But what about playing indices? Do you use CVData to generate indices that accurately? And can you really do that calculation? TC is in terms of decks remaining. So after 52 cards are played, with a RC of +5, it is pretty easy to divide 5 by 5. But you are going to have to compute TC = RC * 52 / cards_remaining, which looks like something that will be hard and error-prone for most.
1/4 deck resolution is better than 1/2 deck, although in a shoe game, the difference is not much at all (obviously it would be far better in single-deck). 1/8 deck resolution is very marginally better. Going to the trouble of exact card resolution doesn't offer a lot. I believe Norm has some sims where he used exact card resolution which makes it easy enough to compare with coarser estimation to see if it is worth the effort. And all that assumes accuracy doesn't suffer.
I take the indices and double them. Effectively, I consider 2 decks to be roughly equal to 100 cards (close enough).
I can do the divisions no problem. I generally uses indices from +12 (per 100 cards) to -12 (per 100 cards). I generally ignore any strategy changes above +12 or below -12.
I really think this approach is better for estimating your edge and bettor for calculating the concentration of the deck. Very good for Double-Deck play, imho. A running count of +4, w/ 40 cards rem, does not translate quickly to 1 deck or 0.5 decks. Precision is better.
At Thorp's times games were mostly single deck and I think he recommanded this only for the ten count in order to correcly calculate insurance.
For the shoe games such a method is out of question but if you are comfortable with in double deck, why not?