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

[person1125]

I think I understand and want to see if I'm right or completely wrong.

So lets say you have a running count of +20 with 4 decks left. This gives you a TC of +5. Now you convert that to 1/4D TC and you get a value of 0.3125 (your TC/ # of 1/4 decks left) for your 1/4D TC. Now lets say your running count drops to +5 with 1 deck left this again gives you a TC of +5. But now your 1/4D TC is 1.25. From this I would conclude that a TC of +5 with 1 deck left is more to your advantange than it is with 4 decks left, which makes since.

So my next thought is this: if i'm using this information for betting purposes how do i use it? If I make a 1 unit bet for each + TC (not really, just an example) then I would be betting 5 units for each TC above, even if there are 4 decks left or only 1 deck left. But I really should be betting more when there is only 1 deck left, so I am not taking full advantange. So at what value of 1/4D TC do I increase my bet even more?

< 0.5 - same bet
0.5 - 1.0 - increase by 1 unit
>1 increase by 2 units
etc

does anyone have hard numbers as to what value the 1/4D TC should be in order to increase your bet?

 

[QFIT]

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

What he would say is that if you use True Edge as it is defined in BiB, that it doesn't matter as far as betting goes and the decrease in index accuracy is unimportant. And he would have good points. The problem is that few people use TE as defined in the book. At least that's what I gather from dozens of people I've chatted with. Instead they come up with an integer based betting ramp in advance and bet accordingly during play because this is much easier.

 

[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:

I'd like to see a similar chart for HiLo - 1/2D and 1D - because I'm guilty of endorsing HiLoLite and UAPM. zg

 

[Xenophon]

I'd like to see a similar chart for HiLo - 1/2D and 1D - because I'm guilty of endorsing HiLoLite and UAPM. zg

The Hi lo lite chart would be similarly scrunched. The TC range is reduced with Hi-Lo lite when dividing by half decks to convert to the TC, instead of whole decks. But remember Arnold mentions you can just double the indices and use full deck TC conversion while still taking advantage of the lite rounding approach.

I think Arnold had more in mind than just simplifying the true count conversion by creating simple fractions to go by. (2x or 4x the remaining decks for TE Hi-Lo lite and Zen) In todays game, in most stores, if you want to approach a meaningful edge, you must use advanced techniques. I think these two counts weren't just simplified, they were specifically engineered to be used with an advanced technique that you may not pick up on unless you've read the cookbook.

 

[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:

I'd like to see a similar chart that includes the Mentor-style 2D TC. zg