# Thread: TC Harmonic Frequency Question

1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by SteinMeister
Thank you Don for your response. I have the highest regard for your insight and wisdom, and I am very glad that you are an active member in this forum. I'm sure that I'm not the only one in this forum that "hones in" [homes] on your particular response, as it does carry a lot of weight.

However, I believe that my question / request still was not very clear. My "holy grail" data that I was hoping to obtain is not in the units of TC, but in units of # of hands.

I do appreciate your attempts to understand my cloudy conception, and maybe it's best to file this one in the waste bin.

What difference would that make? When you get the frequency, or magnitude, of the highest point in your bell curve, you then multiply that percentage by the number of hands in the sim.

This is very old stuff. Wong did it almost 40 years ago. I have all the TC frequencies in Chapter 10, except I don't bother with the negatives. Frankly, I don't think you understand what you're asking for.

Don

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I could be misunderstanding, SteinMeister, but I'm not sure that thinking of the frequency as a wave form is the right way to do it (rather than just a simple average over a simulation or set of sessions). To think of it as a wave form with a predictable frequency would be going down the route of "well it hit the lowest point, so now it is more likely to go back to the high point and back down", like a cycle, which it is not. :-/

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by JamesonDetroit
I could be misunderstanding, SteinMeister, but I'm not sure that thinking of the frequency as a wave form is the right way to do it (rather than just a simple average over a simulation or set of sessions). To think of it as a wave form with a predictable frequency would be going down the route of "well it hit the lowest point, so now it is more likely to go back to the high point and back down", like a cycle, which it is not. :-/
Not only correct, but, in actuality, at any given moment, whatever the true count happens to be, it has no tendency to change at all! Naturally, it DOES vary, but that is due to standard deviation of the statistic and not because of any mean-reversion property, which the TC doesn't have.

Don

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Don - one thing I've never understood about the True Count Theorem is how can it be correct, as the last few cards are dealt (assuming no cut card), the TC has to finish at 0, so it is moving towards that point. Right? or are you going to say the TC is undefined when the last card is dealt because you can't divide by 0?

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by 21forme
Don - one thing I've never understood about the True Count Theorem is how can it be correct, as the last few cards are dealt (assuming no cut card), the TC has to finish at 0, so it is moving towards that point. Right? or are you going to say the TC is undefined when the last card is dealt because you can't divide by 0?
The TC never has to finish at 0; only the running count does. And, of course, there is no TC if there are no cards left to divide by. Yet again, the RC reverts to zero; the TC doesn't revert to anything.

Don

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by 21forme
Don - one thing I've never understood about the True Count Theorem is how can it be correct, as the last few cards are dealt (assuming no cut card), the TC has to finish at 0, so it is moving towards that point. Right? or are you going to say the TC is undefined when the last card is dealt because you can't divide by 0
And in terms of the TC staying the same (rather than tending toward zero, as the RC does)... As I understand it, leading up to the end of the deck, because the divisor keeps decreasing more and more with each card dealt (fewer decks remaining), even though the RC approaches 0, the TC doesn't necessarily head in that direction. Let's take an extreme example of only two cards remaining in hi-lo.

There are 2 cards left in the deck, one X and one 8. The RC is at 1. The TC is at 1 / ~.04, so *25*. After the next card is dealt, the RC will either still be 1 (8 came out) or 0 (X came out). In the case of the RC staying 1, the TC is now 1/~.02, so *50*. If the X came out, then the RC is 0 and the TC is 0/~.02, so it is also 0. Take the "average" of those two possible results (so, run simulations of those possibilities for however long) and you will get a result of the average TC after the next card staying at ~*25*. The average RC after that next card, however, is .5; unlike the TC, the RC is properly approaching zero. I'm sure Don can explain it even better, but that at least kept it clear in my head haha.

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
"I'm sure Don can explain it even better, but that at least kept it clear in my head haha."

No, your explanation is just fine, thank you. The takeaway is that understanding how the RC behaves is somewhat intuitive and straightforward. It starts at zero, ends at zero, and so, wherever it is other than those two points, it is tending to zero along the way. Understanding how the TC behaves is a great deal LESS intuitive, as we can make no such analogous statements other than, before the deal begins, it is zero.

Don

Page 2 of 2 First 12

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•