Red Snapper: Indices

[Red Snapper]

If the same # of deck(s) are being used, but we calculate the indices by 'count per half deck' instead of 'count per deck' with the same system, would the difference between the two sets of indices be obvious?

Thanks in advance.

[Don Schlesinger]

> If the same # of deck(s) are being used, but we
> calculate the indices by 'count per half deck' instead
> of 'count per deck' with the same system, would the
> difference between the two sets of indices be obvious?

Assuming that what you mean is "whole-deck with half-deck precision" and "whole-deck with whole-deck precision," then no.

Don

[Designated Driver]

> Assuming that what you mean is "whole-deck with
> half-deck precision" and "whole-deck with
> whole-deck precision," then no.

> Don

Whoa Don, I don't understand. What is this "whole-deck with half-deck precision" and "whole-deck with whole-deck precision"? Are you saying that using "half deck precision" would be more accurate than whole-deck?

And if the answer is no to the original question, that the difference between two sets of indices calculated to the nearest whole-deck and half-deck for the same game and system is not obvious, then there would be no significant gain in accuracy to be had by calculating to the nearest half-deck instead of the nearest whole. Correct?

I am hoping for a little clarification as to what the benefits of calculating the TC and indices to the nearest half-deck as opposed to the nearest whole-deck would be. You had once told me that if you play a multilevel count, which I do, Zen, then I should also calculate the TC and indices to the nearest half-deck, however without explanation.

Given your advice, I did change my values and procedure thinking that using half-deck values/estimates would be a bit more precise along with keeping the numbers in a nice range(not too extreme, high or low), and that it would also simplify the calculation of the percent advantage to approximately 0.5% per True point making it more in line with level one systems.

Are these assumptions correct?

Just wondering,
Desi. D.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Whoa Don, I don't understand. What is this
> "whole-deck with half-deck precision" and
> "whole-deck with whole-deck precision"? Are
> you saying that using "half deck precision"
> would be more accurate than whole-deck?

Yes, of course. About 1.25% more SCORE, we've determined. Again, for the millionth time (!), understand that "precision" means distinguishing between, say, 4.5 WHOLE decks remaining and 4 or 5 remaining. It does NOT mean reckoning by half-decks, and thus dividing, in the above cases, by 9, 8, or 10.

> And if the answer is no to the original question, that
> the difference between two sets of indices calculated
> to the nearest whole-deck and half-deck for the same
> game and system is not obvious, then there would be no
> significant gain in accuracy to be had by calculating
> to the nearest half-deck instead of the nearest whole.
> Correct?

No, not correct. Indices are used for play variations, and, being off by one isn't terribly important. But, reckoning the TC is used for bet-sizing, as well. So, if you are more precise in your TC estimate, your betting is also more precise, thereby generating a very small increase in SCORE.

> I am hoping for a little clarification as to what the
> benefits of calculating the TC and indices to the
> nearest half-deck as opposed to the nearest whole-deck
> would be.

See above. Hopefully, answered.

> You had once told me that if you play a
> multilevel count, which I do, Zen, then I should also
> calculate the TC and indices to the nearest half-deck,
> however without explanation.

If I told you, then it must be true! :-) And, it is.

> Given your advice, I did change my values and
> procedure thinking that using half-deck
> values/estimates would be a bit more precise along
> with keeping the numbers in a nice range(not too
> extreme, high or low), and that it would also simplify
> the calculation of the percent advantage to
> approximately 0.5% per True point making it more in
> line with level one systems.

> Are these assumptions correct?

Absolutely.

Don

[Designated Driver]

> Yes, of course. About 1.25% more SCORE, we've
> determined. Again, for the millionth time (!),
> understand that "precision" means
> distinguishing between, say, 4.5 WHOLE decks remaining
> and 4 or 5 remaining. It does NOT mean reckoning by
> half-decks, and thus dividing, in the above cases, by
> 9, 8, or 10.

Okay, that's mostly what I was thinking. Also, can I assume that if I were to subdivide even further to fractions of a half deck(as I already use half deck units, the 9, 8 and 10 above) than I would increase the SCORE even more? Sorry, I see this is answered below. :-)

Thanks Don.

> No, not correct. Indices are used for play variations,
> and, being off by one isn't terribly important. But,
> reckoning the TC is used for bet-sizing, as well. So,
> if you are more precise in your TC estimate, your
> betting is also more precise, thereby generating a
> very small increase in SCORE.

> See above. Hopefully, answered.

> If I told you, then it must be true! :-) And, it is.

> Absolutely.

Glad to hear this coming from you. And as you say, it must be true! :-)

> Don

Thanks again, and Happy New year*.
Desi. D.