the correct formula to compute the true count

[moowoo]

Hi, i found that actually i might have a wrong formula to compute the true count, thus I found that I am so hard to get a high true count.

Currently by visiting the novice card counting site, it taught a theory of high-low index and they defined the computation of true count as

true count = running count / numOfDeckOfGame

I want to ask if it is the correct formula to compute the true count or there is other dependence that I have missed?

thanks.

[RS]

You divide by number of decks REMAINING. This is something you have to estimate (but after a little bit of practice and play, it's quite easy and quick). For the "decks remaining", it does NOT matter how many cards or decks are behind the cut card, FYI. Sometimes that throws people off for whatever reason.


For example, you're in a 6 deck game, you're at an RC of +8 and 2 decks into the shoe. Since there are 6-2 decks remaining (4), the TC is 8/4 = +2.


An excellent card counting guide can be found here: https://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackjack-school/ That's what I used when I first learned how to count cards, and I know several others have used it as well. If you're still serious about card counting, I recommend purchasing CVCX and CVBJ from qfit.com. The first is a simulator -- you enter the type of game you're playing, bankroll, game rules, what kinda spread you want, risk, etc. etc. etc....and it tells you proper bet ramping (when to bet what), your EV, SD, ROR, N0, etc. CVBJ is practice software with drills to speed up your counting and get you accurate, as well as a real-life BJ game (for fake money obviously) that lets you know if you've made an error, it keeps count along with you and you can check it periodically to make sure you have the correct running count, true count, etc.

[Midwest Player]

To stir up the pot. How about getting the true count by multiplying. Multiply the running count by the following factors.
.2---- 6 decks left
.2---- 5 decks left
.3---- 4 decks left
.4---- 3 decks left
.5---- 2 decks left
.6---- 1.75 decks left
.7---- 1.50 decks left
.8---- 1.25 decks left
1----- 1 decks left
1.3---.75 decks left
2-----.50 decks left

Multiplying is easier than dividing. Suppose you are playing a 6 deck game with 2 decks left with a running count of 4.
Multiply 4 x .5 = 2.0

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"How about getting the true count by multiplying?"

Division = Multiply by the reciprocal. That means ~
When less than a deck remains unseen, multiplication
is best. You take the fraction of cards unseen, turn it over
and multiply. e.g. 1/3 = 3 ... 2/3 = 1.5 etc.

[ZeeBabar]

Division = Multiply by the reciprocal. That means ~
When less than a deck remains unseen, multiplication
is best. You take the fraction of cards unseen, turn it over
and multiply. e.g. 1/3 = 3 ... 2/3 = 1.5 etc.

Whew, you pros are something else. When less than a deck remains and the RC is above 4, most of us amateurs, don't do all this shit, we place close to our maximum bet.

[Three]

Whew, you pros are something else. When less than a deck remains and the RC is above 4, most of us amateurs, don't do all this shit, we place close to our maximum bet.

What about index plays? I guess you just use BS with your max bet out.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"What about index plays? I guess you just use BS with your max bet out."

The value of Index Plays increases as the extreme True Counts are approached.
While these situations are less common, your bets will be at or near your Max bet.
With Hi-Opt II I recommend that my students learn their indices up to +16 which
is the approximate equivalent to Hi-Lo +8.
Last week I had $500 bet and had to surrender a 13 vs. 10 followed by my LATER
splitting 9's vs Ace.

[DSchles]

"Multiplying is easier than dividing. Suppose you are playing a 6 deck game with 2 decks left with a running count of 4.
Multiply 4 x .5 = 2.0"

Because, clearly, dividing 4 by 2 to get 2 is much too hard?! :-)

Don

[Freightman]

"Multiplying is easier than dividing. Suppose you are playing a 6 deck game with 2 decks left with a running count of 4.
Multiply 4 x .5 = 2.0"

Because, clearly, dividing 4 by 2 to get 2 is much too hard?! :-)

Don

Some halves players (not me) double RC, then divide by 2 to get to a proper true count, so,

(4x2) /(2x2) = 4/2 =2.

There used to be old adage - there was no unemployment in the Soviet Union, however, there was a surplus of Salt.

I used that exact expression while fighting g a traffic ticket 40 years or so ago. In an empty parking lot, I parked in a handicapped stall. I didn't see the sign as it was perpendicular to the stall on a ridiculously high pole, about 10 feet high. After testifying g to that fact, the prosecutor actually asked me, if, get this - Mr. Freightman, where the handicapped sign should have been, was there another sign placed directing you to the location of the handicapped sign. And lawyers are supposed to be intelligent.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

" ... double RC, then divide by 2."

IF you double a number and then halve
it you are left with the original number.

n'est pas ?

[Freightman]

IF you double a number and then halve
it you are left with the original number.

n'est pas ?

Flash, note the responded to quote, and the last paragraph of my post. I think I made it clear that doubling the values to divide by 2 to come to the same answer is essentially the same as mining salt.

[Midwest Player]

"Multiplying is easier than dividing. Suppose you are playing a 6 deck game with 2 decks left with a running count of 4.
Multiply 4 x .5 = 2.0"

Because, clearly, dividing 4 by 2 to get 2 is much too hard?! :-)

Don

How about a double deck game with a running count of 4 and 1.25 decks remaining. What is easier, multiply 4 x .8 = 3.2 or divide 4 / 1.25?

[Norm]

Some people multiply, particularly in pitch games. In CV, use Custom TC Calc to support this.