1D TC vs. 1/2D & 1/4D TCs

[zengrifter]

QFIT, or anyone else -

Please explain the disadvanage of using less than a 1D TC.

Thanks! zg

 

[Sonny]

Here's a link to Schlesinger's "granularity" post:

"The inability to have a sufficient number of TCs (which John Auston calls "signposts") at which you change your bet sizes (hang your bets on!) can lead to inefficiencies in your betting process, which, in turn, lowers SCORE."

http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=21413 (Archive copy)

-Sonny-

 

[zengrifter]

For MDLBJ -

So we might assume, conversely, that using a larger than 1D TC, (Renzey 2D TC, etc.) is Okay. Using 1/4D TC is a serious los of betting effeciencey. zg

 

[supercoolmancool]

If you estimate by quarter deck, does that lower your variance?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

If you estimate by quarter deck, does that lower your variance?

Yes, especially as you get down to the end of a deeply dealt shoe. Let's say you are playing 8D, the differences between 6 and 6.25 decks won't matter but between 1 and 1.25 decks it will matter somewhat. Suppose your RC is +5, that equates to the difference between a TC of 4 and of 5. Now think what you would do differently at a TC of 4 and that of 5, and that quantifies the diffference.

 

[Bojack1]

Here's a link to Schlesinger's "granularity" post:

"The inability to have a sufficient number of TCs (which John Auston calls "signposts") at which you change your bet sizes (hang your bets on!) can lead to inefficiencies in your betting process, which, in turn, lowers SCORE."

http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=21413 (Archive copy)

-Sonny-

The examples given by Don are not what most are talking about when they say they do 1/4 deck TC calculations. As a matter of fact I don't know anybody who does it that way. If mdlbj is doing his conversions like I think he is, than he is doing it in 1/4 increments, meaning the RC is divided by almost exactly what is in the discard tray. Using Don's example if there is a running count of 4 with 1 deck left, the TC is 4, not one. After that round has been dealt say there are 4 people are at the table, another 1/4 deck gets put into the discard tray and the RC stays at 4. Now you divide 4 by 3/4 of a deck giving you a TC of 5.3. Its up to to you at this point where you want to go with the TC, whether it be up to 5.5, or down to 5 or 5.25. It all depends on how you are playing the game. At any rate thats what is most commonly meant by 1/4 TC playing, or at least in the circle of players I know. And it does not weaken your game by any means.

 

[zengrifter]

If you estimate by quarter deck, does that lower your variance?

"Estimates by 1/4D" -and- "1/4D TC" are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I estimate by 1/4D when its late in the deck... BUT I still use 1D TC. Is there any confusion on this point? zg

 

[positiveEV]

The examples given by Don are not what most are talking about when they say they do 1/4 deck TC calculations. As a matter of fact I don't know anybody who does it that way. If mdlbj is doing his conversions like I think he is, than he is doing it in 1/4 increments, meaning the RC is divided by almost exactly what is in the discard tray. Using Don's example if there is a running count of 4 with 1 deck left, the TC is 4, not one. After that round has been dealt say there are 4 people are at the table, another 1/4 deck gets put into the discard tray and the RC stays at 4. Now you divide 4 by 3/4 of a deck giving you a TC of 5.3. Its up to to you at this point where you want to go with the TC, whether it be up to 5.5, or down to 5 or 5.25. It all depends on how you are playing the game. At any rate thats what is most commonly meant by 1/4 TC playing, or at least in the circle of players I know. And it does not weaken your game by any means.

It's useless, your TC is for the whole remaining deck, this also includes the cards others will receive, therefore you should not put it into the discard tray.

 

[mdlbj]

The examples given by Don are not what most are talking about when they say they do 1/4 deck TC calculations. As a matter of fact I don't know anybody who does it that way. If mdlbj is doing his conversions like I think he is, than he is doing it in 1/4 increments, meaning the RC is divided by almost exactly what is in the discard tray. Using Don's example if there is a running count of 4 with 1 deck left, the TC is 4, not one. After that round has been dealt say there are 4 people are at the table, another 1/4 deck gets put into the discard tray and the RC stays at 4. Now you divide 4 by 3/4 of a deck giving you a TC of 5.3. Its up to to you at this point where you want to go with the TC, whether it be up to 5.5, or down to 5 or 5.25. It all depends on how you are playing the game. At any rate thats what is most commonly meant by 1/4 TC playing, or at least in the circle of players I know. And it does not weaken your game by any means.

That is exactly how I am doing it Bojack.

 

[Bojack1]

It's useless, your TC is for the whole remaining deck, this also includes the cards others will receive, therefore you should put it into the discard tray.

Yes I agree, the TC is for the remaining decks. Meaning taking every card that is in the discard tray in consideration to figure out decks remaining for your TC calculation. What is useless about that?

