Rounding to TC
- Thread starter squeeks
- Start date
cardcounter0
Well-Known Member
If you are using the count to make playing decisions of when to depart from basic strategy you should always round down. Using the count to determine bet size, it really doesn't matter much.
peaegg
Well-Known Member
I thought counting gives edge the most in the betting, not playing decision. I wish that I could be more accurate in 1/2 or 1/4 deck estimations. that will help me taking the full advantage in DD games. Right now I can only find 6D games at east coast. But I am heading to Vegas for 5 days soon. Any suggestions on how to practice 1/4 deck estimation? I have seen a table about how many cards played in each round in average when different numbers of players/hands are played. Any idea where I can find it please?cardcounter0 said:
EyeHeartHalves
Well-Known Member
sure...
If you want to have better deck est., you simply have to have better deck est. One formula or another will not help you.
So, the suggestion: Take two or six decks of Bee or Aristocrat. Arrange them as they would be, fresh out of the packaging. (i.e.: ace-spade through king-spade; ace-heart through king-heart; ace-club through... etc.) Then, practice cutting one deck up from the bottom for a while. If you start with ace-spade on the bottom (actually the card doesn't matter as you shell see) and you're doba (dead-on-balls-accurate), you will see another ace-spade on top of your cut-card. If you cut 54 by an error of hand coordination, you would see a three-spade above your cut-card. Then you would actually cut off your attempted clump and put it on top of your stack. In this manner, you disperse nicked and blunted corners so they aren't bunched up in the "correct areas." However, this is still not very efficient practice. Just because your finger twitches 2mm as you inhale a breath, doesn't mean that you have bad deck est. So, how do you correct physical error from skewing your results. Well, write down a series of cuts you want to make on scrap paper. (i.e.: 1d, 2.75d, 1.25d, 5.5d(!), etc.) Then, after you make the cut but before you check the result (the card above the cut?), GUESS EXACTLY HOW MUCH YOU REALLY CUT and write down that number (of cards) as your trial result and figure your error-rate if you want to. For example, if you are trying to cut 1.0d but "you think" you actually cut 54c. You check your result to discover you actually cut 55 cards. Well, in terms of "deck estimation", YOU WERE ONLY IN ERROR BY +1, NOT +3.
Now, the above example is the best way I have found for practice deck est. for "all of my possible motives." However, your motive is to learn better deck est. for purposes of (presumedly) for CC'g SD or DD. I have no doubt the above technique could only help you improve said task but it is not the most efficient method imaginable. The efficient way for you (not the volunteer) to improve your accuracy would be for a second person to start shoving small amounts (approximately equal to one to seven hands of a round) of cards into a discard tray. Then, if you were supposed to be marking off 1.0d for example, you would stop her the very moment that you believe that she surpassed 51c in the discard tray.
--Halves
I've heard that you could multiply '2.5' times the mount of boxes being played plus '2.5' but I never used it for any sort of deck or card estimation. I've only ever used it in reverse to figure out how many hands I might have been playing per shoe.peaegg said:
If you want to have better deck est., you simply have to have better deck est. One formula or another will not help you.
So, the suggestion: Take two or six decks of Bee or Aristocrat. Arrange them as they would be, fresh out of the packaging. (i.e.: ace-spade through king-spade; ace-heart through king-heart; ace-club through... etc.) Then, practice cutting one deck up from the bottom for a while. If you start with ace-spade on the bottom (actually the card doesn't matter as you shell see) and you're doba (dead-on-balls-accurate), you will see another ace-spade on top of your cut-card. If you cut 54 by an error of hand coordination, you would see a three-spade above your cut-card. Then you would actually cut off your attempted clump and put it on top of your stack. In this manner, you disperse nicked and blunted corners so they aren't bunched up in the "correct areas." However, this is still not very efficient practice. Just because your finger twitches 2mm as you inhale a breath, doesn't mean that you have bad deck est. So, how do you correct physical error from skewing your results. Well, write down a series of cuts you want to make on scrap paper. (i.e.: 1d, 2.75d, 1.25d, 5.5d(!), etc.) Then, after you make the cut but before you check the result (the card above the cut?), GUESS EXACTLY HOW MUCH YOU REALLY CUT and write down that number (of cards) as your trial result and figure your error-rate if you want to. For example, if you are trying to cut 1.0d but "you think" you actually cut 54c. You check your result to discover you actually cut 55 cards. Well, in terms of "deck estimation", YOU WERE ONLY IN ERROR BY +1, NOT +3.
Now, the above example is the best way I have found for practice deck est. for "all of my possible motives." However, your motive is to learn better deck est. for purposes of (presumedly) for CC'g SD or DD. I have no doubt the above technique could only help you improve said task but it is not the most efficient method imaginable. The efficient way for you (not the volunteer) to improve your accuracy would be for a second person to start shoving small amounts (approximately equal to one to seven hands of a round) of cards into a discard tray. Then, if you were supposed to be marking off 1.0d for example, you would stop her the very moment that you believe that she surpassed 51c in the discard tray.
--Halves
EyeHeartHalves
Well-Known Member
Don't be too impressed. I didn't invent those two methods or even reveal them for the first time but...peaegg said:
you're welcome.