Don, would you suggest to round down deck estimation in single deck?

[San Jose Bella]

On page 200 of BJA3, note the text next to the pentagram: "After the first hand is dealt to two players, on average, about eight cards will have been used. Since 13 cards constitute a quarter-deck, when we go to estimate the true count at the start of the second hand, we'll be dividing our running count by three-quarters."Why does the book suggest to divide by 3/4 when there are 8 cards(not equal or greater than 13 cards) being used?
I always round up the remaining deck estimation to avoid overestimating the TC, so when 8 cards have been used, I would divide by 1 deck instead of 3/4 deck.
When there are 40-52 cards left, I divide by 1 deck.
When there are 27-39 cards left, I divide by 3/4 deck. WeChat Image_20181006001004.jpg

[Dog Hand]

San Jose Bella,

If you combine your quoted text with the next paragraph from your picture, you can see that Don is rounding to the nearest quarter deck: 8 cards used counts as ¼ deck gone, so the TC denominator is ¾, while only 6 cards used counts as 0 decks gone, so the TC denominator stays at 1.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

[DSchles]

San Jose Bella,

If you combine your quoted text with the next paragraph from your picture, you can see that Don is rounding to the nearest quarter deck: 8 cards used counts as ¼ deck gone, so the TC denominator is ¾, while only 6 cards used counts as 0 decks gone, so the TC denominator stays at 1.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Yes, if you're estimating, or rounding, you have to draw the line somewhere. What if 12 cards are seen? Would the OP still feel comfortable dividing by a full deck, when you're just one card away from a quarter of a deck's having been used?

But, I understand the point that calling 8 cards a full quarter of a deck overestimates the TC, just as calling 12 cards zero decks would clearly underestimate it. There's no great answer to this, except, for those who are reasonably nimble with numbers, to calculate the count as precisely as possible, to the exact card. But, be careful, because, if you do this, then you have to generate your original indices this way as well.

Don

[San Jose Bella]

Yes, if you're estimating, or rounding, you have to draw the line somewhere. What if 12 cards are seen?

But, be careful, because, if you do this, then you have to generate your original indices this way as well.

Don

https://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount4.htm
In regard to true counting method, there are three contenders:
Truncate vs Floor vs Round.
and the unanimous decision goes to..(drumming)
Floor.

In regard to remaining deck(half deck) estimating method, there are two contenders:
Rounding vs Round Up

Rounding: 2.8 decks in the tray=3 decks as divisor
Round Up: 2.8 decks in the tray=3.5 decks as divisor

Why isn't there a unanimous decision for which method is greater? Just like floor is a superior true counting method.
Surely, different indices should be generated according to the remaining deck estimating method being used.
Don seems to suggest Rounding, while Three prefer to Round Up(round to a higher divisor).
I understand that there should be only a neglegible tiny difference on performance for these two method, but one has to be superior than the other.

[ZeeBabar]

Wonder how important it is. Not being very quick or smart, when I play DD heads up, after one round, I don't up my $25 minimum bet at RC 1 or 2, waiting for RC3. In effect, I mostly bet intuitively because of inability to quickly divide by fractions. I still win but wonder at the price I may be paying.

I suppose those of us with lesser mathematical skills probably occasionally over bet or under bet but it seems to even out.

[CountinCanadian]

I have always practiced assuming that you should just round decks as accurately as possible, since the TC is already floored. When I'm right inbetween half decks for a decision, figured it can't hurt to put the TC between the resultant TC from dividing by each surrounding half deck.

[San Jose Bella]

I have always practiced assuming that you should just round decks as accurately as possible, since the TC is already floored. When I'm right inbetween half decks for a decision, figured it can't hurt to put the TC between the resultant TC from dividing by each surrounding half deck.

I don't quite understand. When you're in between half decks for a deck estimation, which divisor would you use in the first place? TC is not already floored, it is floored after the division is done.
I can visually estimate very accurately, but I prefer to make it half-deck to have an easier divisor to divide, thus avoiding mistakes.
In six deck game, if your eyes tell you 2.75 decks in the discard tray, would you divide by 3 or 3.5 as the remaining decks?

