See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 46

Thread: Deck estimation, would you dvide by 2 or 1.5?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Question Deck estimation, would you dvide by 2 or 1.5?

    Steps to calculate the True Count:

    1. Obtain the RC through card counting.
    2. Eyeball the discard tray, minus the cut card, plus the seen cards on the table to estimate the remaining deck.
    3. Round up the remaining deck estimation to the nearest half deck.
    4. Divide the RC by the remaining half deck to get the TC estimation.
    5. Floor the TC estimation to the nearest integer.

    I'm talking about step 3 here.
    From a lot of sources I've gone through, all of them suggest rounding up rather than rounding or flooring.
    Thus, I always round up my remaining deck. For example, 2.2 decks remaining, I divide by 2.5; 3.7 decks remaining, I divide by 4.
    However, in some cases near the end of a shoe, I just feel it's incorrect to round up.

    For example, in a 6 deck game, after a round of play, there are no cards on the table.
    From eyeballing, I can tell there are 4.4 decks in the discard tray, so there are 1.6 decks remaining.
    Since 1.6 decks round up to 2 decks, I would divide by 2 decks, but round down to 1.5 decks provide a more accurate TC.
    9/1.6=5.625 Exact
    9/2=4.5 Round up
    9/1.5=6 Round down

    To rephrase my question, should I round down if I can clearly tell that round down gives me a much closer TC estimation?
    For example:
    1.1 deck round down to 1, rather than round up to 1.5.
    0.6 deck round down to 0.5, rather than round up to 1.

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Learn to your interpolate - much simpler, more accurate.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Do the division by remaining decks as accurately as you possibly can, with no rounding at all. Then floor the result.

    Don

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Do the division by remaining decks as accurately as you possibly can, with no rounding at all. Then floor the result.

    Don
    Depending on perspective, I both agree and disagree. If you can’t calculate on the fly that portion of cards remaining beyond a full deck, then flooring as you described is the way to go. If you have the ability to interpolate, or described a different way, of being able to calculate half true counts, then flooring to the nearest half true count is the way to go.

    For the benefit of others, when simming scenarios on cvcx, there is an optional radio button that allows calculation of optimal betting by half true counts. There is a slight difference in optimal betting when flooring to full true counts versus half true counts.

    Curious of course, to your thoughts on the matter.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I just figured you should round as close as possible, and if you're right in the middle, at a quarter deck, you should be able to calculate TC for each surrounding half deck quickly.

    Example: RC 17, decks remaining 2.25.

    So I should know almost automatically, if 2.5 decks left, TC 6.5. If 2 decks left, TC 8.5. So meeting in the middle at 7.5 should be a decent estimate.

    And turns out 7.5 is precisely correct.

    Since TC conversions with half decks remaining should be automatic, I find this way easier than dividing to a quarter deck

    Otherwise I'd figure just be conservative if in a crunch and round for a slightly lower count as you suggested, rather than a slightly higher one.
    Last edited by CountinCanadian; 09-28-2018 at 09:03 PM.

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by CountinCanadian View Post
    I just figured you should round as close as possible, and if you're right in the middle, at a quarter deck, you should be able to calculate TC for each surrounding half deck quickly.

    Example: RC 17, decks remaining 2.25.

    So I should know almost automatically, if 2.5 decks left, TC 6.5. If 2 decks left, TC 8.5. So meeting in the middle at 7.5 should be a decent estimate.

    And turns out 7.5 is precisely correct.

    Since TC conversions with half decks remaining should be automatic, I find this way easier than dividing to a quarter deck

    Otherwise I'd figure just be conservative if in a crunch and round for a slightly lower count as you suggested, rather than a slightly higher one.
    You are learning, grasshopper.

    https://youtu.be/U11bGxlmnVk
    Last edited by Freightman; 09-28-2018 at 09:08 PM.

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    My personal opinion is you are trying to be too precise. Why are you worrying about the one cut card in the discard tray. I also wouldn't try to get so accurate that I'm using half decks except maybe for the last playable deck of the shoe.

    Here is how I would do it for a six deck game. I would look at the discard try and round to what I see is the closest deck. If I see 2.3 decks in the discard try I would call it 2 and subtract 2 from 6 and divide by 4.

    If playing a two deck game I would multiply instead of divide to get true count. Think .5, .6, .7, .8. and for the shitty games I play the game is pretty much over by then.
    Exact ..... Use
    0.1667___ .2___6 decks left
    0.2000___ .2___5 decks left
    0.2500___ .3___4 decks left
    0.3333___ .3___3 decks left
    0.5000___ .5___2 decks left
    0.5714___ .6___1.75 decks left
    0.6667___ .7___1.50 decks left
    0.8000___ .8___1.25 decks left
    1.0000___ 1___ 1 decks left
    1.3333___ 1.3__.75 decks left
    2.0000___ 2___ .50 decks left
    3.0003___ 3___ .33 decks left
    4.0000___ 4___ .25 decks left
    Last edited by Midwest Player; 09-28-2018 at 09:39 PM.

