qfit, in your sims, did you happen to keep track of if, on average, the count stayed the same after you "stopped counting" a little ways into the shoe?? This would either confirm or deny renzey's claim that the count would, on average, center at +2 if that's what it ended up being after 1.5 decks in.
Perhaps a silly question but...
- Thread starter Fun_at_21
- Start date
QFIT
Well-Known Member
No, but the TC Theorem states that the average TC will remain the same.assume_R said:
As a rather dramatic example of the problem, I added a table on page 403 in the second edition of Modern Blackjack of TCs by depth. With four players, at one-quarter through the deck, only 0.23% of rounds start at TC +4 or greater. 70% into the shoe, TC +4 and up exist over 10% of rounds. If you stop counting one-quarter into the shoe, you will have only identified a tiny fraction of these max bet opportunities.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
As an aside, we need to be careful when using the TC Theorem. Yes, it states that the TC tends to remain the same -- on average. But, this does not mean that the TC mean tends to remain the same. There is some explanation on Modern Blackjack pages 427-429.
muppet
Well-Known Member
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/tcproof.htm (Archive copy)
is that last corollary correct?:
is that last corollary correct?:
if you replace 'round' with 'card is dealt' then it looks fine, but as it is written, i think it conflicts with this statement here?:Abdul Jalib said:
k_c said:
QFIT
Well-Known Member
No conflict here. That's what is explained in Modern Blackjack pages 427-429.
The average is zero. BUT, that does not mean that distribution is symmetrical. The latter is a common misconception about the TC Theorem.
The average is zero. BUT, that does not mean that distribution is symmetrical. The latter is a common misconception about the TC Theorem.
Yes, it is a common misconception in many parts of statistics. The distribution is skewed to the left due to flooring. Statistical rounding would presumably make it very close to symmetrical.QFIT said:
Why do you say the average pre-round rc is negative?muppet said:
Not sure if this is related to what you're asking, but in qfit's book, he explains that just because TC -1 and -2 occur more than TC +1 and +2, doesn't mean that you are playing at more of a disadvantage. It's just how the "actual advantages" are "clumped" if that makes sense. For example, if you floor, your advantage at +1 would be more than if you rounded. But if you rounded, then that "extra advantage" would be more spread out over the other counts. Make sense?
Automatic Monkey
Banned
It's kind of a hybrid of both. You don't get the information associated with deep penetration, but you do get the increased number of hands. It becomes like playing a slight player-edge game from a CSM.QFIT said:
A counter should be more interested in the information than just playing a lot of hands without counting, so I can't think of any reason for a counter to use the Front Count. But I do like the way it illustrates true count theory.
Maybe this is getting off topic and is essentially useless to actual playing, but wouldn't the skew of the distribution depend on the tag values one uses? Some tag values, while balanced, could possibly be skewed to the right? Also how people decide whether or not to hit could slightly skew the distribution I think.QFIT said:
muppet
Well-Known Member
assume_R said:
i would think though that for any these methods of performing the true count division (round, truncate, floor, stat. round), the true count will on average be negative before each round (although flooring would be a trivial case)?QFIT said:
as long as you are integerizing the tc (which everyone does in practice..), the average tc will be very slightly negative.
i'm not sure what a 'non-zero skew' means
Actually, you're correct on both counts - it was hypothetical AND I don't desire to go through the hard work of being a true serious counter!assume_R said:
I think you may have me all wrong. Or perhaps I just gave the wrong impression bringing up the surface possibilities of counting and how an early deck awareness may still help a BS player like myself who, indeed, doesnt wish to (seriously) count.
If you see any of my other posts here, you'll notice I readily admit to being one of these odd traditional-style players who just loves blackjack for the pure fun of the game and its basic probabilities. My first love has always been in the fascination of the hand probabilities themselves and those (Baldwin, Cantey, Maisel, McDermott, Thorp) who first discovered you could play these hands a right way to minimize the house edge. So I'm really more a lover of the game from a historian's approach rather than a counter's.
Yet, a BS player can still strive to learn and utilize the "awareness" of card removal yet not desire to seriously want to count (accurately). So sometimes its not so much a case of laziness as its just that the HARD work involved isn't "worthwhile" to someone who simply wishes to play as dead even a game as possible while still preserving the casual "love of the game" to begin with.
But I apologize if I kept sounding like I was going in circles. I did (and have) read QFIT's (and everyone's) thoughts here. But I think sometimes I'm getting answers to questions I wasn't necessarily asking. Or maybe I'm just asking un-practical questions that can't really be answered and so I'm getting more helpful alternate answers instead. Which I do appreciate.
But I do thank you (and everyone) for the help. As mentioned earlier, sometimes us non-serious counter's aren't meaning to be lazy as much as we're just simply trying to learn what "surface" benefits a happy but imaginative BS player might be able to utilize by having a general knowledge of card removal effects etc.
Thanks again and my apologies again if I'm wearing out my welcome here...
Last edited:
