Don, would you suggest to round down deck estimation in single deck?

[Norm]

Yes, I understand that it is a repetitive, misguided, snide remark -- something you are known for. Why you think this is of benefit to anyone is beyond me. I don't have time for this.

[DSchles]

Aceside will tell you to truncate, so, 6/3.25 =1.71,

Hmm. Creative division!

Don

[Freightman]

Hmm. Creative division!

Don

See post 23

[DSchles]

See post 23

Post 23 had nothing to do with 6/3.25 = 1.71. It had to do with your dividing 6 by 2 instead of 3, which would have then been off by a full true count or more.

Don

[Freightman]

Post 23 had nothing to do with 6/3.25 = 1.71. It had to do with your dividing 6 by 2 instead of 3, which would have then been off by a full true count or more.

Don

As I said
Transposed to
(6/2=3)-10%=2.7) which is clearly wrong

From 3.3 decks remaining rounded down to 3, -10% to account for the rounding down
(6/3=2)-10%=1.7%

And allowing for a larger bet than True 1.0, commented on as empiricism and progression but clearly not the case.

Looks right to me.

[iCountNTrack]

As I said
Transposed to
(6/2=3)-10%=2.7) which is clearly wrong

From 3.3 decks remaining rounded down to 3, -10% to account for the rounding down
(6/3=2)-10%=1.7%

And allowing for a larger bet than True 1.0, commented on as empiricism and progression but clearly not the case.

Looks right to me.

Can you please stop posting nonsense.

[aceside]

Can you please stop posting nonsense.

Freightman is a fun guy who has given me several “yes” helpful comments, but I guess 21forme probably has stepped on “no” helpful comments a lot on my posts. I recommend Freightman manage this forum.

Hark back to the subject. When estimating the number of decks remaining for TC calculation, we always use rounding when it is greater than 1. For example, 2.3 is rounded to 2, 2.7 is rounded to 3, and 2.5 is rounded to 3. However, when the remaining deck number is less than 1, we do not use TC anymore, only RC enough.

[Freightman]

Freightman is a fun guy who has given me several “yes” helpful comments, but I guess 21forme probably has stepped on “no” helpful comments a lot on my posts. I recommend Freightman manage this forum.

Hark back to the subject. When esteeming the number of decks remaining for TC calculation, we always use rounding when it is greater than 1. For example, 2.3 is rounded to 2, 2.7 is rounded to 3, and 2.5 is rounded to 3. However, when the remaining deck number is less than 1, we do not use TC anymore, only RC enough.

I was immediately contacted by email asking me to confirm my intentions. Let me immediately dispel any rumours of my candidacy for forum admin traitor - damn that auto correct - make that Forum Administrator.

If nominated, I shall not run
If elected, I shall not serve

https://youtu.be/DCCF1NasAPQ

[Freightman]

However, when the remaining deck number is less than 1, we do not use TC anymore, only RC enough .

NO! Easiest example. Any RC at 52 cards remaining is the True Count. Any True Count at 52 cards remaining is doubled when 26 cards remain.

[Norm]

Running counts have their best efficiency around 65% to 80% depth with efficiency falling off earlier or later in a shoe, depending on the count. The value of true counts increases as depth increases (assuming increased resolution of deck estimation). The increase with TCs is well more than linear.

[Freightman]

The value of true counts increases as depth increases (assuming increased resolution of deck estimation). The increase with TCs is well more than linear.

Which supports depth based ramping

[Norm]

Tested this. Depth based ramping with true counts has much less value than one would have hoped. Not worth convincing casinos to reduce penetration.

[Freightman]

Not worth convincing casinos to reduce penetration.

I don’t agree with your entire post. Reduced pen is a non starter.