 

[zengrifter]

...Now you divide 4 by 3/4 of a deck giving you a TC of 5.3. Its up to to you at this point where you want to go with the TC, whether it be up to 5.5, or down to 5 or 5.25. It all depends on how you are playing the game. At any rate thats what is most commonly meant by 1/4 TC playing, or at least in the circle of players I know.

BUT you are refering to 1D TC estimated to the nearest 1/4D. This is NOT properly referred to as 1/4D TC! MDLBJ was incorrectly calling it "1/4D TC". Cape'ce? zg

 

[mdlbj]

BUT you are refering to 1D TC estimated to the nearest 1/4D. This is NOT properly referred to as 1/4D TC! MDLBJ was incorrectly calling it "1/4D TC". Cape'ce? zg

My bad.

 

[Bojack1]

BUT you are refering to 1D TC estimated to the nearest 1/4D. This is NOT properly referred to as 1/4D TC! MDLBJ was incorrectly calling it "1/4D TC". Cape'ce? zg

You are correct, but I knew what mdlbj meant and I was just making that clear. I stand corrected on the terminology.

 

[positiveEV]

Yes I agree, the TC is for the remaining decks. Meaning taking every card that is in the discard tray in consideration to figure out decks remaining for your TC calculation. What is useless about that?

I thought you meant taking what's in the discard tray and then adding the cards others will receive. Example: if there is 1 deck in the discard tray and 6 other players + the dealer will receive 2 cards, you would count like there was 1.25 decks in the discard tray. This is what I find useless, maybe I didn't understood or explained well =/

 

[zengrifter]

You are correct, but I knew what mdlbj meant and I was just making that clear. I stand corrected on the terminology.

If it wasn't for Snyder's BIBJ "true-edge" ZEN there would not be this confusion.
While I advocate ZEN and BIBJ, anyone learning ZEN is best advised to recalibrate ZEN'98 to 1D TC indices. zg

 

[ScottH]

"Estimates by 1/4D" -and- "1/4D TC" are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I estimate by 1/4D when its late in the deck... BUT I still use 1D TC. Is there any confusion on this point? zg

I'll try explain it for him. Estimating 1/4D accuracy is just as it sounds, estimating the decks remaining to the nearest 1/4D. 1/4D TC is determining the count per remaining quarter deck. So you can still estimate to the nearest 1/4D and convert the count to count per remaining deck, which is 1D TC. So you can still use 1D TC and estimate the decks remaining to the nearest quarter deck.

 

[zengrifter]

I'll try explain it for him. Estimating 1/4D accuracy is just as it sounds, estimating the decks remaining to the nearest 1/4D. 1/4D TC is determining the count per remaining quarter deck. So you can still estimate to the nearest 1/4D and convert the count to count per remaining deck, which is 1D TC. So you can still use 1D TC and estimate the decks remaining to the nearest quarter deck.

So how about if I convert RC by 1/4D Tc while estimating to the nearest 1D?
Will that work, as well, kid? zg

 

[QFIT]

Common confusion.

There is the concept of estimating the remaining number of decks by exact, quarter, half, or full decks. Clearly the tighter the estimate (smaller number,) the better - assuming that the indexes have also been created using the same estimations.

There is the concept of creating a divisor for TC calculation. Is this the number of remaining quarter, half or full decks? Here, full decks are better if like nearly everyone you calculate indexes and bets based on integer numbers. This is because the resultant numbers have a wider range allowing more precise betting and playing.

Below is a chart of the frequency of TCs for full deck (the red line) and quarter deck (the green line) based divisors. It may provide the clue:

 

[ScottH]

So how about if I convert RC by 1/4D while estimating to the nearest 1D?
Will that work, as well, kid? zg

I am pretty sure, yeah. I don't think you have to estimate to the nearest quarter deck to do 1/4D TC. I am not an expert on TC systems since I havn't used one yet, but I am pretty confident that this is correct information. But anyone reading this, don't assume it is right, it's just my thoughts.

I don't know why I even answered that, since I'm sure you already know the answer...

 

[zengrifter]

Common confusion.

There is the concept of estimating the remaining number of decks by exact, quarter, half, or full decks. Clearly the tighter the estimate (smaller number,) the better - assuming that the indexes have also been created using the same estimations.

There is the concept of creating a divisor for TC calculation. Is this the number of remaining quarter, half or full decks? Here, full decks are better if like nearly everyone you calculate indexes and bets based on integer numbers. This is because the resultant numbers have a wider range allowing more precise betting and playing.

Below is a chart of the frequency of TCs for full deck (the red line) and quarter deck (the green line) based divisors. It may provide the clue:

That makes 1/4D TE-ZEN look like a serious f**king MISTAKE. If Arnold was here, what might he say in defense of his newer ZEN? zg