Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: .: Don: TC

  1. #1
    .
    Guest

    .: Don: TC

    maybe you can help me a bit with the true count. when truing, i believe there are three ways to go about it: flooring, rounding and truncating (?). can you explain these or any other briefly and comment on which one you recommend, and why.

    thanks for your time.

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Don: TC

    > maybe you can help me a bit with the true
    > count. when truing, i believe there are
    > three ways to go about it: flooring,
    > rounding and truncating (?). can you explain
    > these or any other briefly and comment on
    > which one you recommend, and why.

    Flooring, both when creating the indices and using them, seems to work best. Understand that there are two processes -- creating the indices and using them.

    Rounding means rounding to the nearest whole integer. So, 1.3 becomes 1; 1.7 becomes 2; -1.3 becomes -1; and -1.7 becomes -2.

    Truncating means chopping off the decimal and using the integer that's left. So, both 1.3 and 1.7 become 1, and both -1.3 and -1.7 become -1.

    Flooring means moving each value to the integer to the left, or below (floor) the one you're considering. So, both 1.3 and 1.7 become 1 (same as truncating), but both -1.3 and -1.7 become -2 (NOT the same as truncating).

    Clear?

    Don

  3. #3
    .
    Guest

    .: Re: Don: TC

    yeah, it's clear now (finally!). makes sense that flooring works the best. this is some pretty intricate stuff IMO, something that i haven't read much about. most books simply tell you "divide the RC by the number of decks remaining" but don't really tell you how to go about it and the different approaches you can use. i'd like to read more about this, is there anything you recommend? although i'm sure the differences are not enough to make a fuss about (floating advantage comes to mind!), but i've always had questions when it comes to the true count and the level of accuracy you can attain. i have little problem estimating the half decks remaining, it's always the fine points on the division that gets me.

    for example, with the RPC, the RC ends at 0, but when i practice truing, i end at a slightly positive/negative count. is this normal???

    thanks anyway, i appreciate the help.

  4. #4
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Don: TC

    > yeah, it's clear now (finally!). makes sense
    > that flooring works the best. this is some
    > pretty intricate stuff IMO, something that i
    > haven't read much about. most books simply
    > tell you "divide the RC by the number
    > of decks remaining" but don't really
    > tell you how to go about it and the
    > different approaches you can use. i'd like
    > to read more about this, is there anything
    > you recommend? although i'm sure the
    > differences are not enough to make a fuss
    > about (floating advantage comes to mind!),
    > but i've always had questions when it comes
    > to the true count and the level of accuracy
    > you can attain. i have little problem
    > estimating the half decks remaining, it's
    > always the fine points on the division that
    > gets me.

    There's not too much written that I know of on the different TC-generating methodologies. I know Brett Harris and I had a long discussion once on bjmath.com about the different ways of calculating and using TC, but it was a long time ago.

    > for example, with the RPC, the RC ends at 0,
    > but when i practice truing, i end at a
    > slightly positive/negative count. is this
    > normal???

    Sure. You aren't going to reach a perfect zero every time. I assume you're stopping at a cut card, before the end of the pack. It would, in fact, be unlikely to have a RC of precisely zero at the cut card.

    Don

  5. #5
    .
    Guest

    .: one more thing

    kind of embarassed to keep at it with this, but: no, without a cut card, all the way through the pack. you see, i'm practicing with 2 decks shuffled together. i start by practicing the RC, end at 0, no problem. i then start calculating the TC every half-deck, thus dividing by 3 and 2. i know that TC@1/2D might not be accurate enough for the last half-deck, but no game is dealt all the way through, so i treat the last 1/2D like if i where dividing by 1 (plus my indices are for TC@1/2D...). so i continue, all the way through and i end with a slightly positive or negative TC, not at zero. mabye this is due to the fact that i'm flooring the TC (like we talked about), but if this is so then a substantial amount of accuracy is lost. i use the RPC, just like you Don (i changed after studying Chapter 11 thoroughly). how do you TC the double deck?

    cheers.

  6. #6
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: one more thing

    Sorry, we're not communicating. TC for you = RC/ number of half decks remaining. At the half-deck level of the DD game, your RC and TC are the same thing. So, if your RC = 0, your TC = 0, and if your RC doesn't = 0, then your TC doesn't = 0.

    I don't see what the problem is. Your RC must = 0 only when you've dealt ALL the cards. There's no reason to think it will be 0 with a half deck remaining, although, clearly it might, from time to time.

    What's the problem?

    Don

  7. #7
    .
    Guest

    .: Re: one more thing

    > Sorry, we're not communicating.

    yeah i know.

    > TC for you =
    > RC/ number of half decks remaining.

    that's right. is that reasoning correct?

    > At the
    > half-deck level of the DD game, your RC and
    > TC are the same thing.

    i know, but TC did not = the RC in the half-decks before that.

    > So, if your RC = 0,
    > your TC = 0, and if your RC doesn't = 0,
    > then your TC doesn't = 0.

    the problem is this (eg.):

    1) TC first half deck: +6/3 = +2
    2) TC 1 deck level: +8/2 = +4
    3) (TC/RC) 104 cards dealt: +3 (not RC of 0)

    are we getting somewhere...
    BTW, thanks for putting up with this

  8. #8
    Birthday Boy (22)
    Guest

    Birthday Boy (22): Re: one more thing

    You?re getting far too involved in this ?technical? TC stuff.
    With a balanced count, no matter what, you will (should!) always end up on zero by the end of all the cards (no cut-card).
    Seems like you need more practice in your counting drills. I recommend Casino Verite. It?s a fantastic variation to the mundane counting with cards (although that still must be done).
    Also Don replied in a thread below saying that the difference between whole counting and half counting TC is virtually nothing. So don't get too carried away with the total accuracy of TC.

  9. #9
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: one more thing

    > yeah i know.

    > that's right. is that reasoning correct?

    Yes.

    > i know, but TC did not = the RC in the
    > half-decks before that.

    It isn't supposed to!

    > the problem is this (eg.):

    > 1) TC first half deck: +6/3 = +2

    Fine.
    > 2) TC 1 deck level: +8/2 = +4

    Fine.

    > 3) (TC/RC) 104 cards dealt: +3 (not RC of 0)

    Not fine! First of all, once all the cards are dealt out, there is no true count. You can't divide by zero, so TC is, by mathematical convention, undefined once the deck is depleted.

    Second, as Birthday Boy notes, once all the cards are dealt, for a balanced count, the RC is zero (once again). Forget the true count at that point. If you aren't getting zero, you simply aren't counting accurately.

    > are we getting somewhere...

    You tell me! :-)

    > BTW, thanks for putting up with this

    Not a problem.

    Don

  10. #10
    .
    Guest

    .: oh!

    i think i've been doing this all wrong. after i calculate the TC, i used this number to continue the RC. am i supposed to keep two separate counts for RC and TC, or does the RC become the TC. ah, i have to figure this out. for example, RC +22 with 5.5 decks remaining is TC +2. i then continue keeping the RC from the TC and the same thing repeats every half deck. is this wrong?

    cheers.

  11. #11
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Oh, dear . . .

    > i think i've been doing this all wrong.
    > after i calculate the TC, i used this number
    > to continue the RC. am i supposed to keep
    > two separate counts for RC and TC, or does
    > the RC become the TC. ah, i have to figure
    > this out. for example, RC +22 with 5.5 decks
    > remaining is TC +2. i then continue keeping
    > the RC from the TC and the same thing
    > repeats every half deck. is this wrong?

    I sincerely hope that you have not been playing in a casino with, um, real money.

    The running count is the running count. It never "becomes" the true count. You convert to true count for betting and strategy decisions, and then continue the running count right where you left off. This is why the running count at the end of a deck (or multi-deck pack) should always be zero once you count the very last card. With unbalanced counts, it should always be imbalance x # decks + IRC.

  12. #12
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: oh!

    > i think i've been doing this all wrong.

    Biggest understatement since Custer said, "Those look like unfriendly Indians"!!

    Yes, unfortunately, you've been doing it wrong.

    Follow Parker's advice.

    Don

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.