Hit the Road Jack: Is it down for the count for the Single-Deck game?

[Hit the Road Jack]

It's unfortunate to hear how Binion's was forced to close down, but being a blackjack player I myself have never played there as I thought it to be a casino geared more toward poker. However given the content of the previous post on "binions single deck game" I do have some questions concerning, not the replacement games offered by Harrah's but other SD games offered by other casinos such as the Golden Nugget with more liberal and player advantageous rules.

I had previously made two posts(on June 3rd) addressing true count conversion and its inherent dangers to which I received satisfactory commentary on how to compute the true count and its reliability, however upon further consideration, I think I have found a slight discrepancy.

Mr. Schlesinger (Donald) had recommended that players who use a level-2 count compute the true count to the nearest half-deck. I have taken his esteemed advice and converted my stragegy numbers to the appropriate values.

I was also told that the true count for single deck could be computed to the nearest full deck therefore making a fixed Running Count greater as the deck is depleted because of the smaller demoninator.

For example: If the Running count is +3 with one full deck the True Count would be +3, and if the the RC is +3 with 3/4 deck remaining the corresponding TC would be +4, RC of +3 with 1/2 of a deck remaining would make the TC +6 etc.
Thus the True count would be greater than the Running Count once the full deck or what I will call the base unit is passed in play. This increase in the TC was said to be accurate and must be taken full advantage of.

My problem concerns primarily SD and DD game play.
If the True Count is computed to the nearest half-deck, that makes the half-deck the base(by this I mean the half-deck is the fundamental unit). If in single deck games we convert the Running Count to the nearest half deck off the top the RC will be divided by two given there are (about) two half decks remaining unseen. As the deck is played the division will become smaller as the number of half decks decreases, but given 50% penetration the deck will only be played down to the half deck at which point the True Count will exactly equal the Running count as the denominator will be one having one half deck remaining. The significant thing to realize here is that the True count will be "Less" than the Running Count, not more as if you were to convert to the numbers of full decks. The value of the playing strategy index does not matter, even if you adjust the numbers for remaining whole decks or half-decks, it is the value of the True count which is changed by a conversion factor(of division or multiplication by the reciprocal fraction) that is compared to the index to determine the correct play. For the TC to be both more and less than the RC cannot be correct!

What am I to do? Given my bankroll I would rather play conservatively, but I don't want to give away my advantage and lose money when the game is so difficult to beat by any means.

P.S. I would prefer to play aggressively, but do not have the neccessary bankroll. So are the throes of poverty and the wages of the poor!

HtRJ

[SOTSOG]

I don't understand what all the trouble is with the TC in relationship with the RC.

The TC is greater than the RC! The TC is smaller than the RC! Oh, my. Oh, no.

Who cares? The calculation of a true count is done, so you can use a fixed set of indexes. A running count of +3 represents some advantage at the top of the deck, while that same running count of +3 deep at the end of the deck represents a much different advantage.

In order to obtain an apple to apple comparison, the running count is converted to a true count. Who cares if this true count is smaller than the running count in the top of the deck example, or larger than running count at the end of the deck?

If advantage could be determined by room temp, would I care that a 2% advantage occurs at 70 degrees and 70 is so much larger than 2? Or would I just play my 2% advantage when it was 70 degrees and not fret?

You could do away with true count conversion altogether. Then every index and every bet would have to be adjusted. At a running count of +2, I bet this much top of the deck, this much middle of the deck, this much end of the deck. At a running count of +3, I bet ....

I double down on 9 vs 2 when the running count is X top of the deck, Y middle of the deck, running count Z end of the deck, ...

[DeadMoney]

If you have problems converting RC to TC just switch to KO. It eliminates the conversion.

[Hit the Road Jack]

> I don't understand what all the trouble is
> with the TC in relationship with the RC.

> The TC is greater than the RC! The TC is
> smaller than the RC! Oh, my. Oh, no.

> Who cares? The calculation of a true count
> is done, so you can use a fixed set of
> indexes. A running count of +3 represents
> some advantage at the top of the deck, while
> that same running count of +3 deep at the
> end of the deck represents a much different
> advantage.

Yes, okay, thank you.

> In order to obtain an apple to apple
> comparison, the running count is converted
> to a true count. Who cares if this true
> count is smaller than the running count in
> the top of the deck example, or larger than
> running count at the end of the deck?

Not to sound smart here, but I care and a great deal otherwise I would not be having so much trouble with this problem and invoking your help.

