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

[San Jose Bella]

.

Blackbelt In Blackjack, page 83:
1.jpg
Arnald Snyder is on Don's side, he advocates rounding the remaining deck. When 2.2 decks are remaining, Arnald calls it 2 decks remaining.

I don't like this way of estimating the remaining deck cause it increases the difficulty of training.
For 6 deck game, using half deck estimation, people usually make up stacks of cards containing 5.5, 5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1 decks to practice eyeballing. It would be a wrong set up if they use rounding method to estimate the remaining deck because the boundary is blurry, thus it takes longer to make a tough call(i.e. 2.2 decks becomes 2 decks, 2.3 decks become 2.5 decks).
It would be better to make up stacks of cards containing 5.75, 5.25, 4.75, 4.25, 3.75, 3.25, 2.75, 2.25, 1.75, 1.25 decks, so the boundaries would be established precisely. Eyeball these boundary stacks long enough and memorize them cold, then it won't take more than a blink to conclude the remaining deck falls into which section, according to the eyeballed thickness.



This is the default Set Custom TC page in CVCX:
2.jpg
The Deck range makes the segmentation of 2.02-2.5 decks, or 1.52-2 decks. This is clearly not Don or Arnold's way to estimate the divisor.



To make the CVCX estimate the remaining deck for TC divisor exactly the same way as Don and Arnold described, I click Set Custom, input below numbers in Set Decks & Divisor column:
3.jpg
Does this match Don's method to get the TC divisor?



Besides, if I don't use the Custom TC option, what exactly does the default Half Deck Resolution mean? The PDF manual doesn't specify clearly how the divisor is calculated:
4.jpg
Card Range 221-246=Divisor 4.5?
Card Range 209-234=Divisor 4.5?



I still prefer Three's "Round Up the Remaining Deck" method, which means: Card Range 209-234=Divisor 4.5
(note: in CVCX, Deck Range of 0-1 equal to Card Range of 0-51 cards. This is confusing cause I think one deck should be equal to 52 cards, so I set 0-1.02 as the Deck Range to make the Card Range 0-52, I set 1.04-1.52 as the Deck Range to make the Card Range 53-78, and so forth..)I've used to eyeballing 4.5 and 5 decks as boundaries, practice eyeballing 4.25 and 4.75 decks is very unnatural to me.
5.jpg
How to redo all the Hilo indices according to Three's method of estimating the divisors?

[Warlock]

Hey I know this a the thread about rounding off for the true countcoma and this is a little bit of a different question but related , i’m fairly new AP player, so far I’ve never seen a playable single deck game, are they still out there ? The ones I’ve seen our 50% pen Black jack 6:5, I did find one single deck game where all cards were dealt But all the rules were terrible, can you still find a pliable single dick game ??

[Warlock]

Playable single deck game

[21forme]

can you still find a pliable single dick game ??

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Freightman]

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

I’ve been playing that game for over 40 years

[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.

[Norm]

That wasn't the question. It's about deck estimate before the divide, not integerization after the divide.

Some people round and some truncate. The correct way is the way the indices were generated. Unfortunately, the books don't tell you. So, do what is easiest. You can set the way you use in CVBJ at options-Settings-TC Calc-Deck estimate.

[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.

[Freightman]

That wasn't the question. It's about deck estimate before the divide, not integerization after the divide.

I realize that, but his question didn’t make sense as he answered it in his question He said 2.75 decks are in discard tray, 3.25 decks remaining, I said “if 3.25 decks remain, why do you need to divide, so either I answered the question he meant to ask, or he has something else on his mind. I suppose OP could clarify, but then again, what do I know.

[Norm]

Huh? Obviously he was talking about TC calc as he wanted to know what to divide by.

what do I know.

I suggest you stop asking that question as others are starting to wonder.

[Freightman]

Huh? Obviously he was talking about TC calc as he wanted to know what to divide by.

Which is why I answered the obvious question he meant to ask. I believe that’s the third time I’ve said that.

I suggest you stop asking that question as others are starting to wonder.

Im sure you’ve figured out that it is in your honour. If you would like a specific explanation, just ask