[CountinCanadian]

I don't quite understand. When you're in between half decks for a deck estimation, which divisor would you use in the first place? TC is not already floored, it is floored after the division is done.
I can visually estimate very accurately, but I prefer to make it half-deck to have an easier divisor to divide, thus avoiding mistakes.
In six deck game, if your eyes tell you 2.75 decks in the discard tray, would you divide by 3 or 3.5 as the remaining decks?

What I meant is, say there's pretty much exactly 2.75 cards in the tray, you should know the TC based on BOTH divisors (3, and 3.5)

Say RC = 27, then TC would be 9 and 7, respectively.

In my mind, that's an 8.

However, it's rare the the half-deck different divisor will produce a TC different by more than 1 so I doubt the increased accuracy of this method is more than negligible

[CountinCanadian]

What I meant is, say there's pretty much exactly 2.75 cards in the tray, you should know the TC based on BOTH divisors (3, and 3.5)

Say RC = 27, then TC would be 9 and 7, respectively.

In my mind, that's an 8.

However, it's rare the the half-deck different divisor will produce a TC different by more than 1 so I doubt the increased accuracy of this method is more than negligible

Additionally, when the count get above my max bet TC I don't even bother converting to the TC as long as it stays above it. No point unless you're faced with one of the rare index plays way up there. So a scenario like my example wouldn't even be necessary as most people have the max bet out well before +8

[roliin]

"In six deck game, if your eyes tell you 2.75 decks in the discard tray, would you divide by 3 or 3.5 as the remaining decks?"

Wouldn't it be more accurate to divide by 2.5 or 3 since 2.75 is exactly in the middle? I'm having trouble grasping how this works and making mistakes on CVBJ.

[Freightman]

"In six deck game, if your eyes tell you 2.75 decks in the discard tray, would you divide by 3 or 3.5 as the remaining decks?"

Wouldn't it be more accurate to divide by 2.5 or 3 since 2.75 is exactly in the middle? I'm having trouble grasping how this works and making mistakes on CVBJ.

If your eyes tell you 2.75 decks in the discard tray, then 3.25 decks are left remaining in the shoe. So why do you need to divide. Maybe you’re trying to calculate true count, but you didn’t mention that or say what the running count was.

If so, then what level of exactitude do you want to achieve naturally using the simplest method possible. Let’s say RC is 6.

Aceside will tell you to truncate, so, 6/3.25 =1.71, so truncate to 1. (Most won’t be able to figure out exact, but will know the easy correct answer is true 1.0. This will leave you with a larger zero bucket decreasing frequency if higher value bets.
Norm will tell you to floor or round, so, floor to 0 decimals = truncation value, therefore true 1.0. Rounding takes you to True 2.
Freightman will tell you to sim by half true counts (as a measure and for more accuracy) and interpolate (as a measure), so 6/3.25 (in the heat of battle - how do you do it quickly)

This is where you teach yourself e a s y, s i m p l e tricks.
So, with 3.25 decks remaining, (6/2=3)- 10% =true 1.7 - very close to the calculator of 1.71.

Now, using half true counts or interpolating full true counts gets you to a profitable higher bet situation - however, they’re others who will say that this method is ill defined, lacking data, useless and with no evidence other than empiricism - the heart of progression systems. You will have to use your preferred method for what works best for you.

In any event, I stand by my preferred methid, but then again, what do I know.

[Sharky]

...This is where you teach yourself e a s y, s i m p l e tricks.
So, with 3.25 decks remaining, (6/2=3)- 10% =true 1.7 - very close to the calculator of 1.71.
....

say what???....that's some 'tricky' math for sure....I know you brag how you do these 'rapid fire, heat of battle' calculations .....and all whilst at the convenience of your home you make an error

are you sure you are able to calculate correctly at the tables, in the heat of the battle?

[Freightman]

say what???....that's some 'tricky' math for sure....I know you brag how you do these 'rapid fire, heat of battle' calculations .....and all whilst at the convenience of your home you make an error

are you sure you are able to calculate correctly at the tables, in the heat of the battle?

Clearly a typo, a transposition of numbers as otherwise the “lucky” answer would have been out a full true count.