system indices
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
phantom007
Well-Known Member
Unless otherwise noted......
Indicies are usually reported based on TC. Now, KO, "otherwise noted" is based on the RC.
phantom007.
Indicies are usually reported based on TC. Now, KO, "otherwise noted" is based on the RC.
phantom007.
TC, by nature, means it doesn't matter if you do it by 1/2 deck or by 1 deck.. you should get the same number.. of course, the finer you are (assuming you are very accurate in estimating the decks left)in your TC calculations, the more effective your TC will be, though I recall that the gain was somewhat minimal. Some authors recommend that you TC by full decks down to the last 2 decks, then half-deck it down after that. I think I've read one author that advocates TC'ing by 1/4 deck at the 2-deck level. It's what you feel comfortable with.
Mayor, after being a card counter for 15 years and living in Vegas,I certainly know what TC means.
I thought my question would be easy to understand. I'm simply asking if the count system divided by "half deck" or "whole deck". In simplier terms ,are these whole deck or half deck index numbers?
I thought my question would be easy to understand. I'm simply asking if the count system divided by "half deck" or "whole deck". In simplier terms ,are these whole deck or half deck index numbers?
I believe you know what you are asking, but how you are asking is not making sense to me, or apparently others.
Again, the numbers are based on
TC = RC/(# of decks).
Use the counting system given to arrive at a RC. Divide by the number of decks remaining. If you may have 3.5 decks remaining, .5 decks remaining, or 5 decks (in a shoe), I don't care, just divide by THAT number. That gives the true count. This is the universal way of computing true count, with a couple of very simple exceptions (e.g. Wong Halves). The numbers I provided are not these exceptions.
If you have further questions, I refer you to private email, as I do not want to clutter this board with misunderstandings.
--Mayor
Again, the numbers are based on
TC = RC/(# of decks).
Use the counting system given to arrive at a RC. Divide by the number of decks remaining. If you may have 3.5 decks remaining, .5 decks remaining, or 5 decks (in a shoe), I don't care, just divide by THAT number. That gives the true count. This is the universal way of computing true count, with a couple of very simple exceptions (e.g. Wong Halves). The numbers I provided are not these exceptions.
If you have further questions, I refer you to private email, as I do not want to clutter this board with misunderstandings.
--Mayor
I guess I misunderstood you. I've never seen a system TC by anything other than whole decks, so I assumed you mean 1/2 decks to be like this...
at 4.5 decks left, you would divide RC by 4.5 decks (on the other hand, if you TC by 1 deck, it would be the RC divided by 5 decks or 4 decks). Try it sometimes, dividing by 5 or 4.5 or 4 would give you almost the same number. The difference was proven by Fuchs and Vancura to be minimal on the EV. However, as you get closer to the end of the shoe, and especially within the last 2 decks, that RC difference increases arithmetically, hence it becomes much more important for you to estimate by 1/2 and 1/4 decks.
at 4.5 decks left, you would divide RC by 4.5 decks (on the other hand, if you TC by 1 deck, it would be the RC divided by 5 decks or 4 decks). Try it sometimes, dividing by 5 or 4.5 or 4 would give you almost the same number. The difference was proven by Fuchs and Vancura to be minimal on the EV. However, as you get closer to the end of the shoe, and especially within the last 2 decks, that RC difference increases arithmetically, hence it becomes much more important for you to estimate by 1/2 and 1/4 decks.
Sonny
Well-Known Member
> Mayor, after being a card counter for 15 years and
> living in Vegas,I certainly know what TC means.
Fifteen years and you haven't learned your indeces yet? Tisk, tisk!
> I'm simply asking if the count system divided by
> "half deck" or "whole deck".
All of the indeces listed here are "whole deck" numbers. I remember that Uston would always divide by half decks, even in shoe games. For some people it makes the division easier, but I prefer whole deck numbers even though I end up dividing by 3.5 or 1.25 occasionally. Sometimes it's just easier to memorize the numbers if you are playing with fewer decks.
-Sonny-
> living in Vegas,I certainly know what TC means.
Fifteen years and you haven't learned your indeces yet? Tisk, tisk!
> I'm simply asking if the count system divided by
> "half deck" or "whole deck".
All of the indeces listed here are "whole deck" numbers. I remember that Uston would always divide by half decks, even in shoe games. For some people it makes the division easier, but I prefer whole deck numbers even though I end up dividing by 3.5 or 1.25 occasionally. Sometimes it's just easier to memorize the numbers if you are playing with fewer decks.
-Sonny-
John Lewis
Member
Halves count
"Some counts divide by half decks, but then they use half the values for the indices as well, e.g. Halves (as appears in Wong's PBJ)."
So THAT'S why they do Halves the way they do! It's designed to make conversion to TC using 1/2 deck increments easy, thus making it easy to improve your TC accuracy by counting 1/2 decks vs 1. It's thus designed specifically for multiple deck play.
Is this correct?
"Some counts divide by half decks, but then they use half the values for the indices as well, e.g. Halves (as appears in Wong's PBJ)."
So THAT'S why they do Halves the way they do! It's designed to make conversion to TC using 1/2 deck increments easy, thus making it easy to improve your TC accuracy by counting 1/2 decks vs 1. It's thus designed specifically for multiple deck play.
Is this correct?