Range of indices

[8675309]

Did you have the opportunity to change tables with similar conditions? Because, if yes, then hanging around through negative counts isn't the right thing to do, if you can move and not be too conspicuous in the process..

Don

Not at this particular place. It was about a 2 hour drive to get there and they only had 3 tables open. One was the $25 minimum which I almost always had alone... no mid show entry. The other two were $15 minimum and stayed pretty full.
Kind of another thing I was wondering is would it have been better to just leave if multiple tables not available instead of playing through all of the negative counts. With no mid shoe entry on 6 decks it's not like I can go hide in restroom and avoid the shoe because it will be waiting for me when I get back unless I give up my spot.
I suppose I could tell them I was going to play slots or whatever and then come back in a while and I assume they would shuffle then but even if so I would think after a few times they would start to question what was going on.

[Freightman]

It was about a 2 hour drive to get there and they only had 3 tables open. One was the $25 minimum which I almost always had alone... no mid show entry. The other two were $15 minimum and stayed pretty full.

That’s 4 hours of total drive time. There’s expense and time there. Tough it out. Learn your negative indices. That heads up table is really valuable. If another guy comes to the table - take that whiz and let him get the new shoe. Come back in a few minutes for the next shoe. Still a valuable table.

Think of it this way - you get all those shit cards at single unit bets and all of those juicy cards at multi unit bets.

[Freightman]

That’s 4 hours of total drive time. There’s expense and time there. Tough it out. Learn your negative indices. That heads up table is really valuable. If another guy comes to the table - take that whiz and let him get the new shoe. Come back in a few minutes for the next shoe. Still a valuable table.

Think of it this way - you get all those shit cards at single unit bets and all of those juicy cards at multi unit bets.

In fact, reminds me of a small rural casino with dynamite pen and low limits. They reluctantly gave me a $25 table allowing only a max bet of $200. They grandfathered the guy next to me at $10 min.

Very beatable with single spot, but I spread to 2 with reckless abandon in the juicier TC’s. The grandfathered player allowed me to weather the dry spells. Only 1 of 2 occasions I scored dual blackjacks at table max.

[Cacarulo]

The additional step of multiplying by 2 and then dividing by 2. Then
a. Were indices learned at double value? If so, then both TC and index value need to be divided by 2 - additional steps
b. Did you graduate to double halves from hi lo. If so, then all of those hi lo indexes originally learned must now be doubled with both TC and new index value again divided by 2.

Far easier and faster to play fractional halves with regular indices, especially if one has graduated to halves from hi lo as I have.

I understand your point if you had to graduate from Hi-Lo to Halves. But if someone wanted to learn Halves from scratch, my advice is for them to learn Double Halves with their respective indices,
which will be those of the original Halves multiplied by 2. Then, in the conversion to TC, they simply divide by the remaining whole decks.
In this case, there would be no multiplication or division by 2.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

Might add that time saved leaves room for other table computational endeavours. Further, whether using fractional or doubled halves, you still have the same number of tag values. Accordingly, there’s no such thing as a level 1.5.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is no time wasted. Of course, there is no level 1.5, and that's why Halves is considered a level 3 system.
But I'm not clear on how you measure the level of a system based on the number of tag values.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is no time wasted.

Less computation, less time

But I'm not clear on how you measure the level of a system based on the number of tag values.

Level 3 halves, tags are .5,1,1.5 both pos and neg

[Freightman]

I understand your point if you had to graduate from Hi-Lo to Halves. But if someone wanted to learn Halves from scratch, my advice is for them to learn Double Halves with their respective indices,
which will be those of the original Halves multiplied by 2. Then, in the conversion to TC, they simply divide by the remaining whole decks.
In this case, there would be no multiplication or division by 2.

Sincerely,
Cac

I suppose one way finding out is to ask all halves players
1. Is halves your initial count system and if so, do you play fractional or doubled
2. If initial count system was hi lo, do you now play fractional or doubled.
3. If initial count system was not hi lo, do you play fractional or doubled
4. If initial system was not hi lo, reply to survey impetus to fractional or doubled

Wong in Prof BJ does say that doubled halves is easier for many players as fractions can then be avoided. Freightman says that a couple of days with index cards with card combinations and you’re good to go.

@Midwest Player
You're the survey king. Mind setting up a survey.

[Cacarulo]

Less computation, less time

That is precisely what I am saying. There is no extra time.

Level 3 halves, tags are .5,1,1.5 both pos and neg

But these three tags do not mean that it is a level 3 system. Additionally, the zero tag is missing.
From my perspective, a level 3 system is characterized by tags falling within the range of [-3, +3], being integers, and resistant to simplification.
The same applies to a level 2 and a level 1 as well.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

That is precisely what I am saying. There is no extra time.



But these three tags do not mean that it is a level 3 system. Additionally, the zero tag is missing.
From my perspective, a level 3 system is characterized by tags falling within the range of [-3, +3], being integers, and resistant to simplification.
The same applies to a level 2 and a level 1 as well.


