Tc Sd

[avs21]

Sorry if this post sounds like an old one I posted awhile ago. When I play SD for the BS deviations I have been using the RC until a get to about 1/2 the deck then times 2 for play decisions. With 1/3 of deck times 3. I was thinking of switching to when 3/4 deck left 1.5 times RC. Is this going to increase the accuracy enough to be worthwhile to switch?

Thank you in advance

 

[Sonny]

Go for it! It doesn't require much extra effort at all so any gain will be worthwhile. If you can use that for your betting decisions as well then you will increase your EV even more since you will be recognizing bigger positive situations and making bigger bets. I don't think you will realize a big gain, but it certainly doesn't hurt as long as you are playing and betting properly.

-Sonny-

 

[zengrifter]

Go for it! It doesn't require much extra effort at all so any gain will be worthwhile. If you can use that for your betting decisions as well then you will increase your EV even more since you will be recognizing bigger positive situations and making bigger bets. I don't think you will realize a big gain, but it certainly doesn't hurt as long as you are playing and betting properly.

On the other hand, simulations proved a long time ago that a balanced count will fare just fine, negligible loss, in 1D games using only the RC. BUT the indices need to be RC-based indices. So why bother to TC at all? zg

 

[supercoolmancool]

On the other hand, simulations proved a long time ago that a balanced count will fare just fine, negligible loss, in 1D games using only the RC. BUT the indices need to be RC-based indices. So why bother to TC at all? zg

I know that you said that Unbalanced Zen is equal to balanced Zen, but just for curiosities sake, how much better is the balanced count?

 

[ScottH]

I know that you said that Unbalanced Zen is equal to balanced Zen, but just for curiosities sake, how much better is the balanced count?

The difference in EV is probably small. The real difference is effort vs. convenience. The unbalanced system is obviously much easier to learn and use, BUT you will need to learn different indices for different games. On the other hand the balanced is more difficult, but you only need to learn one set of indices for all games.

 

[avs21]

On the other hand, simulations proved a long time ago that a balanced count will fare just fine, negligible loss, in 1D games using only the RC. BUT the indices need to be RC-based indices. So why bother to TC at all? zg

Should I stick to RC for betting and for playing decisions just use the 1.5,2 and 3 times RC?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I know that you said that Unbalanced Zen is equal to balanced Zen, but just for curiosities sake, how much better is the balanced count?

I wouldn't say that a balanced count is better at all in SD. An unbalanced count has tags that more accurately represent the EOR of the cards. Also, unless you are a prodigy at deck estimation the errors from the true counting will probably outweigh any errors caused by the unbalanced count.

 

[zengrifter]

Should I stick to RC for betting and for playing decisions just use the 1.5,2 and 3 times RC?

RC Betting is simple if DA2 rules: +1 = 2u, +2 = 4u+

HOWEVER, in such a game you will actually have the edge at 0 when only 1/2D remains.

So: 1st 1/2 (see above), 2nd 1/2: 0 = 2u. +1 = 4u+

 

[zengrifter]

I know that you said that Unbalanced Zen is equal to balanced Zen, but just for curiosities sake, how much better is the balanced count?

UBZ outperforms ZEN on a number of games - see BJAttack 'SCORE' article - but these are microscopic differences that mean nothing in real play. UBZ is easier EXCEPT for the need for different indices with different #decks. zg