Suppose I have BJ vs. the dealer's Ace. At what TC should I take even money?
Suppose I have BJ vs. the dealer's Ace. At what TC should I take even money?
> Suppose I have BJ vs. the dealer's Ace. At
> what TC should I take even money?
Taking "even money" when you have a blackjack against a dealer ace is the same as making the insurance bet, so you should take it at at the same TC at which you would normally take insurance.
> Taking "even money" when you have
> a blackjack against a dealer ace is the same
> as making the insurance bet, so you should
> take it at at the same TC at which you would
> normally take insurance.
Which is +3 for multi-deck, hi-lo.
Don
> Suppose I have BJ vs. the dealer's Ace. At
> what TC should I take even money?
... you should take even money a little bit earlier than with the normal index. You can use the composition dependent index for ATvA.
So you would insure at (according to the algebraic indices):
1D) +0.09 (instead of +1.41)
2D) +1.76 (instead of +2.38)
6D) +2.84 (instead of +3.01)
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
Should I multiply those new indices by 2 for a level-2 count?
> Should I multiply those new indices by 2 for
> a level-2 count?
You can't just do that indiscriminately. You need to specify what the count is and then calculate the index precisely. Also, if you use a level-2 count, you probably should be dividing by half-decks remaining, rather than full decks, for more accuracy.
Don
> You can't just do that indiscriminately. You
> need to specify what the count is and then
> calculate the index precisely. Also, if you
> use a level-2 count, you probably should be
> dividing by half-decks remaining, rather
> than full decks, for more accuracy.
> Don
I hope that you don't dismiss this due to my novice status and relative inexperience in playing a level-2 system as I have only recently been studying the Zen count(actually called the Main-Count) in the book I had read, "A Book on Casino Blackjack" by Dr. C. Tulcea Ionescu published in 1981 if I remember correctly.
The problem I had encountered was how the "normalized" running count or running index, which I take to be functionally equivalent to the True Count was to be calculated. The formula for this Running Index according to the author was to take the Running Count and multiply by 100, and divide the product by the number of unseen cards.
ie. RI= RC x 100/ Number of unseen cards.
Needless to say, this calculation is extremely difficult in actual play, particularly in multiple deck games as the exact number of unseen cards must be known, not to mention the laborious and complex division.
The count values are similiar to the Zen system, being level-2 and balanced, counting tens as -2, and aces -1, eights and nines as 0, 4s,5s,and 6s as +2, and 2s, 3s, and 7s as +1.
However the greatest difficulty I had was with the playing strategy tables as they were calculated with values from the above formula for the so-called Running Index, which the author had preferred to a True Count for being more accurate.
But as I found this Running Index metric, or indicator to be too difficult for use I tried to convert these values to an equivalent True Count for playing. With a little bit of work, I have found a formula for this conversion, and it turns out the True Count is about half of the Running Index values. However this conversion was not exact and gave decimal values which needed to be rounded which posed more problems. I had also found that if I calculated this True Count to the nearest half deck instead of full deck it would require more rounding therefore making the value even more inaccurate. Will you please explain this?
I should say I found the work to be very scholarly and erudite, perhaps even too much so and that I believe in and appreciate the author's findings and calculations given his knowledge and experience.
P.S. I was very fortunate to find this book in the library because they do not carry Arnold Snyder's Blackbelt in Blackjack which was my first choice. When I went to order this title at the bookstore they told me that a new edition was due out in October of 2004 so I opted to wait. Can anyone who has heard tell me more about this?
Any comments will be valuable and appreciated.
Thank You.
You probably should get some of the modern software, such as Casino Verite, and generate indices that are more suitable and manageable for your use.
When you multiply by 100 and then divide by cards remaining, with one deck remaining, you're basically multiplying by two. Normally, with one deck remaining, we multiply by one, which is to say we divide by full decks remaining. Don't let the decimals bother you; just halve the Tulcea indices, and you'll have a set for TC estimation by full decks.
However, for level 2 counts, I still think dividing by half-decks remaining would be a little better, so you might want to consider dividing Tulcea's numbers by four and then dividing RC by half decks remaining, when you play.
Don
> Should I multiply those new indices by 2 for
> a level-2 count?
AOII has insurance, i.e. even $ in this case @ +6.
not correct. It should be
+4 single deck
+5 double deck
and +6 4/6/8 deck
> not correct. It should be
> +4 single deck
> +5 double deck
> and +6 4/6/8 deck
What about HO2?
> What about HO2?
I use +3 for SD and +4 for multi-deck. I used to use +4 for all games, but the sims showed that +3 at SD games gave a slight extra gain.
-Sonny-
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks