In Post number 9, I explained how I make playing decisions. I explained it in another thread as well.
I don't know what you mean when you say interpolate. When I use it, and how I use it, is how it is mathematically defined. Google defines it as, "insert (an intermediate value or term) into a series by estimating or calculating it from surrounding known values." Interpolation is rigorously examined in many maths classes and is a fundamental concept to any cartesian coordinate system. If you know the way a function behaves, in the case of true counts the slope is linear, then you can easily estimate a value in between two known values. Basically if I know the TC with a divisor of 1, and I know the TC with a divisor of 2, then I can easily estimate the TC at 1.5 even though I did not plug 1.5 directly into the function. Similarly I can find an estimate at any point in between 1 and 2, like at 1.25 and 1.75.
You are using interpolation to get the TC. I thought you said you were interpolating index plays, which to me means your sim generates an index based on a specific granularity but instead of doing the index that way you decide you can do better than the sim by using a finer granularity. This can cause systematic use of the index before it is exceeded. A little tip for everyone. If you have such a close call that you need to use a finer granularity to decide it, the play has no significant EV to offer for all your trouble. Use some other criterion to decide how to play it. Like what generates the least heat. Or what is most likely to drive the ploppies off the high count that you are playing through. Or how to make sure the ploppies help you eat cards in the low count you are in. EV gain isn't just what the play itself generates. When the play generates almost no EV either way you play it, you can generate EV by other sources from affecting the environment you are playing in.
https://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount1.htm
What method was used in this page to calculate the TC for single-deck?
RC of 7 divide by three-quarter decks seems like the regular method, and the TC turns out to be 9.
7/.75=9.33
That's a few years back when I was originally looking at that situation. I made lots of notes about it all and buried them off here someplace. It was an interesting comparison of Hi-Lo, HiOpt-2, and the various levels of T count in specific positive counts to compare how far off they could be from one another in the most extreme instances, the cause of this difference, and the impact if all were using the same bet spread. Perhaps it'd be interesting to go back and visit this sometime, I put minimal time into it since I was reviewing roughly 1000 pages a day of simulation data at the time.
Pertaining to a complexity, there is the conservation of mental energy factor, especially if you are looking at a stream of five numbers and paying attention to a few other details along with it. For composition dependent play, there is no need to calculate any neutral to negative counts. There's nothing to calculate until you see cards in front of you. Quite often, there is even then little to calculate as you can often see from this stream of numbers that you are clearly on one side or the other of a very precise composition dependent index without having to break it down to the exact or do any math at all. For example, I have 8-0-10-12-9 @3.25, there is nothing to calculate, it is a negative count minimum bet. From there I get 12vs6, and without having to calculate the exact I can see that the optimal decision is to hit, all a matter of pattern recognition that corresponds to a chart for the hand to come up with damn near perfect play. I've gotten my balls broken at times about complexity, but there are certainly elements of simplicity and shortcuts that can be utilized that make what appears on the surface as exceedingly complex into something incredibly simple and a matter of following a procedure.
Bookmarks