True Count Conversion Help

[roliin]

So I'm using Hi Lo (Old Complete), flooring for TC division, rounding for deck est, half deck TC resolution on cvbj. I'm getting some errors I'm confused about.


(10 cards played) 4 decks left, -2 running count= -1TC. How does this math work?


Some other examples: 4 decks left, -3 running count = -1TC
3.5 decks left, -2 running count= -1TC
3.5 decks left, -6 running count= -2TC


Thx all

[name banned]

Anything below 0 and in between -1 gives you TC -1. Try using truncation for TC division if you don't like that.

[roliin]

Anything below 0 and in between -1 gives you TC -1. Try using truncation for TC division if you don't like that.

But in the first example,(10 cards played) 4 decks left, -2 running count= -1TC for instance, 4 doesn't go into 2. So wouldn't that make the count zero and not below xero?

[Norm]

-2/4=-.5 assuming full decks division.

Depending on your settings you will get 0 or -1. Truncation will give you 0. Flooring will give you -1.

If you get an error in the CVBJ game, you can hit TC Calculator and try a bunch of different option settings.

[roliin]

-2/4=-.5 assuming full decks division.

I see. There's the problem. I can get there on a calculator but not in my head. Simple division I understand easily in my head, but the positive negative thing is confusing (for me). Is there a trick to it or am I better off truncating? I wanted to floor as that seems to be the preferred method.

[Norm]

If using truncate results in fewer errors, use truncate.

[dalmatian]

So I'm using Hi Lo (Old Complete), flooring for TC division, rounding for deck est, half deck TC resolution on cvbj. I'm getting some errors I'm confused about.


(10 cards played) 4 decks left, -2 running count= -1TC. How does this math work?


Some other examples: 4 decks left, -3 running count = -1TC
3.5 decks left, -2 running count= -1TC
3.5 decks left, -6 running count= -2TC


Thx all

Flooring method of true count conversion. EXAMPLE: 4.5 floors down to 4, and -4.5 floors down to -5.

Truncating method of true count conversion. EXAMPLE: 4.5 truncates to 4, and -4.5 truncates to -4.

The only difference between flooring and truncating (which is what you're thinking of) is in the negatives. Flooring makes it more negative than what it really is, and truncating makes it less negative that what it really is.

The last method is rounding. EXAMPLE: 4.5 rounds to 5, and -4.5 rounds to -5.

There is a chart in Norm's book comparing the 3 methods. Rounding is by far the worst method. Truncating and flooring are very similar in EV BUT Flooring is SLIGHTLY better.

Personally I just truncate, espcially since i heavily wong and the negatives don't matter that much to me

[Cacarulo]

Flooring method of true count conversion. EXAMPLE: 4.5 floors down to 4, and -4.5 floors down to -5.

Truncating method of true count conversion. EXAMPLE: 4.5 truncates to 4, and -4.5 truncates to -4.

The only difference between flooring and truncating (which is what you're thinking of) is in the negatives. Flooring makes it more negative than what it really is, and truncating makes it less negative that what it really is.

The last method is rounding. EXAMPLE: 4.5 rounds to 5, and -4.5 rounds to -5.

There is a chart in Norm's book comparing the 3 methods. Rounding is by far the worst method. Truncating and flooring are very similar in EV BUT Flooring is SLIGHTLY better.

Personally I just truncate, espcially since i heavily wong and the negatives don't matter that much to me

The last method is rounding. EXAMPLE: 4.5 rounds to 5, and -4.5 rounds to -5.

It seems to me that -4.5 rounds up to -4.

The only difference between flooring and truncating (which is what you're thinking of) is in the negatives. Flooring makes it more negative than what it really is, and truncating makes it less negative that what it really is.

The biggest difference is found in the double size of the TC zero. But this has a solution that in my opinion would position the truncation method equal to or above the flooring method. With flooring, many people make mistakes in negative counts, which does not happen with truncation.
What is that solution? Simply split the zero TC into two bins: zero+ and zero-. This means that the indices whose value is zero would have to be recalculated and positioned where appropriate.
Maybe one day I'll run a simulation comparing the flooring method against the new truncation method.

There is a chart in Norm's book comparing the 3 methods. Rounding is by far the worst method.

I'm not sure the rounding method is the worst of all. I think it's similar to the flooring method. The worst of all in my opinion
is the truncation method because of what I explained above.

Sincerely,
Cac

[roliin]

"The only difference between flooring and truncating (which is what you're thinking of) is in the negatives."

TY for the detailed answer.I understand the difference. I was having trouble grasping the concept of how 4 decks left at-2 RC could equal -1, given that 4 doesn't go into 2 (I dropped out of school early). I have since learned the basic math rule that a positive divided into a negative equals a negative.

About 6 years ago I almost doubled a 10k bank not knowing that. Not sure if that was luck or the difference at low negative counts was to insignificant to matter much. Probably both!

[stefan]

What about deck estimation ??

45 cards at the tray u assume them as a full deck or not?

[Norm]

What about deck estimation ??

45 cards at the tray u assume them as a full deck or not?

Different strokes for different folks.

[Norm]

Agree. Rounding and flooring are little different. Truncation is a bit worse.

Zero+ and zero- is an interesting thought. It would have to be compared to using RC for zero indices.

[Cacarulo]

Agree. Rounding and flooring are little different. Truncation is a bit worse.

Zero+ and zero- is an interesting thought. It would have to be compared to using RC for zero indices.

Here are some indices for 6D,S17,DOA,4.5/6 Hi-Lo (truncating)

16vT = 0+
12v4 = 0+
12v6 = 0-
13v2 = 0-
 9v3 = 0-
A7v2 = 0+
A4v4 = 0+
A2v5 = 0+

Sincerely,
Cac