Puzzling Findings About The True Count

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

we all know that in an 8 deck game, a TC of +3 with 6 decks left is the same as a TC of +2 with 4 decks left, but arnold snyder and john gwynn have proved this to be not all that true.. here is the article http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...truecount.html
if you dont want to read all of that, i will sum it up for you.. it states that the more cards that are dealt, the more advantage the player has GIVEN THE SAME TRUE COUNT.. so in the example above, the player would have a higher advantage at +2 with 4 decks left than +3 with 6 decks left.. im not sure if 23 million hands is the long run, but thats what the simulations are based off of, and he explains that normal fluctuation could not produce these kinds of numbers.. the numbers are not just a little bit different, they are a lot bit different.. the table shows that your advantage can be up to 50% more when comparing a positive true count with 50% of the deck dealt, to the SAME TRUE COUNT with 87% dealt out (all this varies depending on what system is used, but all still show the same results of 1 true count point at 50% depletion is worth less than 1 true count point at 80% depletion).. also, in the same article it talks about how your advantage sometimes goes down as the true count goes up, for instance (depending on the system) +5 may be better than +6, and such.. if this is true, then you would need more than just the true count to make betting/index decisions, you would need to bet more when you got closer to the end of the shoe, even if the true count hasnt changed.. this is some complex stuff, but can anybody shed light on this? read the article before you make any bold statements, because it is truly fascinating, and shatters what we thought to be true about the true count

[Sonny]

Ah yes, the old floating advantage. I enjoyed Don Schlesinger’s follow up article which was published in a later issue called “The Floating Advantage: It Ain’t Worth a Bleep.” It’s also in his book Blackjack Attack. Basically, the advantage does change slightly at different points in the shoe but not enough to justify a change in betting strategy. Since a simulator will give the average advantage at all instances of a TC, and since the deviation from the mean is very small, there is no reason to get alarmed. All is well.

Here's an excerp from the Blackjack Encyclopedia:

floating advantage. The proven theory that the same true count implies more advantage later in the deck(s) than it does earlier in the deck(s). Although studies by Don Schlesinger and John Gwynn prove that a player's true count advantage does increase with penetration it is of a very small nature unless penetration is very deep (e.g., > 5 1/2 decks out of 6).

-Sonny-

[KenSmith]

One more thing... In the initial post, substitute "RC" for "TC". For example, the first sentence should instead say:
"an RC of +3 with 6 decks left is the same as an RC of +2 with 4 decks left"

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by Sonny

floating advantage. The proven theory that the same true count implies more advantage later in the deck(s) than it does earlier in the deck(s). Although studies by Don Schlesinger and John Gwynn prove that a player's true count advantage does increase with penetration it is of a very small nature unless penetration is very deep (e.g., > 5 1/2 decks out of 6).

Lawrence Revere/PBJAAB as early as 1969 indicated the FA and provided distinct betting adjustments to accommodate it. So, presumably Julian Braun, under contract to Revere, was first to notice this. zg

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

we all know that in an 8 deck game, a TC of +3 with 6 decks left is the same as a TC of +2 with 4 decks left, but arnold snyder and john gwynn have proved this to be not all that true.. here is the article http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...truecount.html

No, what do you mean "we all know" that? A difference in a true count of 1 (High-Low) represents a half to a full percent of advantage. The floating advantage between 6 and 4 decks doesn't get you anywhere near that.

PS: Just saw Ken's clarification. That's a little more like it.

The error present in all RC based counting systems does compensate to some degree for the floating advantage, but it usually goes too far and overstates your advantage towards the end of a deeply dealt shoe. So you can say that it's the floating advantage that compensates for the errors in the RC systems, not the other way around.

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

so then this is basically half true? meaning the findings are exaggerated?

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

so then this is basically half true? meaning the findings are exaggerated?

Exactly. That article was written before a full analysis was done.

-Sonny-