Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Alternative format to true count

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Alternative format to true count

    An alternative to using true count to determine playing strategy would be to to use 2 parameters:
    1. Pen = (Number of cards seen) / (Total number of cards in deck)
    2. RC = Count's running count

    Parameter 2 is always known to counter. A good estimate of parameter 1 could be quickly learned by counter.

    (Pen,RC) is a point on a graph. Its position relative to known plotted data in graph determines strategy.

    Example: Generic insurance using HiLo for 1 to 8 decks: http://www.bjstrat.net/genHiLoIns.html

    Advantage is it is simple. Disadvantage is it would be impractical to consult a graph while playing. Could player sufficiently commit graphs to memory to play seamlessly? If so it would be a great method.

    Side counts could be incorporated. The graph of the known data for each possible side count value would have variable starting and ending points and differing trajectories. For example, if aces were being side counted there would be 4 graphs for single deck generic HiLo insurance (1,2,3,4 aces removed). (There would be 32 graphs for 8 deck generic HiLo insurance.) Multi-parameter side counts would result in very, very many graphs.

    Hope this illustrates the difficulties of side counts in addition to the generic HiLo insurance example.

    k_c

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I am confused. Isn’t that essentially true count?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Hsiaodi View Post
    I am confused. Isn’t that essentially true count?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Hsiaodi,

    True count is RC per deck.
    If TC = true count, RC = running count, CR = cards remaining -
    At any point in the shoe:
    (current) TC = 52 * (current) RC / (current) CR
    The assumption is TC applies the same at any pen (number of cards remaining) to determine strategy.

    What I'm describing is not the same thing. Instead of defining pen as a function of number of cards remaining, it is defined as a function of number of cards seen -
    pen = (number of cards seen) / (total number of cards in shoe)
    Here pen is referring to the portion of number of cards in shoe that have been seen.
    The range is 0 (no cards seen) to 1 (all cards seen).
    For the generic insurance example:
    Once (current) pen is known, if (current) RC is above the value corresponding to pen value on the plotted graph for applicable number of decks, buy insurance.
    This applies to the current (pen, RC) values, which is simply a point on a grid.

    Hope this helps.

    k_c

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    167
    Blog Entries
    1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by k_c View Post
    The assumption is TC applies the same at any pen
    So actually TC does not apply the same at any pen, is it?
    Is it due to those ranks with natural count, say 7,8,9 in HiLo?

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by peterlee View Post
    So actually TC does not apply the same at any pen, is it?
    Is it due to those ranks with natural count, say 7,8,9 in HiLo?
    TC doesn't necessarily vary linearly with pen. At some points it approximates linear. It is a manufactured parameter that measures RC per deck. It is what it is.

    If rank probs are determined using combinatorial analysis the statistical prob of 7,8,9 is exactly 1/13 for HiLo at mid-shoe if no other cards are known to be specifically removed. At other points in the shoe statistical prob of 7,8,9 is generally close to 1/13 but can be more or less.

    k_c

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    167
    Blog Entries
    1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by k_c View Post
    TC doesn't necessarily vary linearly with pen. At some points it approximates linear. It is a manufactured parameter that measures RC per deck. It is what it is.

    If rank probs are determined using combinatorial analysis the statistical prob of 7,8,9 is exactly 1/13 for HiLo at mid-shoe if no other cards are known to be specifically removed. At other points in the shoe statistical prob of 7,8,9 is generally close to 1/13 but can be more or less.

    k_c
    Is it possible to create a graph illustrating the relationship between Pen and True Count? I predict that a higher True Count is required when the pen is 0.1 compared to when it is 0.9. This difference is primarily influenced by the probabilities of encountering the cards 7,8,9.
    Some relevant figures are presented in Griffin's ToB.

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by peterlee View Post
    Is it possible to create a graph illustrating the relationship between Pen and True Count? I predict that a higher True Count is required when the pen is 0.1 compared to when it is 0.9. This difference is primarily influenced by the probabilities of encountering the cards 7,8,9.
    Some relevant figures are presented in Griffin's ToB.
    Hello,

    I have already done a plot of overall EV for range of -4% to +4%.
    2 plots were done using same data:
    1 plot referenced true count, 1 plot referenced running count
    Examples were for HiLo and KO counts for 6 decks and given set of rules.

    HiLo example:
    http://www.bjstrat.net/HiLo_oev_6D_S17_NDAS_Sp1.html

    KO example:
    http://www.bjstrat.net/KO_oev_6D_S17_NDAS_Sp1.html

    k_c

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    167
    Blog Entries
    1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by k_c View Post
    Hello,

    I have already done a plot of overall EV for range of -4% to +4%.
    2 plots were done using same data:
    1 plot referenced true count, 1 plot referenced running count
    Examples were for HiLo and KO counts for 6 decks and given set of rules.

    HiLo example:
    http://www.bjstrat.net/HiLo_oev_6D_S17_NDAS_Sp1.html

    KO example:
    http://www.bjstrat.net/KO_oev_6D_S17_NDAS_Sp1.html

    k_c
    HiLo example:
    http://www.bjstrat.net/HiLo_oev_6D_S17_NDAS_Sp1.html

    From the HiLo graph, True Count vs Pen, plot of EV=+3%
    At pen 0.2, TC is about 9.1, pen 0.8, TC is about 7.6
    Means for TC9, EV at pen 0.8 is greater than EV at pen 0.2...Why?
    Of course there are different ranks distributions between the two pens.
    But how? Hi cards vs Lo cards ratio? A vs T ratio? These two ratios should be quite steady between pen 0.2 and 0.8.
    I guess the ratio of 7,8,9 is the main factor to make the different EVs.

    In ToB, Appendix to Chapter 7, p.110, TABLE 3, it shows the 0 valued cards ratios at 13 cards left are less than the ratios at 39 cards left, when the running count is high.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by k_c View Post
    Hsiaodi,

    True count is RC per deck.
    If TC = true count, RC = running count, CR = cards remaining -
    At any point in the shoe:
    (current) TC = 52 * (current) RC / (current) CR
    The assumption is TC applies the same at any pen (number of cards remaining) to determine strategy.

    What I'm describing is not the same thing. Instead of defining pen as a function of number of cards remaining, it is defined as a function of number of cards seen -
    pen = (number of cards seen) / (total number of cards in shoe)
    Here pen is referring to the portion of number of cards in shoe that have been seen.
    The range is 0 (no cards seen) to 1 (all cards seen).
    For the generic insurance example:
    Once (current) pen is known, if (current) RC is above the value corresponding to pen value on the plotted graph for applicable number of decks, buy insurance.
    This applies to the current (pen, RC) values, which is simply a point on a grid.

    Hope this helps.

    k_c
    It is still TC, just in different scales.

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by peterlee View Post
    HiLo example:
    http://www.bjstrat.net/HiLo_oev_6D_S17_NDAS_Sp1.html

    From the HiLo graph, True Count vs Pen, plot of EV=+3%
    At pen 0.2, TC is about 9.1, pen 0.8, TC is about 7.6
    Means for TC9, EV at pen 0.8 is greater than EV at pen 0.2...Why?
    Of course there are different ranks distributions between the two pens.
    But how? Hi cards vs Lo cards ratio? A vs T ratio? These two ratios should be quite steady between pen 0.2 and 0.8.
    I guess the ratio of 7,8,9 is the main factor to make the different EVs.

    In ToB, Appendix to Chapter 7, p.110, TABLE 3, it shows the 0 valued cards ratios at 13 cards left are less than the ratios at 39 cards left, when the running count is high.
    If a constant true count value truly was an indication of a constant overall EV then a plot of true count versus pen would be a straight line parallel to the x-axis. Obviously this is not the case.

    The point of using true count is to be able to use one value across all pens. Since the plots are not straight lines parallel to x-axis, no value is perfect.

    My choice would be to simply use the mid-shoe true count for all pens and leave it at that in order to be able to sleep at night.

    k_c

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    167
    Blog Entries
    1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by k_c View Post
    If a constant true count value truly was an indication of a constant overall EV then a plot of true count versus pen would be a straight line parallel to the x-axis. Obviously this is not the case.

    The point of using true count is to be able to use one value across all pens. Since the plots are not straight lines parallel to x-axis, no value is perfect.

    My choice would be to simply use the mid-shoe true count for all pens and leave it at that in order to be able to sleep at night.

    k_c
    [My choice would be to simply use the mid-shoe true count for all pens and leave it at that in order to be able to sleep at night.]
    Agree. That is what all the CCs are doing.
    I bring the 789 thing here is just trying to explain the phenomenon, no practical useful.

    We know that we should not take insurance on the first round of a 4D game even it is TC>3, this is easy to remember. Wonder if you can make a graph with TC vs EV for insurance, we can just add something simple to remember, like in the first 1/3 shoe I should better take insurance when TC>3, and can take insurance at the bottom 1/3 shoe for TC is slightly below 3...just my own though.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    167
    Blog Entries
    1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BJGenius007 View Post
    It is still TC, just in different scales.
    For TC, you don't consider which level of pen in the shoe.
    Now this new method let you also consider the level of pen, where does not have a fixed TC to take insurance.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-13-2021, 11:53 AM
  2. True Edge vs. True Count
    By spassky962000 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-06-2020, 01:25 PM
  3. An alternative to computing true count
    By dalehope in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-14-2019, 03:58 PM
  4. zoomie: Alternative count for SP21
    By zoomie in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-25-2008, 08:57 AM
  5. Norm Wattenberger: True Count Compression and True Edge
    By Norm Wattenberger in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-02-2005, 10:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.