Sincerely,
Cac

Norm disagrees. Have a peek at this

https://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm

https://www.qfit.com/cardcounting/Wong-Halves/

[Cacarulo]

Norm disagrees. Have a peek at this

https://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm

https://www.qfit.com/cardcounting/Wong-Halves/

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am not saying that Halves is NOT a level 3 system, which it is.
What I am saying is that to determine the level of a system, you don't do it by counting the different values that the tags take.

The first thing you need to do is eliminate the fractions by multiplying by some integer. Then, check if there is any possible simplification.
In the case of Halves, simply multiplying the tags by 2 eliminates the fractions. At this point, there is no further simplification, which would
have occurred if I had multiplied the tags by a larger integer. The system that is now determined consists of tags falling within the range [-3, +3].
Therefore, the system is at level 3.

Sincerely,
Cac

[DSchles]

I'll take a stab at this. I'm not sure the range of the tags determines the level, either. What if I had a system where some cards counted as +1 and others counted as -4? None counted as zero. To me, this would be level 2, because there are only two distinct values (tags) assigned to the ranks.

Also, we don't distinguish between negatives and positives, if they are the same in absolute value. And we don't use zero in the determination. So Hi-Lo is level 1 because a) we don't count the zero and b) there's only one other value (in absolute value) and that's the 1.

RPC is level 2, because we ignore the zero and have both +1, and +2 and -2, which count as a single value. So, two different values, therefore level 2.

Halves is +3, because, excluding zero, we have 0.5 and -0.5 (counts as one), 1 and -1 (counts as one), and 1.5 (counts as one). Total of three, so level 3.

Again, I don't think it's the range or the actual tag values that determine the level. I think it's the distinct DIFFERENT values (excluding zero and using absolute value when the tags are, ostensibly, the same) that determine the level.

Don

[Freightman]

I'll take a stab at this. I'm not sure the range of the tags determines the level, either. What if I had a system where some cards counted as +1 and others counted as -4? None counted as zero. To me, this would be level 2, because there are only two distinct values (tags) assigned to the ranks.

Also, we don't distinguish between negatives and positives, if they are the same in absolute value. And we don't use zero in the determination. So Hi-Lo is level 1 because a) we don't count the zero and b) there's only one other value (in absolute value) and that's the 1.

RPC is level 2, because we ignore the zero and have both +1, and +2 and -2, which count as a single value. So, two different values, therefore level 2.

Halves is +3, because, excluding zero, we have 0.5 and -0.5 (counts as one), 1 and -1 (counts as one), and 1.5 (counts as one). Total of three, so level 3.

Again, I don't think it's the range or the actual tag values that determine the level. I think it's the distinct DIFFERENT values (excluding zero and using absolute value when the tags are, ostensibly, the same) that determine the level.

Don

Nicely worded

[Cacarulo]

I'll take a stab at this. I'm not sure the range of the tags determines the level, either. What if I had a system where some cards counted as +1 and others counted as -4? None counted as zero. To me, this would be level 2, because there are only two distinct values (tags) assigned to the ranks.

Also, we don't distinguish between negatives and positives, if they are the same in absolute value. And we don't use zero in the determination. So Hi-Lo is level 1 because a) we don't count the zero and b) there's only one other value (in absolute value) and that's the 1.

RPC is level 2, because we ignore the zero and have both +1, and +2 and -2, which count as a single value. So, two different values, therefore level 2.

Halves is +3, because, excluding zero, we have 0.5 and -0.5 (counts as one), 1 and -1 (counts as one), and 1.5 (counts as one). Total of three, so level 3.

Again, I don't think it's the range or the actual tag values that determine the level. I think it's the distinct DIFFERENT values (excluding zero and using absolute value when the tags are, ostensibly, the same) that determine the level.

Don

This is a very interesting discussion, and I'm glad there is more participation. If we compare both methods, we see that we arrive at the same results in all the known systems.
However, some differences could be presented. Example: RAPC is a level 4 system: -4 2 3 3 4 3 2 0 -1 -3. According to your criteria, which I find perfectly valid, the level is indeed 4.
It is also level 4 according to my criteria.
Now, let's take as an example an unbalanced RAPC: -4 2 3 3 4 3 2 0 0 -3. In this case, for me, it would still be a level 4, but for you, it would be a level 3.

Let's see what Peter Griffin says: "The level of complexity is defined as the maximum of the absolute values of the points assigned"
Basically, what Griffin proposes is a more precise way to define the level of a counting system: Take the absolute value of each of the tags and choose the highest one. That is the level.
But, and this is the most interesting part: according to what you suggests, we can define the degree of difficulty within each level.
In the example of RAPC, the level would be 4, and the degree of difficulty would also be 4. For the unbalanced RAPC, the level would still be 4, but the degree of difficulty would be 3.

In another part of the book (TOB), Peter says: "Although the Ten Count, when parameterized as a point count, uses the numbers 4 and -9, it is certainly not at the 9th level of mental gymnastics -
one keeps track of the proportion of tens by counting off the tens and non-tens as they leave the deck." This, for me, means that while it is theoretically at level 9, in practice, it would be considered a level 2.

Sincerely,
Cac