I am just worried about the reliability of using a true count value that becomes inordinately larger only because the deck level goes down, particularly starting with a single deck. I'm also concerned that an upward adjusted true count will give a false sense of one's real advantage, causing the player to over bet(bet too high in accordance with the TC) and make the wrong "aggressive" plays(such as splitting Tens vs. 2 or 3, Soft doubling 19 or 20, or Doubling down on Seven or Eight etc...).

> If advantage could be determined by room
> temp, would I care that a 2% advantage
> occurs at 70 degrees and 70 is so much
> larger than 2? Or would I just play my 2%
> advantage when it was 70 degrees and not
> fret?

To answer your question, I would fret first then just play my 2% advantage and fret it again! Fret!

> You could do away with true count conversion
> altogether. Then every index and every bet
> would have to be adjusted. At a running
> count of +2, I bet this much top of the
> deck, this much middle of the deck, this
> much end of the deck. At a running count of
> +3, I bet ....

This sounds much too complex and tedious, I'll stick to computing the true count and keeping a fixed index.

> I double down on 9 vs 2 when the running
> count is X top of the deck, Y middle of the
> deck, running count Z end of the deck, ...

Thank you for your response and forthcoming insight about counting aspects which I hitherto did not understand.

P.S. So in single deck the True Count goes up right, it is larger than the Running Count. ???

I appreciate it. Thank you. HtRJ

[Hit the Road Jack]

> If you have problems converting RC to TC
> just switch to KO. It eliminates the
> conversion.

Hmmmmm....that's good advice, but in my case I think I just need to make a different conversion, to that of poker player.

Appreicate the comment, thanks. HtRJ

P.S. I hope you don't call my bluff as that would be a real Knock Out, bucause I'm a terrible liar and an even worse poker player.

[Parker]

> P.S. So in single deck the True Count goes
> up right, it is larger than the Running
> Count. ???

Absolutely. The true count keeps increasing in relation to the running count as the shoe decreases. Why should this magically stop when we get down to one deck?

Since dividing by fractions is tricky, many single deck players simply multiply to get the true count. If there is 2/3 of a deck left, multiply the RC by 3/2, or 1.5. With half a deck left, simply double the RC.

If there is 1/3 deck left, and the dealer is still dealing, multiply the RC by 3. Also, e-mail me privately with the location of this game.

This is why single deck can be such a wild roller coaster ride. You will frequently see high counts calling for max bets.

[Hit the Road Jack]

> Absolutely. The true count keeps increasing
> in relation to the running count as the shoe
> decreases. Why should this magically stop
> when we get down to one deck?

> Since dividing by fractions is tricky, many
> single deck players simply multiply to get
> the true count. If there is 2/3 of a deck
> left, multiply the RC by 3/2, or 1.5. With
> half a deck left, simply double the RC.

> If there is 1/3 deck left, and the dealer is
> still dealing, multiply the RC by 3. Also,
> e-mail me privately with the location of
> this game.

> This is why single deck can be such a wild
> roller coaster ride. You will frequently see
> high counts calling for max bets.

Yes, yes, yes, good, good, thank you.

I know I am somewhat changing the subject here, one which I started but you(and others) have now put it to rest, and this is the question that has really been on my mind.

Earlier I had read a post of your's(Parker) which contained a link to the Brett Harris Systems and I read it with genuine interest, but regretfully say that the systems manual was not available for purchase. It makes some lofty claims concerning the power of the systems which I take to be true given Dr. Harris's reputation and also on the basis of certain other articles I had read by him on unbalanced counts with true count conversions among others.

I should also say that a while ago I was advised by a fellow poster Adam and Subtractum (ANS) to learn the Table Hopper systems if I wanted to play the most powerful. I searched diligently in vain as I never found anything. But it has always been on my mind!

In another book(KISS Guide to Gambling by John Marchel) I have recently found values for the elusive T-Hop 2 system and to my astonishment they are identical to the Brett Harris (Br-h 2) system. However this book did not include the strategy numbers as it was geared toward gambling in general.

I therefore implore you to asuage my malady and tell me where I can find the COMPLETE Brett Harris or Table Hopper (T-Hop 2) system with Betting tables and Strategy Indexes so I can finally play the single deck game with confidence.

P.S. I also wonder if Brett Harris is the Table Hopper. I mean the names sound similar and their systems are identical.

If you cannot find me anything I do however thank you for setting me straight and clarifying my problems with the single deck game. I am buttering you up with sweet talk and earnestly hope you can find me some information on the Table Hopper Systems and provide me with peace of mind. PLEASE

HtRJ