It really just doesn't matter that much if your indices are off a hair. Truce, floor? doesn't matter. Example A8 vs 6. If you double at TC of +2 rather than TC of +1, it costs 2 cents per $100 wagered. Lets say you play 500 hours a year at the 6 decks game (which is what was mentioned earlier). Thats about 30,000 hands. A8 vs 6 will occur 28 times in that span (92 per 100,000 hands) of those 28 times, 11 percent will occur at a TC of +1. For rounding off purposes that is 3 hands. So 3 times a year you will lose 2 cents per $100 wager. So if your unit wager is $100 it will cost you 6 cents per year to double at tc of +2 rather than +1.
Now if you are not doubling by the higher true counts of +4 or +5, when you have many units out, yes then it is costing you more money. But for the most part being off by 1 isn't costing much.
Now other plays like doubling 8 vs 6 will occur at a rate of almost double the above example, but it is still a matter of a few cents.
As long as you get the most important indices of insurance, stand 16 vs 10, stand 15 vs 10 correct, it really is of little importance if you are off by 1 on the others. Especially if you are off to the conservative end.
I am ammending this because I forgot to add that of course precise indices become more important when playing single and even double deck games.