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Actually, I don't intend to make things more complicated, so I would always divide by half deck.(not quarter deck or even smaller fraction)

    If exact 1.7 deck remaining, and I only have two options:
    1. Always divide by 2 deck
    2. Always divide by 1.5 deck
    which option generates more risk adjusted EV over the long run?

    ???? PACM00 ?? Tapatalk??

  9. #9
    Senior Member Bubbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    957


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    From eyeballing, I can tell there are 4.4 decks in the discard tray, so there are 1.6 decks remaining.

    Since 1.6 decks round up to 2 decks, I would divide by 2 decks, but round down to 1.5 decks provide a more accurate TC.
    For one, my eye balling isn't that good. At 4.4 decks in the discard try, I probably see it as 4.5 decks.

    Mentally I come to my TC like this:
    I note the RC /1 decks
    The RC /2 decks
    Then think of a number about half way between them. This is my TC.

    If I see 4.25 decks, I adjust aces based on 4.25, then divide by 2 for my TC. Sometimes I'll remember to +1 to the TC if my running count is odd.

    If I see 4.75 decks in the discard tray, I adjust aces by 4.75. RC basically equals TC, but not all the way. I just lower my RC by a smidge.

    I suck at mental math. This is how I do it. I don't always come to the correct TC, but it's close enough for me. The proper way would be to drill or find simple ways to come to the correct TC.


    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Bubbles; 09-29-2018 at 02:16 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I prefer to err on the conservative side. The important thing is to do what your sim you base bets and plays on does it. You are describing making playing decisions when you say including all the cards seen on the table. Griffin said you can lose most of your index play gain if you systematically apply the deviation too early. By dividing by a smaller number than decks remaining you would be causing what Griffin warned against to happen. But for betting decisions at deep pen floating advantage starts to kick in. In this case the error of dividing by a smaller number of decks remaining can help factor in that floating advantage.

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    In this case the error of dividing by a smaller number of decks remaining can help factor in that floating advantage.
    Disagree as to form. I think it far more effective to calculate decks remaining as accurately as possible. Then, factor in an additional .25 to approaching .5 at 5.0/6.

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Griffin said you can lose most of your index play gain if you systematically apply the deviation too early. By dividing by a smaller number than decks remaining you would be causing what Griffin warned against to happen.
    That's exactly what I'm worried about, I don't want to divide by a smaller number than deck remaining, but most importantly, I want to make things easy.
    For me, it's easy to visualize quarter-deck, or more specifically, 4.4 decks in the discard tray, but it's hard and unnecessary to divide them, so I always divide by half deck(for shoe games).

    When there are exact 1.7 decks remaining, meaning 4.3 decks visible in the discard tray, two options:
    1. Always divide by 2 deck

    2. Always divide by 1.5 deck
    Which option generates more risk-adjusted EV over the long run?
    I used to always divide by 2(round up). If I divide by 1.5, the result would be closer to the actual deck remaining, but isn't that overestimating the TC, and cause the index play to be applied early?

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by San Jose Bella View Post
    I used to always divide by 2(round up). If I divide by 1.5, the result would be closer to the actual deck remaining, but isn't that overestimating the TC, and cause the index play to be applied early?
    Yes.

    You don't have to do betting TC and playing TC the same way. Below is the TC for remaining decks estimates (1.5,1.7,2) as the RC increases:

    0: (0,0,0)
    1: (0,0,0)
    2: (1,1,1)
    3: (2,1,1)
    4: (2,2,2)
    5: (3,2,2)
    6: (4,3,3)
    7: (4,4,3)
    8: (5,4,4)
    9: (6,5,4)
    10: (6,5,5)
    11: (7,6,5)
    12: (8,7,6)
    13: (8,7,6)
    14: (9,8,7)
    15: (10,8,7)
    16: (10,9,8)
    17: (11,10,8)
    18: (12,10,9)
    19: (12,11,9)
    20: (13,11,10)
    21: (14,12,10)
    22: (14,12,11)

    For an ace reckoned count you are employing your index early with your biggest bets out when you use 1.5 for your playing count deck estimates. That is a double whammy by giving up percentage of index play gain when you have your biggest bets out.
    Last edited by Three; 10-05-2018 at 06:00 AM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Deck Estimation standard in Double Deck
    By vhalen in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-22-2016, 09:10 AM
  2. Deck estimation.
    By Pacman in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-28-2014, 01:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.