In version 3, if you set the 'Betting Strategy' to 'use running count', the True Count does not appear in the 'Tray' stats. Even though I use KO, which uses the running count, I occasionally amuse myself by trying to calculate the true count, as practice in case the day ever arrives when I might switch to a balanced count. So, in version 4, it would be convenient if the True Count were displayed, along with the running count, so I could check the accuracy of my calculations.
Hmm. Problem is in KO there is no TC to calculate unless you specify a TC calculation method in the strategy. In which case it will be used for playing decisions even if RC is selected for betting. But there may be a way to trick V4. Have to take a look.
Serious Blackjack Software
> Hmm. Problem is in KO there is no TC to calculate
> unless you specify a TC calculation method in the
> strategy. In which case it will be used for playing
> decisions even if RC is selected for betting.
I would assume that TC would be displayed only for reference, with no effect on playing decisions. IRC for the true count could always be "0", and not the KO IRC, for obvious reasons, and the TC calculation would be typical Hi-Lo as a default.
> I would assume that TC would be displayed only for
> reference, with no effect on playing decisions. IRC
> for the true count could always be "0", and
> not the KO IRC, for obvious reasons, and the TC
> calculation would be typical Hi-Lo as a default.
If you're going go have the TC mean anything at all across different numbers of decks, you can't do it this way. You must use a common pivot point, not a common IRC. The most efficient way is to use 0 for the pivot and adjust the IRC for the number of decks. Then the TC is roughly equivalent to the Hi-lo TC + 4.
But if you want a true count, why not just set your system for TKO? You will then have both a running and a true count displayed. Of course, you will have to be using (#decks x -4) for the IRC.
> If you're going go have the TC mean anything at all
> across different numbers of decks, you can't do it
> this way. You must use a common pivot point, not a
> common IRC. The most efficient way is to use 0 for the
> pivot and adjust the IRC for the number of decks. Then
> the TC is roughly equivalent to the Hi-lo TC + 4.
At the end, you mean Hi-Lo TC - 4.
Don
> At the end, you mean Hi-Lo TC - 4.
Minus, plus, whatever. :-)
You are, of course, correct.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks