was fooin around with excel
- Thread starter sagefr0g
- Start date
i tryed to guesstimate, lol, not really sure how or what the reasoning was behind the guesstimate, just sort of tryed to extrapolate against a nonlinear graph :http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration1.htm (probably not supposed to even attempt that lol)
but anyway my guess is for the game Six decks, S17, DAS, LS, Heads-Up, Hi-Lo, truncate, exact cards resolution, 90% Penetration depicted by the graph the following:
at one deck depth range the most frequent & highest positve TC one would see would be circa TC = 1
at two deck depth range the most frequent & highest positve TC one would see would be circa TC = 2
at three deck depth range the most frequent & highest positve TC one would see would be circa TC = 3
at four deck depth range the most frequent & highest positve TC one would see would be circa TC = 4
at five deck depth range the most frequent & highest positve TC one would see would be circa TC = 6
probably way off? oh well, i'm not even sure if i'm saying all that right.
but what i'm getting at is it would be interesting to know what the highest true count one could expect most of the time at any given depth level by deck sort of thing.
i mean i guess i'd expect that for some given depth level, the way the true counts would present would be a bell curve with some upper limit true count for that depth and a most expected true count, where i guess the range of true counts within that depth would be by standard deviations sort of thing?
:whip:
but anyway my guess is for the game Six decks, S17, DAS, LS, Heads-Up, Hi-Lo, truncate, exact cards resolution, 90% Penetration depicted by the graph the following:
at one deck depth range the most frequent & highest positve TC one would see would be circa TC = 1
at two deck depth range the most frequent & highest positve TC one would see would be circa TC = 2
at three deck depth range the most frequent & highest positve TC one would see would be circa TC = 3
at four deck depth range the most frequent & highest positve TC one would see would be circa TC = 4
at five deck depth range the most frequent & highest positve TC one would see would be circa TC = 6
probably way off? oh well, i'm not even sure if i'm saying all that right.
but what i'm getting at is it would be interesting to know what the highest true count one could expect most of the time at any given depth level by deck sort of thing.
i mean i guess i'd expect that for some given depth level, the way the true counts would present would be a bell curve with some upper limit true count for that depth and a most expected true count, where i guess the range of true counts within that depth would be by standard deviations sort of thing?
:whip:this thing with true counts and maybe what to expect sort of thing by depth thing is interesting.
fooling around with that excel shuffler and watching how the true counts present at various depths you can really see how it's a trend, the deeper you go into the pack, the better your chances for seeing a positive count.
like say you are dealing with a six deck pack. your gonna see the more 'dramatic' high positive true counts the deeper you go, mainly four, five or six decks deep for the really 'dramatic' high positive counts. oh, you'll get some nice high true counts at three, even two decks deep but the most frequent 'dramatic' high true counts are found more frequently in the latter stages of the pack.
how it comes about mathematically for the depths at three decks in and beyond i don't really fully understand. just, have thought about it for like the one deck deep part. that's fairly simple, like for six decks and if your just dividing the running count by full decks and flooring, then heck to get a true count of one that means you've got to be at least six cards deep, and to get a true count of two, you've got to be at least twelve cards deep. so heck to get a true count of four in the one deck deep range you've got to have been at least twenty four cards deep. that's half way through the first deck deep region. and fooling with my excel sheet over many, many trials i've yet to see a true count of four in the one deck deep region, even though mathematically one could get a true count as high as eight near the end of the first deck depth. i guess it's got to do with the probability of the combination's that one is likely to find so many low cards clumped in a limited region like that. darned if i understand it.
fooling around with that excel shuffler and watching how the true counts present at various depths you can really see how it's a trend, the deeper you go into the pack, the better your chances for seeing a positive count.
like say you are dealing with a six deck pack. your gonna see the more 'dramatic' high positive true counts the deeper you go, mainly four, five or six decks deep for the really 'dramatic' high positive counts. oh, you'll get some nice high true counts at three, even two decks deep but the most frequent 'dramatic' high true counts are found more frequently in the latter stages of the pack.
how it comes about mathematically for the depths at three decks in and beyond i don't really fully understand. just, have thought about it for like the one deck deep part. that's fairly simple, like for six decks and if your just dividing the running count by full decks and flooring, then heck to get a true count of one that means you've got to be at least six cards deep, and to get a true count of two, you've got to be at least twelve cards deep. so heck to get a true count of four in the one deck deep range you've got to have been at least twenty four cards deep. that's half way through the first deck deep region. and fooling with my excel sheet over many, many trials i've yet to see a true count of four in the one deck deep region, even though mathematically one could get a true count as high as eight near the end of the first deck depth. i guess it's got to do with the probability of the combination's that one is likely to find so many low cards clumped in a limited region like that. darned if i understand it.
Last edited: