Counting Computer

for the advanced people out there.....

Ok, ive created a program that counts card perfectly...much like a simulator. Which includes basic strategy for the correct game and all the matrix charts for that certain count.

Im using USTON APC count + matrix charts.

Now being a program (and not human) its counts perfectly!! Giving me true counts & betting coutnts for example :

TC 7.8
TC 7.9
TC 8
etc...

now....say there is a change in Basic Strategy at a true count of 8 or higher. (e.g. instead of standing 16 verses 6, i need to hit!)
Should i make the program AVERAGE the true count???

example on TC of 7.8 or higher, hit on 16 v 6???
or keep it very very accurate?

When we count without computers at the casinos we average the True count by guessing the discard tray, should i do the same with my program?

would my results differ?

yours programm working bed if true count +1 > 16-6 you nid stund

thanks kolan, if you didnt notice..it was jus an example, not a real situation.
But thanx for not answering my question

Thanx flash

Yes i know wot the 3 options mean, basic mathematics.

"You truncate positive counts and for negative counts round down to the next integer" - FLASH1296

So basically, i dont change my programming.
Im gonna run a few hundred shoes on ACCURATE TC, and a few hundred on rounding .9's up, and see what happens.

Your program is already taking a TC of -1.2 and adjusting it to -2?

Snazzy. That's the LEAST likely thing I'd expect to see a computer programmer do on the first pass.

mm.....
i seem to get mixed opinions from everyone......

1. Rounding to the nearest whole number....
2. Because its calculated by a computer...leave it on PREFECT TC....and dont round

....all the "simulations" ive looked up online are all rounded results? and no results ive found online are "perfect tc"??


its funny how no one has asked me wheather i am actually making a hidden counting computer....interesting

The Consensus is clear on this issue

There are two applications that represent the gold standards of Blackjack software.

I believe that you will find them both defaulting to the clear consensus of what Pro BJ Players use in real time - "flooring"

There is a good explanation of this issue to be found in the most respected compendium for advanced blackjack - "Blackjack Attack, 3rd ed. by Don Schlesinger.

See the following:

S.B.A. -- http://www.sba21.com/
CVCX, CVData -- http://www.qfit.com/downloads.htm

I think I get it

Judging by the combination of your posts here and at bj21.com I think I begin to understand what you're getting at.

None of these people have answered your question.

While I have some ethical reservations about doing so, I will, because, well, I think smart people have become such a minority that we need to screw the dumb people as often as possible. However, I am still going to invoke what I affectionately call "plausible deniability" while I answer your questions.

You may now disregard my bj21.com post, if you know who I am by this point.

You need to look at combinatorial analysis instead of simulations. I believe that you have the resources available to tackle those types of problems given the "idle time" available to you between *cough* "runs" of the "simulation" you are writing.

Given a perfect knowledge of what cards have come out of the shoe, along with (approximately) how many decks have been excluded due to penetration, the optimal bet and play for each hand (given some starting parameters like bankroll size, bet minimum/maximum [if heat is no concern these will be equivalent to table min/max], etc.), and a generous number of (*cough*) BRAIN "cycles," it is possible to calculate the perfectly optimal bet and perfectly optimal play given each card that is dealt to each player (including to you).

There is no advantage built in to rounding, truncating, or flooring when each is compared to making an ongoing decision based upon the real, true count (in decimal form); each is a technique that's been analyzed and rated to help the HUMAN counter APPROACH the best possible odds without an INSURMOUNTABLE tax on his "computing resources" (e.g. brain cycles). *ahem*

I'm really not going to say any more here; you are welcome to contact me privately. If you're smart enough to do what I think you're doing, you're smart enough to fire off an email to me.

Let me just say that if I'm correct, I seriously do not endorse what you are trying to do -- its end result (depending upon how intelligently you and others pull it off) will seriously limit advantage play in non-online casinos in blackjack, possibly for the final time before the online casinos eclipse realtime casinos in revenue. I do not approve that end result at all.

Given that, I have given you enough information in this post to seriously screw up or (if you're smarter than I am) to be off and running. If you email me, I'm certain we'll vet each other appropriately before continuing our discussion.

All the best
-BB