Calculating the TC

[k4ir0s]

Say the number of decks left is something like 3 1/3 , with everything you have on your mind at the table, i imagine it could be difficult for some to do the calculations.

Is there any other ways of calculating the true count?

 

[Kasi]

Say the number of decks left is something like 3 1/3 , with everything you have on your mind at the table, i imagine it could be difficult for some to do the calculations.

Is there any other ways of calculating the true count?

Just round to the nearest whole deck - so call it 3!

When in doubt, bet the lesser spread and don't make a strategy departure if it's borderline.

 

[schismist]

Just round to the nearest whole deck - so call it 3!

When in doubt, bet the lesser spread and don't make a strategy departure if it's borderline.

If the strategy departure involves more money like a double, split or insurance then you might play it conservatively, but hit/stand decisions don't matter near the index.

 

[jack.jackson]

Say the number of decks left is something like 3 1/3 , with everything you have on your mind at the table, i imagine it could be difficult for some to do the calculations.

Is there any other ways of calculating the true count?

Some people actully divide by 1/2s for multple decks, including myself. Wether or not this is sufficient or not, i cant say.
Anyway instead of dividing by lets say 3 1/2. I divide by 7 then x2. I actually find this to be an alternative to 1/2s.

 

[Bojack1]

Say the number of decks left is something like 3 1/3 , with everything you have on your mind at the table, i imagine it could be difficult for some to do the calculations.

Is there any other ways of calculating the true count?

In your example all you would have to do is multiply the RC by .3 and you would easily have your TC. Say you had a RC of 16, multiply that by .3 and you get 4.8, thats your TC. There are mathematical shortcuts for just about every deck increment that can give you either exact or close to exact TC. If you take enough time to train yourself to be able to estimate decks to the 1/3 or even more to the 1/4, than figuring math shortcuts to figure the TC is really easy. Many argue that there is no need to be so precise, and its a valid argument, but I feel if you can do it than do it. I find it easier to figure to the 1/4 if only for the fact I know all my decisions are right on with indices and my betting can never be very off. Its a phsycological boost when things are not going your way, but you do not question your abilities because of it. You will also find being accurate with deck estimation will also come in very handy if you choose to apply it to some advanced techniques later on.

 

[jack.jackson]

I actually used a similiar trick with A02. However i never became proficient at it. I used a secondary fraction count by making the fractions divisble by three. Then multiplying them by ten. Then taking 1/3 the sum of that and adding it to your primary count. For reasons i cant explain the results are same.

   Primary       Secondary         BC:  .998+
      0             -2.4(-8)
      1              .6  (2)
      1              .6  (2)
      2              .3  (1)
      2              .9  (3)
      2
      1
      0
     -1
     -2

 

[Stoney]

I use a 1/2 decks as a unit for converting the running to true, so in an 8 deck game the divisor is 16 at the beginning of the shoe, and with the right dealer on a rare occasion 2 or less at the end. There was on time I was dividing by .5!! My running count was 7, my true was 14 and I was using a one level count!!! ALL IN

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Some people actully divide by 1/2s for multple decks, including myself. Wether or not this is sufficient or not, i cant say.
Anyway instead of dividing by lets say 3 1/2. I divide by 7 then x2. I actually find this to be an alternative to 1/2s.

i never understood that.. i know im an idiot and im missing something here, but hear me out.. if the running count is +16, and there are 4 decks left, thats a +4 true count, but if you divide by half decks, the true count is now +8.. there is a HUGE difference between a 4 and 8 true count, so how does that work?

 

[Kasi]

ibut if you divide by half decks, the true count is now +8.. there is a HUGE difference between a 4 and 8 true count, so how does that work?

I'd tell u, but I'm on ur ignore list.

OK - I'm actually gonna restrain myself here and not say anything more.

Despite having so much more to say.

 

[jack.jackson]

i never understood that.. i know im an idiot and im missing something here, but hear me out.. if the running count is +16, and there are 4 decks left, thats a +4 true count, but if you divide by half decks, the true count is now +8.. there is a HUGE difference between a 4 and 8 true count, so how does that work?

First of all, nobodys an idiot because they dont understand something! Although, modesty is a pure and genuine thing. Its what makes us who we are. Without it you have nothing. I respect your knowledge of the game. But you have to earn respect to get respect. Its okay to correct people, but try to do so in a friendly banter. Were all here to improve our game, share our knowledge, and most importantly,to make some money Sometimes, somethings, are left better unsaid. Even when you know your right! Nobody ever notices when you do something right, but, i assure you they will always notice when you do something wrong. If you ever played in a band youll understand just how important it is to communicate with other members. Its usually not what you say but how you say it. ROK-n-ROL man.:cool2:

Okay about the TC. First, its just a matter of opinion of how accurate you want your TC to be. Personally, i like to divide by half deck, opposed to full deck. Lets take your example above for instance. +16 divided by 4 =+4. Okay what im doin is takin +16 divided by 8 =+2 then multiplying this by 2. 2X2=+4
Or lets say theres 2 1/2 decks left and we have a RC of -25. Instead, of having to divide -25 by 2 1/2 i find it easier to divide by 5 then multiply by 2. ( -25 divided by 5 = -5X2= -10) Sure, this may be a little more confusing "at first" but "in practice" youll find it easily calcuble.
This is how i look at the discard tray. The second column of #'s is Average ace distribution.

1:22
2:20>5D
3:18
4:16>4D
5:14
6:12>3D
7:10
8:8>2D
9:6
10:4>1D
11:2
12:0

 

[Bojack1]

Just a note to add to your fine explanation JJ, for 2.5 decks remaining I find it easier to just multiply the RC by .4 Thats just an easy one step process that gets the TC exact for you every time.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

First of all, nobodys an idiot because they dont understand something! Although, modesty is a pure and genuine thing. Its what makes us who we are. Without it you have nothing. I respect your knowledge of the game. But you have to earn respect to get respect. Its okay to correct people, but try to do so in a friendly banter. Were all here to improve our game, share our knowledge, and most importantly,to make some money Sometimes, somethings, are left better unsaid. Even when you know your right! Nobody ever notices when you do something right, but, i assure you they will always notice when you do something wrong. If you ever played in a band youll understand just how important it is to communicate with other members. Its usually not what you say but how you say it. ROK-n-ROL man.:cool2:

see kasi? thats how you talk to som1.. i agree with this guy, and i said in other posts im gonna try not to insult ppl.. im so used to getting in fights at the casino with others, and its not what you think.. i will be sitting there minding my own business and out of nowhere all these low life scums from gary indiana (its used to be a $3 table) will start yelling at me telling me im an idiot because i hit my soft 18 against a 9+.. and im the type of person that cant just sit there and say "its my money" i have to prove to them they are wrong and im not doing anything wrong (usually they are wrong in more than 1 way).. so when it comes to gambling i have formed this bad habit of jumping on ppl when they say something incorrect because they jumped on me when i did something correct all the time.. i tell you what tho, after they switched the tables to $10, all the rif raff (ploppys and angry idiots) went away, and im not racist at all, but i must say this.. 90% of the table was black when it was $3 (ppl were fighting with each other all the time, some ppl had to be restrained), and now its 10% and no fights at all.. has nothing to do with black/white, not really, it has to do with most of the poor ppl in gary are black, and its poor ppl who are usually the angry ploppys who will blame any1 but themselves for their poor play and gambling problem

 

[Kasi]

if the running count is +16, and there are 4 decks left, thats a +4 true count, but if you divide by half decks, the true count is now +8.. there is a HUGE difference between a 4 and 8 true count, so how does that work?

Using half-decks as a way to estimate your divisor just means you are guessing to the nearest half-deck, not the total number of half-decks remaining.

In other words, say there are exactly 4 decks left as in your example but you are estimating to nearest half-deck.

If u estimated 3.5 decks remaining, TC would be 16/3.5=4.5 or so.
If u estimated 4.5 decks remaining, the TC would be 16/4.5=3.5 or so.

So, by being inaccurate by a half-deck in your estimate of remaining decks, only creates a range from 3.5 to 4.5 in this case. Not the 4-8 range you are saying.

But, in either case, very close to the TC +4 the deck actually was.

Which, in a nutshell, is why estimating to the nearest half-deck as oppose to whole deck, often doesn't lead to any change what you would be doing anyway.

Hope that helps a little.

 

[Bojack1]

Using half-decks as a way to estimate your divisor just means you are guessing to the nearest half-deck, not the total number of half-decks remaining.

In other words, say there are exactly 4 decks left as in your example but you are estimating to nearest half-deck.

If u estimated 3.5 decks remaining, TC would be 16/3.5=4.5 or so.
If u estimated 4.5 decks remaining, the TC would be 16/4.5=3.5 or so.

So, by being inaccurate by a half-deck in your estimate of remaining decks, only creates a range from 3.5 to 4.5 in this case. Not the 4-8 range you are saying.

But, in either case, very close to the TC +4 the deck actually was.

Which, in a nutshell, is why estimating to the nearest half-deck as oppose to whole deck, often doesn't lead to any change what you would be doing anyway.

Hope that helps a little.

Actually when I speak of estimating to the 1/2 deck or 1/4 deck its estimating in increments of that fraction. So that if there are 4 decks left you divide by 4, if there are 3 1/2 decks left you divide by 3.5. Same as in the case of 1/4 decks. Whatever is left in the shoe is what the RC gets divided by. As I said before we choose to estimate to the 1/4 deck, thats our preference and thats what we train for. Many would argue that that type of precision is not needed, and technically they're right. We just find we play a much stronger game in this manner. It is extremely hard to be far off if you are calibrated to the 1/4. The more precise the calibration range you use the more precise your play. And the math that goes along with the calculations is extremely easy once you figure out some shortcuts like those that I have pointed out earlier in this thread. Put it this way, playing in this manner, I know pretty much exactly what the TC is every time I make a bet or make an indice play, I find that gives me confidence even when the cards are not falling my way. There does not ever come a time when I question what a playing decision should be, because there is no real rounding or truncating. As far as the system I'm using goes, I'm playing it to its full potential. As technically sound as it might be, the overall mental aspect of confidence under fire is what really drives me to play this way.

 

[RJT]

I said this in the other thread on card thickness, but learning to estimate to the nearest 1/4 of a deck really isn't that difficult as long as you practice. For most people the most difficult part would be the calculations that come with dividing your running count by a 1/4 increment, but as Bojack pointed out above, just about every increment can be simplified by mulitiplying by a decimal rather than dividing. It's far easier to mulitply by 0.3 than it is to divide by 3 1/4. In fact you can extend this further if you find you struggle with multiplying by a decimal. Multiply your RC by 3 and divide the result by ten.

Example:

RC = 23

Normal Method -

23/(3 1/4) = 23/(13/4) = 23*4/13 = 92/13 = 7.07

Decimal Shortcut -

23*0.3 = 6.9

Non-Decimal Shortcut -

23*3 = 69

69/10 = 6.9

You can see how close the shortcut gets and it's far easier to apply rather than trying to divide by a fraction.

RJT.

 

[jack.jackson]

I actually used a similiar trick with A02. However i never became proficient at it. I used a secondary fraction count by making the fractions divisble by three. Then multiplying them by ten. Then taking 1/3 the sum of that and adding it to your primary count. For reasons i cant explain the results are same.

Option 2 has a similiar method to option 1 with a slighty higher BC. The difference here is, instead of the fractions being divisble by 3, their now divisible by 4. Somewhat in contrast of how we caculate our TC.
In option 2, ( 1. multiply the fraction X10) (2. Take 1/4 the value of that.) For this gives us the count we will be using.
Now, when calculating for betting purposes. (1. multiply the running total X4) (2. Take 1/10 the sum of that and add it to your primary count for betting purposes.
Feel free to correct me if im missing something here.

                   OPT.1                    OPT.2
   Primary       Secondary            Secondary 
      0             -2.4(-8)           -2.4(-6)
      1              .6  (2)             .4(1)
      1              .6  (2)             .8(2)
      2              .3  (1)             .4(1)
      2              .9  (3)             .8(2)
      2
      1
      0
     -1
     -2

jj

 

[jack.jackson]

Before we leave this thread behind theres a couple of questions that ponders me.

1. Does anyone besides myself use betting indices for betting purposes. One set of indices for good rules,another, for bad ones?

2. Is it or is it not true that the higher or lower your TC is the less accurate it becomes?

Im paticulary refering to multiple deck games.

For example, if you used a ruler or tape-measure thats 1/16 of inch off(short) for every inch that you measured. Wouldnt it be true, that your gonna be an inch short for every "assumed" 16 inches you measure?

My question is, doesnt the same thing happen when the higher or lower our TC becomes? Perhaps, even more extreme than the above example?

 

[eps6724]

My question is, doesnt the same thing happen when the higher or lower our TC becomes? Perhaps, even more extreme than the above example?

According to Fred Rezney, this is a problem when using unbalanced running counts only. There is a count point when-at anywhere in the shoe-the true is +2. He explains (pg. 143-144 in Blackjack Bluebook II) that the farther away from that point either way, it DOES fluxuate depending on where in the shoe you are, hence the use of calculating true edge, so that you AREN'T off that 1/16 of an inch or so.

 

[RJT]

2. Is it or is it not true that the higher or lower your TC is the less accurate it becomes?

Yes it is true, it's called floating advantage and was written about in deapth in DS's 'Blackjack Attack'. It is however fairly useless. At best, even playing high stakes it will draw an extra few tenths of a cent an hour. The problem is that the TC needs to be so high before it becomes wobbly, and hence these TC counts occur so infrequently that it really makes little difference to your game if you are a little bit out on your assessment of your advantage.

RJT.

 

[Sonny]

1. Does anyone besides myself use betting indices for betting purposes. One set of indices for good rules,another, for bad ones?

Betting indices? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Your bet spread is based on the game you are playing. If you play another game then you adjust your bets to match the new game. I’ve never heard of indices that will adjust your bets for you. Would you have to learn indices for each individual rule? Probably you would need to know indices for each rule combination since the advantage of certain rules is dependent upon other rules as well. And would each index change based on the penetration of the game? It sounds like there could be literally thousands of indices for that.

2. Is it or is it not true that the higher or lower your TC is the less accurate it becomes?

That depends on what you mean by "accurate." What are you using the count to measure?

You don't have to worry about accuracy if your bets are based on the advantage at each TC and not the TC itself. The TCs increase linearly but your advantage doesn’t. That is why it is not correct to assume that a TC of +8 is twice as good as a TC of +4, or that the advantage at a TC of +3 is halfway between the advantage at +2 and +4. The two will slowly drift apart, but that’s why you use your advantage to calculate your bets and not the TC. The TC is just an indicator.

-Sonny-