AO2 v. Zen
- Thread starter checkmugged
- Start date
ZG meant what you divide your running count by. the most common is to divide your RC by the numbers of decks remaining (or 1D conversion). some systems call for (or some people prefer to) divide their running counts by the number of 2 deck segments remaining (or 2D conversion) - for instance, if there are four decks remaining, you have two 2-Deck segments left, so you would divide your RC by 2, not 4. there was an informative thread on this site about the differences/advantages but i cannot find it at the moment - search around and see if you can find it, or maybe ZG can provide the link to the thread. very worthwhile reading if you are confused by the concept.
I understand that part but I'm lost as to why you would use those conversions for a single deck or even 2D game. That seems to me like it would give a false count. If there is only 1/2 a deck left in a SD game.... why would you divide by one or two? Let's say the RC was 4 and you divide by 1 or 2 instead of 1/2.... You take your TC of 8 and take it down instead to a 4 or even a 2. That just doesn't seem right to me because you would be reading your BS indexes and MP tables completely wrong.
You would still divide by 1/2 if you are using half-deck estimations. The difference between deck estimation and deck resolution is explained here:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=65215
There is also a discussion about 1D and 2D TC resolution here:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=8332
-Sonny-
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=65215
There is also a discussion about 1D and 2D TC resolution here:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=8332
-Sonny-
sonny beat me to the links that i was looking for. as for your last statement, your BS departure indices are generated based on a vareity of factors, one being how you calculate the TC. so say if you use hi-low but you decide to convert to TC by dividing RC by the # of 2D segments remaining, you cannot use the published indices in Professional Blackjack, you would need to generate your own.
Thanks for the links Sonny, I think I'm starting to pick this up a little bit. Let me give this a try....
So in a 2D I'm assuming it would be best to use a 1/2D TC and you can use this all throughtout the game. And as for SD game, 1/4 wouldn't be unadvisable because estimating 13 cards would not be that hard and would give you the most accuarte TC.
I keep going on about SD and 2D games because I have found a casino that has them with some pretty great rules.
75% pen
Double down on any 2 cards
Split up to 4 times
DAS
3:2 BJ
Only things that I would complain about is H17 and no surrender. But, with the above pros and no antes 3 days a week and absolutely NO heat, I can deal with the cons.
So again, this is why I have been wanting to make sure I find an easy yet more advanced system then hi/lo to use in this setting. Everyone knows that the less decks you can find in a game the better your advantage. Well... I found one with comepletely clueless pit bosses and I'm pretty sure the eye in the sky is blind so I'm pushin for all the info I can on UBZ and HI-OPT II to see which one I would use.
So in a 2D I'm assuming it would be best to use a 1/2D TC and you can use this all throughtout the game. And as for SD game, 1/4 wouldn't be unadvisable because estimating 13 cards would not be that hard and would give you the most accuarte TC.
I keep going on about SD and 2D games because I have found a casino that has them with some pretty great rules.
75% pen
Double down on any 2 cards
Split up to 4 times
DAS
3:2 BJ
Only things that I would complain about is H17 and no surrender. But, with the above pros and no antes 3 days a week and absolutely NO heat, I can deal with the cons.
So again, this is why I have been wanting to make sure I find an easy yet more advanced system then hi/lo to use in this setting. Everyone knows that the less decks you can find in a game the better your advantage. Well... I found one with comepletely clueless pit bosses and I'm pretty sure the eye in the sky is blind so I'm pushin for all the info I can on UBZ and HI-OPT II to see which one I would use.
*sigh*
Well, at least I tried and I can claim ignorance.
I think I'm slowly piecing it together though....
in a 2D game, lets say there is 1 deck left. If using 2D TC and 1/2D resolution, I could divide my RC by 2 if I'm using the resolution of the discard pile because 1 deck= 2 1/2 decks.... Am I getting it or still missing?
Well, at least I tried and I can claim ignorance.
I think I'm slowly piecing it together though....
in a 2D game, lets say there is 1 deck left. If using 2D TC and 1/2D resolution, I could divide my RC by 2 if I'm using the resolution of the discard pile because 1 deck= 2 1/2 decks.... Am I getting it or still missing?
still missing it. when you say 2D TC, it means 2D resoltion.
resoltion is what defines what you divide your running count by - if you are using 2D TC resolution, that means you divide by the number of 2D segments remaining. you might use that with 1/2 deck estimation (you round what you see as remaining to be dealt down to the nearest half deck), which means you estimate the number of 2D segments remaining down to the nearest half deck.
let's use your example - a 2D game. at the begining before any cards are dealt, your TC denominator would be 1, since there is one 2D segment left. after 1 deck has been dealt, your denominator is now 1/2 since there is only 1/2 of a 2D segment remaining (ie 1/2*2 = 1Deck remaining). this is resolution.
comparison between 1D and 2D resoltion -
in a 2 deck game, before any cards are dealt: using 1D resolution, your denominator would be 2 (since there are 2 1D segments remaining). using 2D resolution, your denominator would be 1 since there is 1 2D segment remaining.
now lets explore estimation - now lets say almost 1.5 decks have been dealt. instead of rounding this down in your estimation to only 1Deck remaining and using 1/2 as your denominator in your TC calculation, you do the following: you round to the nearest half deck and say, ok, 1.5 decks have been dealt, meaning 3/4 of a 2D segment have been dealt and only 1/4 of a 2D segment remains (1/4*2D = 0.5D remaining). so now i would use 1/4 as my denominator in my TC calculation.
so to compare estimations: if 1.4 decks have been dealt and you were using 1D estimation, your denominator would be 1/2 but if you were using half deck estimation you would use 1/4 as your denominator.
make any sense?
resoltion is what defines what you divide your running count by - if you are using 2D TC resolution, that means you divide by the number of 2D segments remaining. you might use that with 1/2 deck estimation (you round what you see as remaining to be dealt down to the nearest half deck), which means you estimate the number of 2D segments remaining down to the nearest half deck.
let's use your example - a 2D game. at the begining before any cards are dealt, your TC denominator would be 1, since there is one 2D segment left. after 1 deck has been dealt, your denominator is now 1/2 since there is only 1/2 of a 2D segment remaining (ie 1/2*2 = 1Deck remaining). this is resolution.
comparison between 1D and 2D resoltion -
in a 2 deck game, before any cards are dealt: using 1D resolution, your denominator would be 2 (since there are 2 1D segments remaining). using 2D resolution, your denominator would be 1 since there is 1 2D segment remaining.
now lets explore estimation - now lets say almost 1.5 decks have been dealt. instead of rounding this down in your estimation to only 1Deck remaining and using 1/2 as your denominator in your TC calculation, you do the following: you round to the nearest half deck and say, ok, 1.5 decks have been dealt, meaning 3/4 of a 2D segment have been dealt and only 1/4 of a 2D segment remains (1/4*2D = 0.5D remaining). so now i would use 1/4 as my denominator in my TC calculation.
so to compare estimations: if 1.4 decks have been dealt and you were using 1D estimation, your denominator would be 1/2 but if you were using half deck estimation you would use 1/4 as your denominator.
make any sense?
I... think I've got it.
One thing I've noticed about what you said that would make it easier for some to understand is that, in a 2D game, Your deck estimation number is half of how many decks are remaining using 2D TC resolution. That makes sense to me... Let's see if me thinking out loud is correct:
Using 2D TC resolution in a 2D game. At the start I would divide my RC by 1 because, like you said, there is ONE 2D segment. That makes sense. As the game progresses and more cards come out, your resolution changes to 1/2 when 1D has been dealt out because HALF of TWO decks has been played.
I'm pretty sure that should be right....
If so, I have one other question on this: If the dealer is showing an ace when 1/2D has come out and the RC is 2... would you stick with the resolution (denominator 1) or would you go ahead as use the deck estimation thinking : "ok, 1/4 of a single deck has come out. This means that 3/4 of a 2D segment still remains (3/4*2D= 1.5D remains of the 2D) so my TC is 2.66667 which would round to 3 so I should take insurance." If you used the deck resolution and divided by 1 instead of 3/4, you wouldn't take the insurance.... When is it advisable to switch to deck estimation TC conversions instead of deck resolution?
Hope I'm making sense and getting a few things right here, thanks alot for everyone's help and patience with me thus far.
One thing I've noticed about what you said that would make it easier for some to understand is that, in a 2D game, Your deck estimation number is half of how many decks are remaining using 2D TC resolution. That makes sense to me... Let's see if me thinking out loud is correct:
Using 2D TC resolution in a 2D game. At the start I would divide my RC by 1 because, like you said, there is ONE 2D segment. That makes sense. As the game progresses and more cards come out, your resolution changes to 1/2 when 1D has been dealt out because HALF of TWO decks has been played.
I'm pretty sure that should be right....
If so, I have one other question on this: If the dealer is showing an ace when 1/2D has come out and the RC is 2... would you stick with the resolution (denominator 1) or would you go ahead as use the deck estimation thinking : "ok, 1/4 of a single deck has come out. This means that 3/4 of a 2D segment still remains (3/4*2D= 1.5D remains of the 2D) so my TC is 2.66667 which would round to 3 so I should take insurance." If you used the deck resolution and divided by 1 instead of 3/4, you wouldn't take the insurance.... When is it advisable to switch to deck estimation TC conversions instead of deck resolution?
Hope I'm making sense and getting a few things right here, thanks alot for everyone's help and patience with me thus far.
Either with Qfit's software or some sort of approximation formula. If you're interested, there's more info here (Archive copy). If you're not interested (heck, even I'm not interested! :laugh
then just use full deck resolution and the published indices.
