CV Drills

[QFIT]

Every book says if you go to a 1-12 or 1-16 spread it may bring in too much heat. So that means jumping your bets instead of parlaying - result - more heat. You would need 5 wins in a row to get a 16 unit by parlaying and how often do you win 6 in a row? It seems fruitless or too great a ROR.

It is better to have heat than to have a low advantage.

If the RPC indices is good for 4 decks or more with no modification, is it really as efficient or effective as it could be on a 6d or 8d game? I would have to assume something in the numbers change.

Differences between 4d and 8d are minor. You would do better with exact indexes -- but not much better.

I thought by changes the TC conversion it would allow the spread to be lower while providing more opportunities to bring out the higher bet without the heat, because the index numbers would be hit more often then not. Again it may effect the ROR, but so far in the short time that I have changed the TC conversion it has worked out better for me. (probably an sd thing).

Here is one example: A-2 dd v 3 has an index of 5. In a 6d how often do you get to a +5TC with a 1/2d conv? At 3d discard, you have to have a +30rc to even consider it. I have seen more -30rc then even +20's. So I looked at this way, if I try 1d conversion, +15rc comes by a bit more often, but not that often. Why not see how it works out. My bet is not at 12 or 16 units but a more respectable and less oven searing 1-6units, 2 hands when required or possible.

But all you are doing is doubling the TC. The casino doesn't know this. Raising your bets earlier will cause heat whether you raise the bet at a lower TC or at the same TC but double the TC.

Without running a sim for proof of the actual effect, it is all speculative by all sides but makes for a good debate.

Well, such sims have been run many, many times.

All this because I asked a simple question if someone had a copy of the RPC bluebooklet for sale and why the RPC indices were not in CV...

Boy you guys really know how put some one on the defensive. I'll take all you got... come on...put them dukes up!

No need to be on the defensive. Just answering your questions.

 

[bjcount]

No need to be on the defensive. Just answering your questions.

Thanks for answering all my questions and I was just kidding about the defensive part..

If I wanted to get into modifying the indices for 6d games with 1d TC conversion where can I start. I do not recall any books I have read which show formulas or I missed them. Which of the CV programs can create the modifications thru sims, if any?

and ZG is probably wondering why I want to go thru all the effort, just go to Mentor or Zen....

I like the punishment and mental strain!

 

[QFIT]

Thanks for answering all my questions and I was just kidding about the defensive part..

If I wanted to get into modifying the indices for 6d games with 1d TC conversion where can I start. I do not recall any books I have read which show formulas or I missed them. Which of the CV programs can create the modifications thru sims, if any?

and ZG is probably wondering why I want to go thru all the effort, just go to Mentor or Zen....

I like the punishment and mental strain!

CVData does this. But the gain is probably not that much.

 

[BJinNJ]

With Mentor, Renzey replied...

I'm uncomfortable using Mentor trued to 2 decks, then using Mr. Renzey's
multipliers. I asked him on a forum, like this one, if I could use Mentor
trued to 1 deck, as is usual for Hi/Lo and most counts. Mr. Renzey
replied that I could use his indices, IF I cut/use his indices EXACTLY in
half. That's what I'm doing/studying. I don't expect to go beyond the
I18/Fab 4.

Not sure if this helps with this discussion.

BJinNJ

 

[zengrifter]

I'm uncomfortable using Mentor trued to 2 decks, then using Mr. Renzey's
multipliers. I asked him on a forum, like this one, if I could use Mentor
trued to 1 deck, as is usual for Hi/Lo and most counts. Mr. Renzey
replied that I could use his indices, IF I cut/use his indices EXACTLY in
half. That's what I'm doing/studying. I don't expect to go beyond the
I18/Fab 4.

Not sure if this helps with this discussion.

BJinNJ

His advice will work fine...BUT there is a good reason that he choose 2D calibration TC for his most advanced strategy. zg

 

[zengrifter]

If I wanted to get into modifying the indices for 6d games with 1d TC conversion where can I start. I do not recall any books I have read which show formulas or I missed them. Which of the CV programs can create the modifications thru sims, if any? !

Do it by eyebal - rounding for convienience. See ZGI. zg

 

[bjcount]

Do it by eyebal - rounding for convienience. See ZGI. zg

Thank you for your expert advice.

ps, if you hear from Revere thru Madam Ruth, let him telepath those adv. strats for RPC. to me.:joker:

 

[zengrifter]

Unfortunately or maybe fortunately, no. Without the experience to change them or the programs, I wouldn't know where to begin.

