falling true counts

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.

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.

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.

I really like this answer and have to second it

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

I didn't say I agreed with the thought, but I will look for the book over the weekend and update this thread. If I errored I apologize in advance, but I am 99% sure that my memory is not failing.

I don't agree you with you here. A fast decrease in the RC does produce a fast drop in the TC but the percentage drop changes based upon where you are in a shoe.
For example: (using level2 - 1TDC, 6d)
At 1d played, the RC is +20 = TC +4
if after one round, 3 players at table, and all including dealer pulls 20's (all 10's), the RC=+4 and the TC = +1 (+0.8)

At 4d played, RC=+20 = TC+10 using the same example as above, the RC=+4 but now the TC=+2

Since pulling 20's on high counts is an "expected" occurence, I would consider this scenario a possible event which produces fast decreases in TC's.

BJC

You are giving some extreme examples . But again to clarify things, true count is not a count it is a density, your advantage at high true count does not stem from the fact that the true count is going to decrease, but from the fact that at any given moment there is a higher chance that the next card dealt will be a high card.

I agree on your point, thanks for the clarification.

BJC

well i don't remember reading specifically such an idea as bjcount's paraphrasing indicates, but such implications have been floated about during discussions around here and maybe in some books as well. thing is such wording are probably just used as trying to explain how perhaps even with an advantage or high true count at some point things might not go so well, sort of thing or some other explanation of what ever.

like these lines i read in Blackbelt in Blackjack, page 200.
"...... You don't bet big simply because the count is high, you bet big because the count should come down.
If the count doesn't come down then it must mean that those excess high cards in the deck did not come out. If the count continues to climb, then not only are the excess high cards not being dealt, but a disproportionate number of low cards continue to be dealt, much to you disadvantage.
If the dealer shuffles when the count is +15 to +20, then this means that all those high cards are clumped together in the undealt portion of the shoe. If this happened three shoes in a row, then contrary to what this players count indicated, he never played with an advantage over the house. When the count stays high, your high bets are all for naught. ..."

ok, so i guess my point is, yes this sort of reasoning explains some stuff and is innocent enough in the point it's trying to make. thing is maybe one shouldn't go to far overboard about these points and make the distinction in error that just because the count is continuing to rise that your advantage isn't good sort of thing. it may or may not be good. still worth taking a shot at. lol.
it's not so much that it's been anyone saying some wrong headed statements as it is that some of the statements might could give rise to some wrong headed conclusions, is more the point i was trying to make.:whip:

Hey thanks sagefr0g! You quoted the exact section I was refering to. My memory was correct to the book, maybe i contorted the idea a bit.
Mighty Frog has saved my weekend....thank you

BJC

I think Snyder is talking about the difference between prospective advantage and retrospective advantage. You put out big bets when you have a prospective advantage; after the cards come out, you can calculate your retrospective advantage, which may be very different.

That's like saying smoking is not bad for you if you happen to know somehow you will die of something else for which there is no current evidence.

question?

If you have a high rc at the begining of the shoe but it levels off and does not rise further nor really drops the true count would drop as more of the shoe is dealt. Would you not be dropping your bets down as the shoe is depleted of cards because your tc is dropping likewise. If I cut back my smoking from 2packs a day now to say 1 cig a day then die from some other reason other than cancer then smoking didn't kill me did it. blackchipjim

lol, i thought it might have been. it's not so much he's wrong, it's just if your young and easily confused like me, you might go off thinking the wrong thing. that was sort of the point.:whip:
enjoy that weekend, lol.
not meant to negate your point, but i think i could imagine scenarios where even the RC might rise when you have an advantage and you still realize the fruits of that advantage. i guess maybe your point is it's not likely and yeah the count (RC) your expecting it should come down.
yeah, and really the statements were taken from a certain context that Mr. Snyder was trying to make. just my point was the whole issue can be kind of confusing and maybe some like me sort of misunderstood the issue. not meant to be knit picking just a small wake up call for me, lol.