True Count frequency distribution

[CanisIupusLinnaeus]

I have a simple question maybe already answered many times here but I couldn't find the proper justification so far. Let's say I play Hi-Lo if it even matters.

Does the number of players sit at the table impact the True Count frequency distribution I play on? And therefore affect my EV per hand?

I am totally aware it impacts EV per hour since it changes the amount of rounds per hour, so don't mind for that. I am specifically asking for the True Count frequency distribution.

Please could you provide a relevant sources/documents/graphs clearly mentioning this?

Thank you.

[DSchles]

Does the number of players sit at the table impact the True Count frequency distribution I play on? And therefore affect my EV per hand?

Not enough to make much of a difference at all. Very slight changes for, say, one player to four players. See CVCX.

Don

[Freightman]

If you have CVCX, run a quick sim. You can do fast sims with different number of players at the table. What you will find
- True Count frequencies are virtually the same regardless of number of players
- $ Win per hand is virtually unchanged regardless of number of players
- More players equates to lower EV per hour (as you’ve stated)

There is a change though very minor. In fact easy to state no change

[CanisIupusLinnaeus]

I appreciate both your feedback, it's a little bit what I expected. Minor changes but no signifiant impact.
I haven't purchased CVCX yet, this is mainly why I am not able to state on this question. I watched a demo of BJA Pro Betting Software and noticed that changing number of players have no impact on their Risk of Ruin calculation, which I interpret as a simplification from the tool since the impact of number of players is minor, and therefore no variation of the edge. That makes more sense now.
Even if it's negligible, is there a visible pattern when the number of players at the table increase? Higher density on index 0, something like this? Or is it a quite random behaviour? Just curious. Sorry, it would have been simpler just to make the sim by myself of course.

[Freightman]

I appreciate both your feedback, it's a little bit what I expected. Minor changes but no signifiant impact.
I haven't purchased CVCX yet, this is mainly why I am not able to state on this question. I watched a demo of BJA Pro Betting Software and noticed that changing number of players have no impact on their Risk of Ruin calculation, which I interpret as a simplification from the tool since the impact of number of players is minor, and therefore no variation of the edge. That makes more sense now.
Even if it's negligible, is there a visible pattern when the number of players at the table increase? Higher density on index 0, something like this? Or is it a quite random behaviour? Just curious. Sorry, it would have been simpler just to make the sim by myself of course.

You should find that EV very slightly reduces with additional 0layers in terms of $win per 100 rounds. Part of that reason is less high true count frequency due to other 0layers eating up the good cards. Obviously, those would be your higher bets. You will have fewer poor co7nt as other players eat those as well. I would obviously prefer the heads up play all scenario of getting all the good counts while also suffering with the poor ones. Forgetting QTC for a moment, the spread is your friend which overcomes the negative scenarios.

[aceside]

The number of players should matter. The true count at your first card is different from that at your second card. The average of these two will flat higher TC frequencies and thus diminish card counting.

[DSchles]

You haven't been here in, what, two months, and the first post you make is this garbage that is completely incorrect? You bothered to come back for this?? The TC at your second card or anyone else's card(s) is, on average, exactly the same as on your first card, or any other card. You can't change the average true count by dealing cards. Why does this have to be discussed 100 times before people like you understand?

Don

[aceside]

I haven’t fully understood this part. Last year, Dog Hand hold me the same thing and mentioned True Count Theorem, but I am still skeptical about this part. Let me think about this again. I am going to focus on the probability of player getting a blackjack hand using the two TC numbers at two different dealing positions and then draw a new TC frequency distribution.

[DSchles]

I haven’t fully understood this part. Last year, Dog Hand hold me the same thing and mentioned True Count Theorem, but I am still skeptical about this part. Let me think about this again. I am going to focus on the probability of player getting a blackjack hand using the two TC numbers at two different dealing positions and then draw a new TC frequency distribution.

You don't fully understand it, but yet you feel obliged to post about it. Did it ever occur to you that, if you don't understand something, it might be a good idea not to comment, or to ASK a question, instead of make a statement?

Dog Hand and I tell you the same thing and yet you are skeptical about it??? Gimme a break. Whom would you like to tell you about it so that you wouldn't be skeptical???

"Let me think about this again." Yes, do that. And you should have thought about it BEFORE you made any ill-advised remarks.

Don't bother with your experiment. We have a TC theorem from Ed Thorp, and you want to verify it by dealing cards on your kitchen table?? Sigh. Hopeless situation.

Don

[aceside]

Let me consider this extreme game of 59 players playing a 6-deck shoe. Each player or dealer is allowed to have two cards only, so each shoe only deals out two rounds. A player Blackjack is still paid 3:2, so this game is still worth counting, but it does not need any strategy. A HiLo counter sits at the third base all the time, so he will receive the (59th, 119th) cards in the shoe for his first hand and the (179th, 239th) cards for his second hand.

He places his bet right before the 121th card; however, this bet point is off by 179-121=58 cards and 239-121=118 cards, respectively from this card arrival points.

The TC frequency, f(TC, pen), as a function of true count TC and dealing penetration pen, does not change with the number of players. However, in the extreme game above, the counter only has the values at f(TC, pen) when pen <121 to help betting. This counter misses too much information about this shoe, and thus will not gain very much profit from counting, because there are no high TC opportunities for him to confidently place a large wager. From this point of view, I still do not believe this so-called True Count Theorem is valid.

[DSchles]

From this point of view, I still do not believe this so-called True Count Theorem is valid.

SO-CALLED True Count Theorem???? Like you're ready to dismiss it for the sham that it is??? Do you realize what a complete and utter horse's ass you sound like? If this is what you waited two months for, do us all a favor and go away for another two months ... or more!

Don

[aceside]

Let me invite Dog Hand to say a little more about this part.

[Freightman]

I was the 58th player. I would have won the hand if only the 57th player had hit his 16 v 10