Simple: Revere's matrices are based on 1/2D TC. To recalibrate those for 1DTC you'd simply multiply them x2. Revere's #s cannot be used with a 1DTC method. AND, we've detirmined that his 1/2DTC method is inferior. You need a system that is TC-calibrated for 1D or 2D. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Thank you for your expert advice.

ps, if you hear from Revere thru Madam Ruth, let him telepath those adv. strats for RPC. to me.:joker:

You don't need them. Someone here will provide better indices. zg

 

[aslan]

She hasn't answered either.......

I know her girlfriend. Says she went to the beach for the weekend.

 

[bjcount]

Simple: Revere's matrices are based on 1/2D TC. To recalibrate those for 1DTC you'd simply multiply them x2. Revere's #s cannot be used with a 1DTC method. AND, we've detirmined that his 1/2DTC method is inferior. You need a system that is TC-calibrated for 1D or 2D. zg

That seems just too simple.

Now my inquisitive nature comes out: (If you wouldn't mind explaining)

If it is just a simple doubling of the index, then how/why would it make any difference if we stayed with the original 1/2DTC vs 1DTC & 2x Index. On the surface it looks to be the same.

The one major difference I can come up with that there is no need to size up the remaining cards by decks, multiply by 2, and then divide the RC by the result. Less chance of math error and time savings.

Recently I read something about the 1DTC & 2DTC in blackjack attack or blackjack for blood, but I'll have to go back and look it up. They were not in regards to RPC though.

ZG, Thanks again for your time.

 

[zengrifter]

That seems just too simple.

Now my inquisitive nature comes out: (If you wouldn't mind explaining)

If it is just a simple doubling of the index, then how/why would it make any difference if we stayed with the original 1/2DTC vs 1DTC & 2x Index. On the surface it looks to be the same.

The one major difference I can come up with that there is no need to size up the remaining cards by decks, multiply by 2, and then divide the RC by the result. Less chance of math error and time savings.

Recently I read something about the 1DTC & 2DTC in blackjack attack or blackjack for blood, but I'll have to go back and look it up. They were not in regards to RPC though.

ZG, Thanks again for your time.

This is a common confusion for newbies.
Lets start with YOU explaining to me how to calc the TC using Revere matrices.
Based on your confusion above, you may still opt for 2D TC.
Fill in blanks below:

RC = +4

Decks Remaining = TC
4.00 = ____
3.00 = ____
2.50 = ____
2.00 = ____
1.50 = ____
1.00 = ____
0.75 = ____
0.50 = ____
0.25 = ____

 

[bjcount]

This is a common confusion for newbies.
Lets start with YOU explaining to me how to calc the TC using Revere matrices.
Based on your confusion above, you may still opt for 2D TC.
Fill in blanks below:

RC = +4

Decks Remaining = TC (using 1/2d)
4.00 = ___0.5_ = 0 round down
3.00 = ___0.67 = +1
2.50 = ___0.80 = +1
2.00 = ___1.0 = +1
1.50 = ___1.33 = +1
1.00 = ___2.00 = +2
0.75 = ___2.67 = +3
0.50 = ___4.0 = +4
0.25 = ___8.0 = +8

As requested, the answers should work out to:
Decks Remaining = TC (using 1/2d)
4.00 = ___0.5_ = 0 round down
3.00 = ___0.67 = +1
2.50 = ___0.80 = +1
2.00 = ___1.0 = +1
1.50 = ___1.33 = +1
1.00 = ___2.00 = +2
0.75 = ___2.67 = +3
0.50 = ___4.0 = +4
0.25 = ___8.0 = +8

 

[zengrifter]

As requested, the answers should work out to:
Decks Remaining = TC (using 1/2d)
4.00 = ___0.5_ = 0 round down
3.00 = ___0.67 = +1
2.50 = ___0.80 = +1
2.00 = ___1.0 = +1
1.50 = ___1.33 = +1
1.00 = ___2.00 = +2
0.75 = ___2.67 = +3
0.50 = ___4.0 = +4
0.25 = ___8.0 = +8

OK. Now here is what 1D and 2D calibrated TC conversions look like (without your preciseness):

-------------------
RC = +4 (1DTC)

Decks Remaining = TC
4.00 = 1.00
3.00 = 1.50
2.50 = 1.75
2.00 = 2.00
1.50 = 3.00
1.00 = 4.00
0.75 = 6.00
0.50 = 8.00
0.25 = 16.00
-----------------
RC = +4 (2DTC)

Decks Remaining = TC
4.00 = 2.00
3.00 = 3.00
2.50 = 3.50
2.00 = 4.00
1.50 = 6.00
1.00 = 8.00
0.75 = 12.00
0.50 = 16.00
0.25 = 32.00

 

[bjcount]

OK. Now here is what 1D and 2D calibrated TC conversions look like (without your preciseness):

TC conversions are no problem, but now to decide if i want to learn a new set of indexes or go back to 1/2DTC. Is the gain worth that much if i convert to 1DTC and double the indexes?

Since im driving and sitting in traffic, this next question is based on memory of the section (PBJasAB) to do with aces. Since the RPC is ace reckoned, some other strategies do not require sep count (which I have always done since first learning Hi-OPt 1)

Revere says to keep the count so we would know how it is affecting the count, too many A's out, more tens remain in the deck. etc. . Then he says it helps you to decide in close calls. To me it sounds like a great cover play. with some huge doses of brain mashing..trying to decide what to do while you calculate about 3 or 4 different formulas.
1) current TC
2) decks remaining to determine Ace status
3) Ace vs T count

Am I looking at this in too much depth or correctly and what are the "close calls" he refers to?

Thank you again for the time you have been spending with me.

 

[zengrifter]

There is so little gain to be gleaned from side counting Aces for play decision refinement that I don't consider it worth the effort.

Certianly you can gain 50x more added EV if you: *Use 50+ matrices, *Play fairly fast, more hands per hour, and, *Play longer hours per trip or session.

As for sticking to the 1/2DTC, if you are already entirely comfortable with that, its OK to stay with it, I think. But someone should do a sim and compare the 1/DTC RPC against a 1D or 2DTC with their superior betting granularity - so we can see if/what we are losing to the compromized betting effeciency of the 1/2DTC. Its not as bad as a 1/4DTC (like the currently published ZEN TE). zg

 

[bjcount]

Certianly you can gain 50x more added EV if you: *Use 50+ matrices, *Play fairly fast, more hands per hour, and, *Play longer hours per trip or session.

As for sticking to the 1/2DTC, if you are already entirely comfortable with that, its OK to stay with it, I think. But someone should do a sim and compare the 1/DTC RPC against a 1D or 2DTC with their superior betting granularity - so we can see if/what we are losing to the compromized betting effeciency of the 1/2DTC. Its not as bad as a 1/4DTC (like the currently published ZEN TE). zg

Ok. Then here is my plan:
Since I have about 40 of the approx 80 matrices down I have more studying to do.
I will continue to use RPC as written using 1/2DTC conv. until I hear about a sim that compares the 1/2TDC, 1TDC, & 2TDC and produces results which signal that a change is required.
My commute to work is 3-4 hrs per day, so I will continue with my flash cards. Run thru them once in quiet, then turn the radio on and go thru them again.
CV Drill should be in the mail by now, so it goes on my laptop, will then have to figure out how to add RPC matrices and counts to the strategy list.
Improve my counting speed, which currently is at 28-30 single card at a time.

As for play time:
I play all at the tables I can find that are not full, it the true count goes down below -1 for two hands or more I move.
We play for min. 8-10 hrs at a time no breaks other then table switching. After that I start to lose the count and find myself playing BS.

I hope you agree that this plan is a good continuation of my studies.

Thanks,
bjc :grin:


PS: Mo-sun has a 50k bj tournament next week.... my wife wants to get me in. Is it a good idea, I think just the experience would be.

 

[zengrifter]

Ok. Then here is my plan:
Since I have about 40 of the approx 80 matrices down I have more studying to do.
I will continue to use RPC as written using 1/2DTC conv. until I hear about a sim that compares the 1/2TDC, 1TDC, & 2TDC and produces results which signal that a change is required.
My commute to work is 3-4 hrs per day, so I will continue with my flash cards. Run thru them once in quiet, then turn the radio on and go thru them again.
CV Drill should be in the mail by now, so it goes on my laptop, will then have to figure out how to add RPC matrices and counts to the strategy list.
Improve my counting speed, which currently is at 28-30 single card at a time.

As for play time:
I play all at the tables I can find that are not full, it the true count goes down below -1 for two hands or more I move.
We play for min. 8-10 hrs at a time no breaks other then table switching. After that I start to lose the count and find myself playing BS.

I hope you agree that this plan is a good continuation of my studies.

Thanks,
bjc :grin:


PS: Mo-sun has a 50k bj tournament next week.... my wife wants to get me in. Is it a good idea, I think just the experience would be.

Counting has no place in pro tourney play, whole different animal. zg

Ps - Yes, good plan.