12v4 question

[Norm]

I agree with Cac, hit below zero for total or composition dependent with Flooring.

[Cacarulo]

I agree with Cac, hit below zero for total or composition dependent with Flooring.

The number of decks was never known. But for 6D we agree that the index is 0 for both cases. In the case of 2D, the index goes up to +1 for 12v4 and up to +2 for T2v4.

Cac

[Norm]

For 2D, depending on other settings, I get +1 or +2 for 12v4 and +2 for T2v4.

[21forme]

I'm confused. Since when do you use both the count and hand composition for index play? Your count includes the current composition, correct?

[Norm]

You don't. The specific hand was just in the original question. Only time I think CD decisions make sense is with bonuses.

[Cacarulo]

Another possibility for using CD-indices is with insurance bets.

[Cacarulo]

For 2D, depending on other settings, I get +1 or +2 for 12v4 and +2 for T2v4.

I used half-deck resolution, floored.

[aceside]

My software simulator calculates the threshold at -0.2. Above -0.2 is stand. Below -0.2 is hit. At -0.2 is flip the coin. For people who don't want to use the fraction number, floor of -0.2 is -1.

This has been discussed here many times; however, I believe truncation is the scientifically correct way to approximate a fraction TC number. The reason is two fold. One, the resulting integer TC numbers will be symmetric about the TC=0 point. This is important especially for balanced counting systems, such as HiLo and Zen. Two, the resulting accuracy will match the abilities of a human being. With truncation, we will have the indices concentrating toward the TC=0 point, and thus fewer indices to remember.

[Norm]

See the second chart at: https://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount4.htm

[aceside]

I just carefully examined your charts and found that truncation is a much better approximation, essentially at counts close to TC=0. It’s just closer to the rounding results. This supports my earlier statements.

[Norm]

The fact that it is closer to rounding supports nothing at all. The problem with truncation is that TC0 has less resolution and therefore less accuracy. Look at the third chart. Given the rules stated, 42% of counts are one count.

[aceside]

I’ll look at your third chart and descriptions. It’s a little tricky.

[aceside]

TC0 is the most likely anywhere in the shoe, except for next to last card. At the start of the deck, it's always TC0 with balanced counts. After four out of six decks dealt, about 180:1 against a TC of zero.

See: https://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration1.htm

Among the billions of deck compositions in the remaining two decks of a six-deck shoe when HiLo TC=0, I guess the most likely one is this:

2(8), 3(8), 4(9), 5(8), 6(8), 7(8), 8(7), 9(7), Ten(33), Ace(8).

is this a good guess?