This post is not entirely right because of a problem I found in my algorithm.
I had intended to cycle through all possible running counts. For HiLo, 6 decks this range is -120 to +120. However, I was only cycling through possible running counts for single deck for which the HiLo range is -20 to + 20. Below are the running count indexes for half shoe and 52 cards remaining dealt from a 6 deck shoe using the entire running count range.
Code:
Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Composition dependent indices for hand, rules, number of decks, and pen
Player hand composition: 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1: Hard 13, 2 cards
Decks: 6 (possible input for cards remaining: 1 to 312)
Cards remaining before up card = 156
No subgroups are defined
i>=9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
Stand >=-1 >=-5 >=-10 >=-15 >=-15 >=96 h h h >=60
Double - - - - - - - - - -
Pair - - - - - - - - - -
LS - - - - - >=78 >=59 >=41 >=25 >=44
ES - - - - - >=78 >=59 >=41 >=10 >=-25
(Divide by ~3 to get true count)
Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Composition dependent indices for hand, rules, number of decks, and pen
Player hand composition: 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1: Hard 13, 2 cards
Decks: 6 (possible input for cards remaining: 1 to 312)
Cards remaining before up card = 52
No subgroups are defined
i>=2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
Stand >=1 >=-1 >=-3 >=-4 >=-4 >=37 h h h >=17
<50
Double - - - - - - - - - -
Pair - - - - - - - - - -
LS - - - - - >=22 >=16 >=14 >=9 >=13
<20
ES - - - - - >=22 >=16 >=14 >=4 >=-9
(Divide by ~1 to get true count)
The point was to show how true count indices can vary by penetration. Unfortunately the thread was relegated to the yellow pages. Below is maybe a clearer example. It shows how insurance indices for Wong Halves (using doubled tags) varies with cards remaining to be dealt. (The running count and true count values for undoubled tags can be calculated by simply dividing RC/TC by 2.) Insurance should be taken at RC/TC greater than or equal to the values for each of the listed cards remaining values.
Code:
Count tags {2,-1,-2,-2,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2}
Decks: 6
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards RC TC ref
288 63 11.38
287 47 8.52
286 45 8.18
285 44 8.03
284 43 7.87
282 42 7.74
281 41 7.59
279 40 7.46
276 39 7.35
273 38 7.24
269 37 7.15
265 36 7.06
260 35 7.00
254 34 6.96
249 33 6.89
242 32 6.88
236 31 6.83
229 30 6.81
222 29 6.79
215 28 6.77
208 27 6.75
201 26 6.73
193 25 6.74
186 24 6.71
178 23 6.72
171 22 6.69
163 21 6.70
155 20 6.71
148 19 6.68
140 18 6.69
132 17 6.70
124 16 6.71
116 15 6.72
109 14 6.68
101 13 6.69
93 12 6.71
85 11 6.73
77 10 6.75
69 9 6.78
61 8 6.82
53 7 6.87
45 6 6.93
37 5 7.03
29 4 7.17
21 3 7.43
13 2 8.00
5 1 10.40
2 0 0.00
1 2 104.00
Press any key to continue
Originally Posted by k_c
This post is not entirely right because of a problem I found in my algorithm.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks