12v4 question

[Norm]

Realize that with ten flips of a coin, HHHHHHHHHH is just as likely as HTHTHTHTHT. I have never liked the concept of drawing conclusions from subsets.

Also realize that a round is more likely to end with a high card than a low card.

[aceside]

Let me try to make this math problem clear. We can use a set of integers,
(n2, n3, n4, n5, n6, n7, n8, n9, n10, n1)
to represent the deck composition of the remaining two decks of a six-deck shoe,
(2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Ten, Ace).

Now, we have these constraints:
n2 +n3 +n4 +n5 +n6 +n7 +n8 +n9 +n10 +n1=104;
n2 +n3 +n4 +n5 +n6 =n10 +n1;
0<=ni<=24, for i=1 to 9;
0<=n10<=96.

Can we solve for the most probably ni with these constraints?

[Norm]

For what conceivable reason?

[iCountNTrack]

Let me try to make this math problem clear. We can use a set of integers,
(n2, n3, n4, n5, n6, n7, n8, n9, n10, n1)
to represent the deck composition of this set of cards,
(2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Ten, Ace).

Now, we have these constraints:
n2 +n3 +n4 +n5 +n6 +n7 +n8 +n9 +n10 +n1=32;
n2 +n3 +n4 +n5 +n6 =n10 +n1;
0<=ni<=24, for i=1 to 10.

Can we solve for the most probably ni with these constraints?

The math and logic in this post so wrong it's, it's like irredeemable

[aceside]

I just revised a couple of numbers and the wording. I hope this makes sense now.

[aceside]

For what conceivable reason?

I am still working on the understanding the exact meaning of TC=0.

[Norm]

https://www.qfit.com/CalculatingTrueCounts.htm

[BJGenius007]

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.

You also need to factor in the fact that the ploppies will like to whine when AP hits 12 v 4 according to index play. When hit and stand are so close at about -0.2, the threshold, AP better just stand, trying not to anger ploppies at the table.

I think when I hit 12 v 4, at least 75% I got objection from the table. Even in the case that the play helped them, THEY STILL WANT YOU TO PLAY THE RIGHT WAY. Haha

[Norm]

Can't say as I have ever cared about ploppies, so long as they don't smoke, spill drinks, or slow the game. And it's not -0.2.

Although, it would be easier to build a strategy generator that always generates basic strategy so as not to upset anyone.

[21forme]

You also need to factor in the fact that the ploppies will like to whine when AP hits 12 v 4

There are other players at the table?

It's good when you clear out the table with your plays. Faster game.

[Tarzan]

For whatever reason, I'm unable to load a photo of my chart for 12vs4. TC0, TC+1, whatever, it's in the ballpark. Which one is correct? Both! Neither! Either! Unless you are using a very composition dependent index and looking at the long haul of millions of hands, there's not a noticeable difference. As I can point out on my chart for the hand, the actual TC for betting purposes can be slightly positive and hitting is the optimal playing decision, or slightly negative and standing is the optimal playing decision due to specifics of deck composition. I've had people call me an idiot at the table for hitting 12vs4. That's normally enough to get me going on the sacred flow of the cards and what my tarot card reader told me that morning.

[aceside]

The math and logic in this post so wrong it's, it's like irredeemable

For the problem of the most likely deck composition in the remaining two decks of a six-deck shoe, I am thinking to solve it by using Excel, but I can not get the definition of the math problem correct. Can you help jump in?

[Norm]

The most likely composition is highly unlikely.