So, if it's silly to call the Ten Count, with 4 and -9 as the tags, a level 9 system, I think we need to reject Griffin's definition as not being practical. I don't often disagree with him (notable exception: the Floating Advantage debate), but this is one of those times. To me, this is level 2 because, well, we reckon only two distinct non-zero tags.
Don
Since there isn't much literature on this topic, it seems to me that it wouldn't be a bad idea to define it as a mix between what Griffin says and what you're saying.Originally Posted by DSchles
In other words, I would define the "level of a card counting system" as the maximum absolute value of its integer tags (after simplifying them),
and the "degree of difficulty" as the number of different tags in absolute value, excluding the zero tag.
In the case of the "Ten Count" the system level would be 9 with a degree of difficulty of 2. In most instances, the system level and the degree of difficulty coincide.
Another example I could mention is that of the unbalanced RAPC I mentioned in a previous post. In that case, the system level would be 4, and the degree of difficulty would be 3.
What do you think? Definition for BJA4/5?
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Not sure. I would like to continue to think of the level as what you're describing as the degree of difficulty. Ironically, for the case of -4, 9 as the only tags, I think the degree of difficulty would be logically greater than the level, as, despite the fact that you're only reckoning two tags, you're going to have to carry all sorts of weird, possibly extreme, numbers in your head, like 54, -20, etc.
Perish the thought!
Don
Yes, that's true. The reality of the "Ten Count" is that it is the balanced version of Insurance with conversion to TC. It is equivalent to (1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2), which is unbalanced without conversion to TC.
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks