falling true counts

[sagefr0g]

i've read words to the effect that lead one to believe that essentially for us to realize the fruits of the advantage of a positive true count that in the process the 'count' falls. by count maybe it's meant RC or TC, i'm not really sure.
it seems to make sense, or at least it's possible if for example your one on one with the dealer and the count is nice and positive,say tc=4 what ever, the dealer has two tens say and you have an ace and ten. well ok the RC went down by four. so here the RC fell.
ok but it's also possible a lot of other things, like for example the dealer has 3,3 and you have ace,10 . here the count doesn't fall.
or say there are two other players at the table. maybe the dealer has 3,3 and you have ace,10 and the other players have 10,6 and 8,7 , what ever.
so the 10,6 guy could get a 5 for 21, the 8,7 guy might get a 6 for 21 and the dealer might get a 2,8,4 or what ever. point is it's not beyond the pale that you have a nice high true count like tc=4 or such and you might realize the fruit of the advantage by getting a snapper, successful double down or what ever and still the count could stay the same or even rise.
i dunno, i just posted this because well maybe me more than anyone else but others as well might think this falling true count idea is so likely to be associated with realizing an advantage sort of thing. i guess my point is that it ain't necessarily so.

[SleightOfHand]

From what I understand, the TC tends to stay the same. By this logic, it would make sense that the RC would fall since the removal of cards would require a lower RC to keep the TC the same.

[Brett_Harris]

The true count is a measure of density of high cards relative to low cards.

That means that at any point in the shoe, the true count is like a temperature, a high true count means hot, a low true count means cold. If a deck has 'gone cold', then the remaining cards have an excess of low cards. This is the time to get up and go somewhere else.

If it has gone hot, then there are an excess of high cards remaining, then its time to stay and expect that the higher cards will come out more often than lower cards. Simple as that.

Brett.

[standard toaster]

Originally Posted by SleightOfHand

From what I understand, the TC tends to stay the same. By this logic, it would make sense that the RC would fall since the removal of cards would require a lower RC to keep the TC the same.

I really like this answer and have to second it

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by SleightOfHand

From what I understand, the TC tends to stay the same. By this logic, it would make sense that the RC would fall since the removal of cards would require a lower RC to keep the TC the same.

yeah alright maybe so. maybe that true count theorem comes into play alright.
thing is look at the graph below. it's for a six decks and it shows tc's by deck depth sort of thing. thing is i was looking at this particular graph and thinking about the 208 cards deep point. i'm thinking, gee if the count is rising like that and heck at tc=2 i'd probably be betting up and all but the tc is going up. so i'm thinking, so that means a bunch more low cards are coming out and driving that true count up. so i'm wondering, ok i'm at an advantage count but here come even more low cards. kind of thing, but maybe there is a little ray of sunshine. so but still you have an advantage and you may get a snapper or successful double down or what ever and the dealer get stuck with a stiff sort of thing.

[EasyRhino]

The count is more likely to fall when in a + count. In fact, if you deal to the end of the shoe, the count will inevitably fall to zero. It's the whole point in counting cards. It's not that complicated.

Now, there's the "true count theorem", which posits that the expected value of the true count will remain constant. But that is different. It is also accounting for cases in a + count where even more small cards come out, while reducing the number of unplayed cards, thus increasing the true count quite substantially, albeit more rarely.

Actually, the true count theorem may not work when drawing the last card in the shoe.

[bjcount]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

i dunno, i just posted this because well maybe me more than anyone else but others as well might think this falling true count idea is so likely to be associated with realizing an advantage sort of thing. i guess my point is that it ain't necessarily so.

If at TC is +3 or 4 and still rising you haven't reached the point were the tens are showing their face, it may not yet be the point to have your big bets out. In either BJfor Blood, BBiBJ, or BJA3, I do not remember which, the author says (in my own words) that a player should not be putting the money out in a rising count if the tens are not showing... There's more to it then that, but I just don't recall the entire paragraph.

BJC

[iCountNTrack]

A high true count is advantageous because at any time t there is a higher probability that the next card dealt would be a high card making:

your double downs and splits more successful

increased the probability of getting a BJ or 20

more probable for a dealer to bust a stiff hand (doesn't mean that the dealer will bust more often, he will bust stiff hands more often, subtle difference)

A fast decrease in Running Count is advantageous but this does not result in a fast decrease in true count because TC= RC/(Cards Left) so numerator and denominator almost cancel each other.


I think it is a good place to also explain the floating advantage concept and make analogy to help visualize it:

The floating advantage is basically the concept that a certain true count is more advantageous as you go deeper in the shoe.

QFIT has nice figure about that:

http://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects2.htm

What is the physical reason behind it? well as mentioned above True Count is not really a count it is more a density or from a chemist point of view a concentration. For instance, you have 1 gram of sugar that you mix with 0.25 L of water, your concentration of sugar is 4g/L .

Now the only difference is that sugar solution a homogeneous solution i.e all the sugar is evenly distributed which is not the case for a shoe of cards rich with high cards which is heterogeneous. Meaning it is very probable you will have very sweet areas (rich) and some very bitter (poor areas).

However for a given True count, as the size of the remaining cards decreases the heterogeneity would decrease, and you rich cards will be more
evenly distributed.

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by bjcount

If at TC is +3 or 4 and still rising you haven't reached the point were the tens are showing their face, it may not yet be the point to have your big bets out. In either BJfor Blood, BBiBJ, or BJA3, I do not remember which, the author says (in my own words) that a player should not be putting the money out in a rising count if the tens are not showing... There's more to it then that, but I just don't recall the entire paragraph.

BJC

Don't know who said that -- but it's wrong. It certainly wasn't in BJA.

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

Actually, the true count theorem may not work when drawing the last card in the shoe.

There is no true count after the last card is drawn. Nor a need for one.