Dancer: Unbalanced True Count

[Dancer]

I've generated the indexes for TKO (true counted KO) in SBA, and the results have been impressive. In actual play, however, the way SBA generates the indexes, I was having to start my running count at -24 (assuming a 6 deck shoe), and of course, my indexes are roughly 4 below the corresponding Hi-Lo indexes.

If I'm side counting aces (TKO/A), the initial running count is -48 with indexes roughly 8 below the corresponding Hi-Lo indexes. Negative numbers that large hurt my brain.

From a practical standpoint, might it be easier (considering TKO for a moment), to add 4 to all generated indexes, begin the running count at 0 after the shuffle, and simply subtract 2 from the running count after every 1/2 deck has been played and true count that for betting/playing decisions?

Is there an easier way to do this?

Thanks for any comments...

[Karel]

Indeed, if you do not want to work with the negative numbers, you can use IRC=0, and then do the TC calculation by the formula:
TC = (RC - 4*#of played decks) / (# of remaining decks)

This RC is shifted by 4 compared to the "standard" TC with IRC = -4*#of decks.

What you suggested is correct -- subtract 2 from the RC for each half deck remaining corresponds to the expression "4*#of played decks", where "4*#of played decks" can be a decimal number. (You can subtract 1 for each 1/4 deck played, or theoretically 1/2 for each 1/8 deck played).

Regards,

Karel Janecek

> From a practical standpoint, might it be
> easier (considering TKO for a moment), to
> add 4 to all generated indexes, begin the
> running count at 0 after the shuffle, and
> simply subtract 2 from the running count
> after every 1/2 deck has been played and
> true count that for betting/playing
> decisions?

> Is there an easier way to do this?

> Thanks for any comments...

[Dancer]

Thanks for the feedback, Karel. My play improves considerably when I don't have to deal with the large negative numbers. After thinking about it for a bit, that idea seemed reasonable. Thanks for validating my theory.

By the way, I'm a software engineer, and that's one incredible piece of work you did with SBA. Thanks for sharing it with the world.

> Indeed, if you do not want to work with the
> negative numbers, you can use IRC=0, and
> then do the TC calculation by the formula:
> TC = (RC - 4*#of played decks) / (# of
> remaining decks)

> This RC is shifted by 4 compared to the
> "standard" TC with IRC = -4*#of
> decks.

> What you suggested is correct -- subtract 2
> from the RC for each half deck remaining
> corresponds to the expression "4*#of
> played decks", where "4*#of played
> decks" can be a decimal number. (You
> can subtract 1 for each 1/4 deck played, or
> theoretically 1/2 for each 1/8 deck played).

> Regards,

> Karel Janecek

[humble]

A rookie question.
I thought that with an unbalanced count you don't (mustn't) by definition bother with TC and only work with RC?

[Karel]

It actually improves the betting and playing decisions somewhat, even for unbalanced count. I argue that it is good to use unbalanced count, for example K-O, with very APPROXIMATE TC conversion. The advantage of unbalanced count is that none TC conversion is not a big error. Making approximate TC conversion (say dividing 6 decks into 3 portions) gives you most of the gain of precise TC conversion.

The only disadvantage is that you need to start at -pivot*# of decks, i.e. -24 for K-O and 6 decks. Alternatively, you can use the more complicated TC calculation as described above.

Regards,

Karel

> A rookie question.
> I thought that with an unbalanced count you
> don't (mustn't) by definition bother with TC
> and only work with RC?

[humble]

[Anon]

For some unbalanced counts the equivalent true count process does the equivalent of adding small tags to the normaly 0 zero tagged cards. This is how the Brett Harris counts pickup much of their power: from counting the 9s as a slight minus in this process.

[--]

When an expert like Karel replys that someone who's obviously more informed than you has a good idea, you might consider refraining from putting your foot in your mouth long enough to learn something.

> A rookie question.
> I thought that with an unbalanced count you
> don't (mustn't) by definition bother with TC
> and only work with RC?

[Parker]

> When an expert like Karel replys that
> someone who's obviously more informed than
> you has a good idea, you might consider
> refraining from putting your foot in your
> mouth long enough to learn something.

Well, he did admit that he was a rookie, and he is using the handle "humble," so maybe we should cut the guy a little slack. And remember, this is the polite forum!

>> A rookie question.
>> I thought that with an unbalanced count you
>> don't (mustn't) by definition bother with TC
>> and only work with RC?

The only thing "by definition" about an unbalanced count is that if you add up the tags of all the cards in a deck, they do not add up to zero, hence the count is "unbalanced." For example, the tags for Red 7 add up to +2, while KO and UBZ2 add up to +4.

One advantage to unbalanced counts is that they can be used in running count mode, eliminating the need for a true count conversion and thus greatly simplifying the whole card counting process.

However, any count, balanced or unbalanced, can be true counted, and as Karel and Anon pointed out, there are some benefits to be gained by doing this.

As Anon mentioned, Australian expert Dr. Brett Harris has done considerable research on unbalanced counts, and has even developed a series of unbalanced counts designed to be used in true count mode. Extensive simulations show that these counts are indeed quite powerful.

If anyone wants to know more about this, I have provided a link to Dr. Harris' website below.

Extreme Blackjack

[humble]

Mr. "--" must have had one hell of a childhood: foot in mouth day in day out.

[humble]

Also thanks Parker for withholding my spur of the moment first reaction to "--"'s post.
Even though I suppose I didn't resort to profanities, I agree it was over the top and this site can do without it.

[--]

My apologies, Humble...

I misread your reply and thought you were making a snide comment about Karel and Dancer.

Totally my fault. I'm sorry, your question was valid, and my shoe does, in fact, fit quite nicely in my own mouth.