How to use True Count

[graemep]

I understand how to calculate True Count (TC) - divide Running Count (RC) by estimated decks left. However, I don't understand how to use TC in a practical sense.

For example, in an eight deck game if the RC is +8 and there are 4 decks left then the TC is +2. Now when the dealer deals do I re-start the count at +2 or +8?

Do I estimate the TC at the start of every new deal?

Thankyou

[KenSmith]

Continue your running count at +8, and recalculate the true count whenever you need to make a betting or playing decision.

[standard toaster]

The true count is the count you use to make your playing decision. You always count with the running count but when its your turn you need to convert to the true count to get the true ratio of high cards to low cards in the deck. The running count alone is useless

[bd99]

Originally Posted by standard toaster

The true count is the count you use to make your playing decision. You always count with the running count but when its your turn you need to convert to the true count to get the true ratio of high cards to low cards in the deck. The running count alone is useless

I have a question on the TC. It seems to me, with my limited experience, that variations in count are more localized than a TC number would imply. In other words, if I get a +10 count in the early portion of a 6 card deck I would not expect to wait until the end of the deck to get a 0 balance... I'd expect it to occur relatively soon. What's your take on this?

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by bd99

I have a question on the TC. It seems to me, with my limited experience, that variations in count are more localized than a TC number would imply. In other words, if I get a +10 count in the early portion of a 6 card deck I would not expect to wait until the end of the deck to get a 0 balance... I'd expect it to occur relatively soon. What's your take on this?

this link shows how true counts tend to behave:
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount1.htm

[bd99]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

this link shows how true counts tend to behave:
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount1.htm

sagefr0g, thanks for the link. Some very useful info there but it doesn't quite address my question on localized variance. Basically I see emperically that a high + count (ignoring TC) will quickly reset to 0 or near zero long before the end of a 6-deck game. So if this is true wouldn't one potentially miss out of a local spike of say +10 in the beginning of a shoe because 6 (or 5) decks are outstanding?

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by bd99

sagefr0g, thanks for the link. Some very useful info there but it doesn't quite address my question on localized variance. Basically I see emperically that a high + count (ignoring TC) will quickly reset to 0 or near zero long before the end of a 6-deck game. So if this is true wouldn't one potentially miss out of a local spike of say +10 in the beginning of a shoe because 6 (or 5) decks are outstanding?

well, i think if say you have a RC=10 in the beginning of a shoe and six or five decks still to be dealt, you'd have a TC=1 or TC=2, so you'd probably be betting up some on that. so if the TC then drops to zero you wouldn't be missing anything.

maybe i don't understand fully what your meaning by "variations in count are more localized than a TC number would imply." but if you look at this link http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/show...3&postcount=18
you can see how different ways of calculating your TC can give different perceptions of what's going on with the TC, sort of thing. (ie. calculating TC=RC/(#cards left to deal) as opposed to TC=RC/(#decks left to deal) )

then there is the true count theorem. you might find this interesting:

The True Count Theorem
by Abdul Jalib

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exerpt take from the following reference in DejaNews:
Subject: Proof that everyone has the same shot at getting tens
From: [.. (Abdul Jalib M'hall)
Date: 1996/07/30
Message-ID: <..>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.blackjack


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The True Count Theorem
----------------------
The following is a mathematical theorem:

Theorem: the expected value of the true count after a card is revealed and removed from any deck composition is exactly the same as before the card was removed, for any balanced count, provided you do not run out of cards.

See the proof at the end of the article. Expected value is a precise mathematical term defined as the mean average, which is computed by summing the probability of an event times the value of that event, over all possible events. So the expected value of the true count after drawing a card is the summation of the probability of drawing each card times the value of the true count after drawing that card.

One consequence of this theorem is that the expected value of the count after any number of cards have been revealed and removed will be the same as before, and so the expected value of the count after a round has been dealt will be the same as before. And when you get a constant number of rounds, the expected true count after each is zero. Since the true count starts at zero, the overall expected value of the count is zero, when you get a fixed number of rounds.


The Running Count
-----------------

The theorem applies only to the true count, not to the running count. The running count does not obey the same laws of as the true count.

With regards to the effects of other players at the table and the tendency of the round to stop with a big card, much confusion stems from a mistaken assumption that the behavior of the true count is the same as the behavior of the running count.

The running count must be zero at the end of the deck. Therefore, drawing cards in high counts tends to cause the running count to fall, and drawing cards in low counts tends to cause the running count to fall. But the expected true count is unchanged.


The Proof
---------

Theorem: the expected value of the true count after a card is revealed and removed from any deck composition is exactly the same as before the card was removed, for any balanced count.

Proof:

Let Wi be the Weight of the card of rank i, i.e., the count value.

Let Ni be the Number of cards of rank i already revealed, counted, and removed from the deck.

Let Si be the Starting number of cards of rank i in a full deck.

Let Li be the number of cards of rank i currently Left in the deck, i.e., Li=Si-Ni

Let C be the number of Cards remaining in the deck, i.e., C=sum_over_i{L[i]}

Let R be the Running count.

Let T be the True count, i.e., T = R/C

Assume that the count is balanced, i.e., sum_over_i{W[i]*S[i]}=0.


Need to show that: T = sum_over_j{((R+W[j])/(C-1))*(L[j]/C)}, that is to say that the true count after a card j is revealed, removed, and counted, averages out to the same as the true count before. The average is computed by adding up the true counts after each card is drawn weighted by the probability of each card being drawn.

sum_over_j{((R+W[j])/(C-1))*(L[j]/C)} =

(1/(C(C-1)))sum_over_j{(R+W[j])L[j]} =

(1/(C(C-1)))sum_over_j{(RL[j]+W[j]L[j])} =

(1/(C(C-1)))sum_over_j{(RL[j]+W[j](S[j]-N[j])} =

(1/(C(C-1)))sum_over_j{(RL[j]+W[j]S[j]-W[j]N[j])} =

(1/(C(C-1)))(sum_over_j{RL[j]} + sum_over_j{W[j]S[j]} - sum_over_j{W[j]N[j]}) =

(1/(C(C-1)))(R*sum_over_j{L[j]} + 0 - R) =

(1/(C(C-1)))(R*C-R) =

(1/(C(C-1)))(R(C-1)) =

R/C = T

. . . QED

Again...

Theorem:
The expected true count after a card is revealed and removed from any deck composition is the same as before the card was removed, for any balanced count, provided you do not run out of cards.

Corollary:
The expected true count after any number of cards are revealed and removed from any deck composition is the same as before the cards were removed, for any balanced count, provided you do not run out of cards.

Corollary:
The expected true count after a round is the same as before the round, for any balanced count, provided you do not run out of cards.

this link has some more stuff on variation of the counts.
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount8.htm
and this one:
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration9.htm

[bd99]

Thanks Frog! Interesting to ponder...
-BD99

[bd99]

After some more playing I think I can express my thought on TC a little more clearly with an analogy...

Statistically, over the long haul one would likely calculate the best long term return in the stock market by buying an index fund and holding it for a long time. But with some effort buying and selling shorter term stocks could make a lot more money.

The idea here is that even though over 1000s of hands the benefit of TC may be evident I'm wondering if more localized higher betting based more on the actual count would be more rewarding. Could the standard deviation on temporary positive spikes on actual counts bear this theory out? I typically see 2 or more positive count "rallies" in a shoe so wouldn't it be best to bet based on those rather than the over all shoe TC?

Again, I'm a newbie so ...

[bd99]

my last post would somewhat reference http://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackvariance1.htm

but with the idea of capitalizing more on the fluctuations vs. going after the longer 1,000,000 hands success.