Quote Originally Posted by k_c View Post
This is what I get for 52 cards remaining of a 6 deck shoe before up card is dealt for a player hand of T-3. In the initial example of T-3 (half shoe) you would need to divide by around 3 to get a true count value but with 52 cards remaining you'd divide by around 1.
-difference in TC for ES: ~+4 for 52 cards remaining, ~3.3 for half shoe

TC can vary some by pen but how much of a handle one could expect on this is probably a function of common sense.

If anyone is interested I could post some simple data on exactly how cards remaining, RC, and TC vary for insurance indexes for all penetrations listed at once. Insurance is simpler because all that needs to be determined is the probability of drawing a T.

Other differences:
-There is a LS value versus T for 52 cards, no value for half shoe
-There is a LS value versus A for 52 cards, no value for half shoe
-ES versus A at >=-9 for 52 cards, always ES for half shoe
-There are values for surrender versus 8 or 9 for 52 cards, no value for half shoe (LS=ES for non A or T)
-There is a value for stand versus A for 52 cards, no value for half shoe

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 = 52
No subgroups are defined

i>=2        2      3      4      5      6      7      8      9      T      A

Stand     >=1   >=-1   >=-3   >=-4   >=-4      h      h      h      h   >=17
Double      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Pair        -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
LS          -      -      -      -      -      -   >=16   >=14    >=9   >=13
ES          -      -      -      -      -      -   >=16   >=14    >=4   >=-9

Press any key to continue
k_c

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
k_c