-Sonny-
then just use full deck resolution and the published indices.-Sonny-
as sonny said, you need to regenerate all your basic strategy variations (including insurance) based on what resolution you choose.
i think you are still confused between resolution and estimation though. they are mutually exclusive cooncepts, in that you dont choose one or the other like your post seems to suggest, you choose one of each. you choose a resolution AND an estimation level. estimation is really just you looking at a stack of say exactly 70 cards and saying that this stack either contains 1 deck or 1.5 decks. if you say the stack contains 1d, you are rounding/estimating to the nearest deck. if you say 1.5 decks, you are estimating/rounding to the nearest half deck. it is seperate from your choice of resolution.
one thing to note - your resolution stays CONSTANT through the play of a deck/shoe - it does not change as you suggested. your estimation (ie how closely you approximate the size of a stack) can change as you get deeper into a shoe.
good though is that you seem to have the resolution concept down...
maybe if im not explaining this clearly someone else with better wording/teaching skills can come in and help me out
i think you are still confused between resolution and estimation though. they are mutually exclusive cooncepts, in that you dont choose one or the other like your post seems to suggest, you choose one of each. you choose a resolution AND an estimation level. estimation is really just you looking at a stack of say exactly 70 cards and saying that this stack either contains 1 deck or 1.5 decks. if you say the stack contains 1d, you are rounding/estimating to the nearest deck. if you say 1.5 decks, you are estimating/rounding to the nearest half deck. it is seperate from your choice of resolution.
one thing to note - your resolution stays CONSTANT through the play of a deck/shoe - it does not change as you suggested. your estimation (ie how closely you approximate the size of a stack) can change as you get deeper into a shoe.
good though is that you seem to have the resolution concept down...
maybe if im not explaining this clearly someone else with better wording/teaching skills can come in and help me out
Last edited:
rukus said:
as sonny said, you need to regenerate all your basic strategy variations (including insurance) based on what resolution you choose.
i think you are still confused between resolution and estimation though. they are mutually exclusive cooncepts, in that you dont choose one or the other like your post seems to suggest, you choose one of each. you choose a resolution AND an estimation level. estimation is really just you looking at a stack of say exactly 70 cards and saying that this stack either contains 1 deck or 1.5 decks. if you say the stack contains 1d, you are rounding/estimating to the nearest deck. if you say 1.5 decks, you are estimating/rounding to the nearest half deck. it is seperate from your choice of resolution.
one thing to note - your resolution stays CONSTANT through the play of a deck/shoe - it does not change as you suggested. your estimation (ie how closely you approximate the size of a stack) can change as you get deeper into a shoe.
good though is that you seem to have the resolution concept down...
maybe if im not explaining this clearly someone else with better wording/teaching skills can come in and help me out
i think you are still confused between resolution and estimation though. they are mutually exclusive cooncepts, in that you dont choose one or the other like your post seems to suggest, you choose one of each. you choose a resolution AND an estimation level. estimation is really just you looking at a stack of say exactly 70 cards and saying that this stack either contains 1 deck or 1.5 decks. if you say the stack contains 1d, you are rounding/estimating to the nearest deck. if you say 1.5 decks, you are estimating/rounding to the nearest half deck. it is seperate from your choice of resolution.
one thing to note - your resolution stays CONSTANT through the play of a deck/shoe - it does not change as you suggested. your estimation (ie how closely you approximate the size of a stack) can change as you get deeper into a shoe.
good though is that you seem to have the resolution concept down...
maybe if im not explaining this clearly someone else with better wording/teaching skills can come in and help me out
1D TC w/RC = +4:
4D remain/4 = +1
2D remain/2 = +2
1D remain/1 = +4
1/2D remain*2 = +8
1/4D remain*4 = +16
Ok I see what you mean now. If using 2D resolution it stays the same because you started off with two decks. Switching from 2D TC to 1D TC would take away the accuaracy of your count and also screw up whatever BS indexes you were using.... Don't know why I didn't see that before...
As for the estimation, that is starting to make sense. I was just having a hard time understanding that resolution and estimation were exclusive and how you use each in a game.
Thanks again guys for the help.... I thought I was a pretty decent counter but man, the more I learn the more I realize how much more I need to learn... crazy.
As for the estimation, that is starting to make sense. I was just having a hard time understanding that resolution and estimation were exclusive and how you use each in a game.
Thanks again guys for the help.... I thought I was a pretty decent counter but man, the more I learn the more I realize how much more I need to learn... crazy.
*light bulb*
Ok wow... I was re-reading the posts on here and I think I was struck with a moment of clarity on what estimation is.
I now know that resolution STAYS the same and the way I look at it, estimation is another way of saying how to further refine the accuaracy of your resolution conversion. It makes sense after re-reading Rukus's post from earlier.
Ok wow... I was re-reading the posts on here and I think I was struck with a moment of clarity on what estimation is.
I now know that resolution STAYS the same and the way I look at it, estimation is another way of saying how to further refine the accuaracy of your resolution conversion. It makes sense after re-reading Rukus's post from earlier.