true count conversion

[godeem23]

Hi. For those of you who are experienced, I have a question for you about true count converstion. How long did it take you from the time you first started trying to convert back and forth to the point where you were sufficient at it? Do you think that it is one of the most difficult overall parts of counting, or one of the easiest? Do you have any suggestions for practice techniques on true count converstion? Thanks.

 

[Unshake]

To approximate the number of decks in the discard tray it might take a while, but if you are playing a 6 or 8 deck game, being accurate to 1/2 deck is usually enough.

Once you can approximate the number of decks in the discard tray, all you have to do is divide. Once you start playing you'll get much better because you'll have to be calculating the true count before you bet and before you play your hand.

 

[sagefr0g]

to me dividing out the true count and estimating the decks left to be dealt is a cinch. difficult part for me is keeping the running count. to me that is so slow and tedious and when it's mostly a zero true count or negative true count (which it is most of the time) it's to me like a slow drip chinese water tourcher as those high cards come dribbling out to ruin the count. :flame:
but i imagine it's different for different folks.

 

[InPlay]

to me dividing out the true count and estimating the decks left to be dealt is a cinch. difficult part for me is keeping the running count. to me that is so slow and tedious and when it's mostly a zero true count or negative true count (which it is most of the time) it's to me like a slow drip chinese water tourcher as those high cards come dribbling out to ruin the count. :flame:
but i imagine it's different for different folks.

So true you are. Playing a 6 deck game their are very few good counts and it doesn't last long.

 

[Renzey]

Hi. Do you have any suggestions for practice techniques on true count converstion? Thanks.

I use a set of multipliers that correspond to the discard tray height -- nothing else. In a 6 deck game, if your index numbers are calibrated to "count-per-deck, then when the discard tray;

contains...............multiply RC by
1 deck--------------------.2
2 decks------------------1/4th
2.5 dks-------------------.3
3 decks------------------1/3rd
3.5 dks-------------------.4
4 decks-------------------.5
4.5 dks-------------------2/3rds

 

[RG1]

I had a problem with this. I bought a box full of decks to practice. I taped up eight decks individually and when I practice I have them stacked behind the discards. That way I can see what three, four, five, etc, decks looks like.

When converting to a true count, I found it easier to know key running counts. What I'm trying to say is instead of worring about multiplying or dividing, I just know that with four decks left a running count of +16 is +4. Before the hand is dealt I determine how many decks are left (round down due to the new cards coming out). Say I determine there are three decks left. As the cards are coming out and I have that 12 v 2, I know that if my RC is +9 when it's my turn I'm going to stay, and if it's +8 I'm going to hit. Now there is no hesitation in my decision if it is close.

 

[Renzey]

When the discard tray;

contains...............multiply RC by
1 deck--------------------.2
2 decks------------------1/4th
2.5 dks-------------------.3
3 decks------------------1/3rd
3.5 dks-------------------.4
4 decks-------------------.5
4.5 dks-------------------2/3rds

So when there are three decks in the discard tray, while the next hand is coming out, you just advise yourself that you're in "1/3rd territory". Whatever the running count is, the true count is 1/3rd of that. Then you're ready to play whatever hand you might get -- at whatever the running count might be by the time the cards are out -- and you're ready to size your bet for the next hand.

 

[Ferretnparrot]

I play all shoe games and one thing iv noticed thats worth noting, is that over time as cards get played through the course of the day the stack gets thicker, so what apears to be filling exactly half of the discard tray may be less than half of all the cards in actuality. this is very noticable and has the biggest effect at the end of the shoe for instance sometimes when only six decks have been dealt it apears that 7 decks are in the discard tray and errors coudl be made easily.

-Always note where the cut card was placed before you start playing the shoe., its better to jusdge this as the cut card is inserted as guessing once the cards are in the shoe is much harder. Doing this will let you know that if there apears to be one deck left to deal by the space left in the discard tray you will know its really ~two deacks because you saw him cut off two.

Im guessing it happens because the cards get slightly bent and dont stack perfectly flush, or the edges get frayed and slightly thicker. either way it does happen and is something i havnt read about in books.

Ferret

 

[InPlay]

I play all shoe games and one thing iv noticed thats worth noting, is that over time as cards get played through the course of the day the stack gets thicker, so what apears to be filling exactly half of the discard tray may be less than half of all the cards in actuality. this is very noticable and has the biggest effect at the end of the shoe for instance sometimes when only six decks have been dealt it apears that 7 decks are in the discard tray and errors coudl be made easily.

-Always note where the cut card was placed before you start playing the shoe., its better to jusdge this as the cut card is inserted as guessing once the cards are in the shoe is much harder. Doing this will let you know that if there apears to be one deck left to deal by the space left in the discard tray you will know its really ~two deacks because you saw him cut off two.

Im guessing it happens because the cards get slightly bent and dont stack perfectly flush, or the edges get frayed and slightly thicker. either way it does happen and is something i havnt read about in books.

Ferret

Good point. I have never thought of that.