True Count frequency distribution

[aceside]

This problem has bothered me for some time. Thank you for your input. If a running count at a penetration position pen is RC_pen, and then the true count is

TC_pen= 52 RC_pen/(312-pen).

At the next card, the running count RC_pen+1, and thus the true count is

TC_pen+1 = 52 RC_pen+1/(312-pen-1).

If the current TC_pen is nonzero, it follows that

TC_pen+1 must be different from TC_pen.

[DSchles]

What if the next card is -1 instead of +1? What if it is zero? The TC theorem states that, ON AVERAGE, the TC remains the same as cards are dealt.

Don

[Dog Hand]

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

aceside,

I do not know what you are asking me. As you said in a recent post, I have explained the True Count Theorem to you with examples previously. If you still doubt it, I don't know what else to say to convince you.

Dog Hand

[aceside]

Let me introduce these three true counts, TC_p0, TC_p1, and TC_p2, representing TCs at the bet point p0, 1^st card arrival point p1, and 2^nd card arrival point p2, respectively. Here I only consider the probability of a player’s Blackjack, which is proportional to,

TC_p1 x TC_p2.

However, these two TC numbers are unknown, so player places a wager at p0 to approximate the situation. This wager amount is proportional to,

TC_p0 x TC_p0.

Here, there is a betting correlation problem. If p0, p1, and p2 are close together, as in a single-player table, the correlation is stronger and thus the profit is more.

For a multiple-player table, these three points p0, p1, and p2 are far apart. If we still assume TC_p0=TC_p1=Tc_p2 using the TC Theorem assumption, we oversimplify the TC function,

TC_p= 52 RC_p/(312-p),

especially at the later stages of a shoe when p is large. Therefore, we lose out higher TC opportunities for more rewarding bets. I am saying, the True Count Theorem is not applicable to a multiple-player blackjack table. Is this right?

[Freightman]

Let me introduce these three true counts, TC_p0, TC_p1, and TC_p2, representing TCs at the bet point p0, 1^st card arrival point p1, and 2^nd card arrival point p2, respectively. Here I only consider the probability of a player’s Blackjack, which is proportional to,

TC_p1 x TC_p2.

However, these two TC numbers are unknown, so player places a wager at p0 to approximate the situation. This wager amount is proportional to,

TC_p0 x TC_p0.

Here, there is a betting correlation problem. If p0, p1, and p2 are close together, as in a single-player table, the correlation is stronger and thus the profit is more.

For a multiple-player table, these three points p0, p1, and p2 are far apart. If we still assume TC_p0=TC_p1=Tc_p2 using the TC Theorem assumption, we oversimplify the TC function,

TC_p= 52 RC_p/(312-p),

especially at the later stages of a shoe when p is large. Therefore, we lose out higher TC opportunities for more rewarding bets. I am saying, the True Count Theorem is not applicable to a multiple-player blackjack table. Is this right?

You’re better off letting others do the math meaning you get to spend more adopting the benefit of their hard work to your modus operandi.

Now, say 100 times - I don’t give a shit, I don’t give a shit, rinse and repeat. That will get Don and 21forme off your back.

[iCountNTrack]

Let me introduce these three true counts, TC_p0, TC_p1, and TC_p2, representing TCs at the bet point p0, 1^st card arrival point p1, and 2^nd card arrival point p2, respectively. Here I only consider the probability of a player’s Blackjack, which is proportional to,

TC_p1 x TC_p2.

However, these two TC numbers are unknown, so player places a wager at p0 to approximate the situation. This wager amount is proportional to,

TC_p0 x TC_p0.

Here, there is a betting correlation problem. If p0, p1, and p2 are close together, as in a single-player table, the correlation is stronger and thus the profit is more.

For a multiple-player table, these three points p0, p1, and p2 are far apart. If we still assume TC_p0=TC_p1=Tc_p2 using the TC Theorem assumption, we oversimplify the TC function,

TC_p= 52 RC_p/(312-p),

especially at the later stages of a shoe when p is large. Therefore, we lose out higher TC opportunities for more rewarding bets. I am saying, the True Count Theorem is not applicable to a multiple-player blackjack table. Is this right?

Please stop posting nonsense.

[DSchles]

When I was teaching, I learned very early on that it was an utter waste of my time to try to reason with someone who was irrational, because, by definition, it was impossible. The meaning of "incorrigible" is "cannot be corrected." This is the perfect term to describe aceside. He plows ahead with his nonsense despite being told, over and over, by those who know better, that he is spouting drivel. So, yes, others are right in saying that we shouldn't engage him, and I admit to being guilty in that respect.

Don

[aceside]

Well. The game of blackjack still needs to go on. Thank you for your patience! I will refrain from posting here.