Maximizing the advantages of early surrender

[k_c]

We're talking at cross-purposes. And, you aren't responding to what I'm writing. Suppose a six-deck game dealt to the five-deck level. You're providing a matrix of indices for the Hi-Lo player for standing. And, you're providing nothing but a RC at the 3-deck level, so let's say you come up with +12 for 15 vs. T. Are you now going to provide nine other RC's for nine other penetration levels for the ONE play? What's the point? Why don't you say the TC index is +4 and be done with it? How many indices do you want a player to learn for each holding?

Don

Exact definition of true count is 52 * RC / (cards remaining). It is a ratio. The point of using true count is to standardize an index as much as possible to one value. True count can be varied by keeping running count constant and varying penetration. It also can be varied by keeping penetration constant and varying running count. My method is the latter. As penetration changes, true count of an index can vary but it does not generally vary very much except at the extremes. Does it make sense to compute a single deck index with 1 card remaining? 2 cards? 3 cards?.......50 cards? 51 cards? 52 cards? Which makes the most sense?

As an afterthought, it seems you do no like that I'm displaying running counts, not true counts. Since both running count and cards remaining are known, the final step is to compute the true count. I'm not suggesting that the running count displayed applies to other values for cards remaining but the computed true count would.

k_c