarily make that a better site. As a matter of fact, I have recently discontinued my membership there for numerous reasons including that I don't care for the tone that is used by some of these exact kind of players that consider themselves 'elite'. The fact that this site draws and has many newer players among it's membership is something I embrace, as one of my main interests has always been to share my experience with newer players just as many players did for me in my early years.

For the record, I am not pushing any system or counting method. I have at times referred to myself as a 'proponent of Hi-lo', and that was a mistake on my part. I do whole heartedly believe just as my 'bigplayer' quote signature states that Hi-lo is more than adequate for most players. It has served me well. But players should make their own decision based on what works for them. I just have a real problem with some of these misleading statements by this core group of opponents of Hi-lo, that are influencing players, especially newer players.

Admittedly, perhaps the Jstat comparision, was a bit strong.

**Norm** · 10-18-2015, 04:51 PM

Snyder wrote a classic article a couple decades ago describing one Blackjack table with many players all playing completely differently. Each player thought the other players were all ploppies. None were. They were just using different AP methodologies. The first thing an AP must learn is that there is not one path to Nirvana. Actually, I wish more could understand what that means. Nirvana partly means the rejection of the ego.

**Norm** · 10-18-2015, 05:16 PM

Yes, confidence is inward focused. Ego is outward focused. The most accomplished person in the world can benefit from a humble nature. No one can approach perfection. As if that word had any existential meaning.