-
newbie-newbie-doo: Hi-Lo question
For true count conversions, is it necessary to estimate the cards in the discard tray to quarter-decks, or is half-deck easier and more practical?
ex. 2.75 decks in the discard tray. Should I divide my running count by this # or should I round it down to 2.5 or round up to 3 decks remaining?
-
Sun Runner: Re: Hi-Lo question
> For true count conversions, is it necessary to
> estimate the cards in the discard tray to
> quarter-decks,
No.
> or is half-deck easier and more practical?
I suppose it might be easier but not necessarily more practical.
TC'ing by half or quarter deck is not just a simple matter of dividing by 'half' or 'quarter' deck increments. More on that another time.
> ex. 2.75 decks in the discard tray. Should I divide my
> running count by this # ..
You don't divide the RC by what is in the discard tray, you divide it by the number of decks remaining to be played in the shoe (technically, you divide by the number of 'unseen' cards -there could be a difference if you showed up late to the shuffle.)
> .. or should I round it down to 2.5 or round up to 3 decks remaining?
Conservatively, round the discard decks to two, leaving four in the shoe. This (four) is your divisor. At this point, if the RC is twelve, then the TC is three.
Good luck.
-
Norm Wattenberger: Some data
The following chart shows the SCOREs for all penetrations from 26 to 130 cards cut off when estimating discards by full decks, half decks, quarter decks and exact card.
Serious Blackjack Software
-
V-man: Re: Some data
Norm, Great graphs.
What about percentage gains (or loss) compared full, half and quarter to exact?
Thanks.
-
-
Francis Salmon: Easiest and most precise
> ex. 2.75 decks in the discard tray. Should I divide my
> running count by this # or should I round it down to
> 2.5 or round up to 3 decks remaining?
Consider it as 3 1/3 decks. This allows you to multiply by 3 (much simpler than dividing) and just put a decimal point.So RC+10 would be exactly TC 3.0 and you can bet very big.
For playing decisions at a full table you have probably seen quite a few cards that are still lying on the table and there are actually 3 full decks seen.In this case divide by 3.
Francis Salmon
-
Sun Runner: Re: Easiest and most precise
> For playing decisions at a full table you have
> probably seen quite a few cards that are still lying
> on the table and there are actually 3 full decks
> seen.
Not if you are sitting at first base you haven't; and his question -even though he may not have phrased it so -was what to do about 2.75 decks played, not three.
It's the beginners page dude; give the guy a break will ya'!?
Obviously by his question he does not even know which pile of cards on the table is his divisor for the true count! Why don't you let him figure that concept out before introducing alternative methods of play.
I respect you, your play, and your ability to knock 'em dead. But why not keep the esoteric stuff over on the main page?
-
Francis Salmon: Re: Easiest and most precise
> Not if you are sitting at first base you haven't; and
> his question -even though he may not have phrased it
> so -was what to do about 2.75 decks played, not three.
He spoke about 2.75 decks in the discard tray.This makes almost exactly 3 1/3 remaining.And with 13 more cards played out at the beginning of the round before you have to make a playing decision,it's exactly 3.
> It's the beginners page dude; give the guy a break
> will ya'!?
> Obviously by his question he does not even know which
> pile of cards on the table is his divisor for the true
> count! Why don't you let him figure that concept out
> before introducing alternative methods of play.
If he asked the question he certainly wanted an answer.It cannot harm to know shortcuts.
> I respect you, your play, and your ability to knock
> 'em dead. But why not keep the esoteric stuff over on
> the main page?
Are you the guardian of this site,or what?
-
Sun Runner: Re: Easiest and most precise
> Are you the guardian of this site, or what?
No. But I am considering trying out for Fight Club moderator after Stalker retires.
>> ex. 2.75 decks in the discard tray. Should I divide my
>> running count by this # or should I round it down to
>> 2.5 or round up to 3 decks remaining?
> Consider it as 3 1/3 decks. This allows you to multiply by 3
> (much simpler than dividing) and just put a decimal point.
> So RC+10 would be exactly TC 3.0 and you can bet very big.
It's not important that I personally find the above paragraph hard to understand and cumbersome nor that I don't find multiplying 'much simpler' than dividing.
With more than 2, but less than 3 decks played, seeing it immediately as 3 and comparing it to a RC 10, knowing immediately the TC is more than 3, but less than 4, dosen't seem all that difficult .. unless you eventually aspire to using decimal place indices.
Enough of this for me; good luck to you.
-
MJ: Question about chart
Norm,
Interesting chart. Does it also take into account the I-18 Fab4? If not, could you please post another SCORE chart that also takes the I-18 Fab4 into account when
estimating discards by full decks, half decks, quarter
decks and exact card? Thanks.
-MJ
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks