The TC Theorem is Still Denied by Some ...

[blackriver]

And how often does a shoe have the same TC throughout the shoe? For all practical purposes I've seen it happen where the RC never ventures more than a few points from zero yielding a more or less constant TC (of zero) throughout, but that indeed is rare. More likely is the case where the TC fluctuates throughout the shoe. Therefore, projecting the TC foward through a few decks of unseen cards is a bad idea IMHO.

Let's take the case of a team all playing at the same table with each of the team members leaving the table at different times during the shoe. After one deck has been played the TC=2 and player 1 leaves. After 2 decks have been played the TC=3 and player 2 leaves. After 2 and one half decks have been played the TC=4 and player 3 leaves. After 3 decks have been played the TC=5 and player 4 leaves. After 4 decks have been played the TC drops to -1 and all the players who left the table return. On the next hand everyone has different bets out based on what the respective TCs were when each left the table, but all are overbetting because they based their bets on the projected TC when they left the table. They should have looked at player 5 who never left the table and put a minimum bet out.

This sounds like a very good team strategy. You run this team I assume?

If that happened then the 4th deck had a tc of -18 , but I guess you get a lot of those if your theory is correct

So if we start with a bucket of 10 reds and 10 greens and pull out 5 reds, what are the odds of drawing a red next?

What are the odds of drawing a red from a bucket that just starts with 5 red and 10 green. We all think that he odds are 1/3 but you must think you're "due" to draw a green in the first one. How else will we get back to the 50/50 ratio we started with? What magical force is remembering the initial configuration and is so determined to return to it.

You must be confusing "regression to the mean" which is completely different. Wiki that topic and I think you'll see why you think the way you do and why its not relevant to this topic.

(To save more embarassment)
Hint: each card is not an independant event

 

[blackjack avenger]

Everyone Should Read Myyyyy Post

The Apple Barrel Game

That's right Southpaw myyyyy post:grin:
Though I guess you were a muse

Don't forget the whole AP thing is probably someone else's idea.

Be sure to read Ken Smith's and MangoJ's posts

 

[21gunsalute]

This sounds like a very good team strategy. You run this team I assume?

If that happened then the 4th deck had a tc of -18 , but I guess you get a lot of those if your theory is correct

So if we start with a bucket of 10 reds and 10 greens and pull out 5 reds, what are the odds of drawing a red next?

What are the odds of drawing a red from a bucket that just starts with 5 red and 10 green. We all think that he odds are 1/3 but you must think you're "due" to draw a green in the first one. How else will we get back to the 50/50 ratio we started with? What magical force is remembering the initial configuration and is so determined to return to it.

You must be confusing "regression to the mean" which is completely different. Wiki that topic and I think you'll see why you think the way you do and why its not relevant to this topic.

(To save more embarassment)
Hint: each card is not an independant event

iCountNTrack summed things up much better than I have stated in another thread:

Point 1:

The disagreement was not on whether the TC is a constant or not, of course the TC would be constant for both cases, however the disagreement was on the divisor for the true count. BA is advocating that for 8 deck show if TC was 4 after 2 decks, i missed 2 decks, came back the TC would be 4 (so far so good), to get the RC multiply by TC by the divisor (4), this is where we disagree the divisor should be 6 and not 4, because the TC divisor should include ALL nonseen cards, NOT the remaining cards.

Point 2:

The purpose of the sims was to show that all the INFORMATION we have when we are counting cards is contained in the running count and the number of unseen cards. All 3 sims yield the same SCORE (within the sim standard error, the second decimal will not match for 500 million hands) which shows what i have mentioned several times: missing cards during a shoe has the effect of reducing the effective shoe penetration, for instance turning a 91% game into a mediocre 50% penetration game.

Point 3:
The TC theorem has nothing to do with the sim results. The sim results are so because the information you have with card counting is contained in the running count and the number of unseen cards (TC divisor) The TC is the same because your RC and DIVISOR DON'T CHANGE when you miss cards during a shoe and come back to the show to play, not because of the true count theorem.
Again again, the TC theorem states that the cards played during a round must be SEEN and COUNTED, if they are not you can't use the TC theorem.