When I am practicing/training, I go with the very exact in great detail, and it ends up becoming very automatic at the tables. Don hit it with calculate as exact as you can and floor it from there. Something I must point out that I see no one's brought up that comes to mind when I saw the example RC+17 @2.25 decks remaining... There's no need to calculate anything at all there. At a glance you can see that you are placing a max bet, what's to calculate?
Once the RC/TC becomes negative, all counts behave the same, you are placing a minimum bet. Once the TC becomes around +5 or greater, all counts behave the same and you are putting a max bet out there. If you use several different counts in a side by side in comparison, you will notice where it all varies in terms of units wagered is between TC+2 and TC+5. I did an interesting experiment with this, slowly and meticulously using several methods simultaneously, noting the results and comparing just how far off from one another they can get, how many units were going out using the same bet spread. If one method estimates TC+2 and the other estimates TC+4, very different wagers are placed, but if one method estimates TC+7 and the other TC+9, either method is placing whatever their max bet is.
Tarzan,
In January of 2017 I posted directions for creating an Excel spreadsheet to automate the comparison of two different counts: see my post in this thread
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...lays-with-CVCX
With a bit of tinkering, the spreadsheet can be expanded to compare numerous counting methods simultaneously.
As I said in the post, if you'd like a copy of the Excel file, contact me.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
Tread careful here. The late Dr. Griffin made a point of advising
that it is superior to play Basic Strategy, rather than overbetting
or, more to the point, violating Basic Strategy e.g. with a +2 True
Count, when the T.C. ought to have been 'floored' to +1.
The indices are not generated to be used by interpolation. They are the average of the entire TC bin the way the sim calculated the TC. You do extra work that hurts your results. If you want to do extra calculations to have a lower EV that is up to you. But don't kid yourself that Griffin was wrong about this one (or any other one for that matter).
You didn't generate my indices. How do you know how they were generated? They were not made to be floored to the nearest deck only. That would be silly to generate indices for 75% pen DD which could only ever be floored with a divisor of 2 or 1. Mine are much more refined than that. I am using my indices in the manner for which they were intended.
I don't see an explanation of how you do it. Perhaps a post # may help. I think the problem is we are defining what interpolating means in this case differently. I don't really care to get into this. If you like it then go with it. I thought I might be helping you. Either you don't want help or you and I are having a communication issue about what you mean by interpolating in this case. Do whatever you like.
For others, trying to be "smarter" than the sim allows will hurt you with index plays. Griffin said that using your index early will cost you more than using it late. That is because of the TC frequency bell curve. The frequency of using it incorrectly 1 TC early (or any increment early) will be much higher than the frequency of using it 1 TC late (or the corresponding increment late). With diminishing frequencies as you get further from TC 0 you may eat up as much as several times the the increment of errant use on the plus EV side of the index. Griffin said you may use up all the gain from the index but back then things were mostly pitch games.
Bookmarks