Blackjack Bluebook 2

I have a question regarding Fred Renzey's method of converting the running count to a true count in his book blackjack bluebook 2. In it he said that he "trues up" to 2 decks instead of 1 deck. When he does this, would you also have to increase the playing index numbers also by 2?

What he's doing is also refered to as "True fudging". The index numbers stay the same, and you adjust the running count to make it a little more accurate. With unblanced counts, the farther you are from the pivot point, the less accurate the count is. You true fudge to adjust for the number of decks remaining. The index numbers stay the same no matter how many cards are left. The only thing which needs adjusting is the running count. I personally don't think true fudging is necessary, at least for KO. Renzy's count is only unbalanced by two cards, and may need to be trued up. If you're interested in going unbalanced instead of balanced, I think you'd be better off using KO. You probabaly already know that though.

M

Actually, I was referring to the section on the Mentor count. When Renzey converts the running count to a true count, he does so by adjusting it to a standard of two decks instead of one. For example, if there were 6 decks left to be dealt in an 8 deck shoe, Renzey would adjust the running count by dividing it by 3 instead of 6. I would think that one would also have to double the index numbers as well if they were to adjust the running count in this way. Does anyone have a good explanation to this?? Thanks

You won't have to adjust the index numbers because they are already set for a two deck conversion. If for example you wanted to change it to a single deck conversion, then you'd have to divide all the index numbers in half. Converting to the nearest half deck, you'd have to divide them by 4. A two deck conversion isn't as accurate, but would be a little easier. The numbers in the book are set for the two deck conversion he recommends.

One question. I've read the book but it was a while ago. Are you sure he's recommending a two deck conversion, and not a half deck conversion?

M

Yeah Misfit, the TC conversion chart has a multiplier of 1 for 2 decks. Thanks

Terrellj and Misfit. Actually, the unbalanced KISS Count is less in need of "true fudging" than the KO. That's because counts which are unbalanced by a half rank rather than a whole rank have a smaller error range between the running count and the true count.

Example: With KO, six decks and a -20 IRC, the Key count of -4 equals +2.4 true with 5 decks left, +2.0 true with 4 decks left, +1.3 true with 3 decks left and 0 true with 2 decks left. Using KISS and a +9 IRC, the Key count of 20 equals +1.8 true with 5 decks left, +1.75 true with 4 decks left, +1.66 true with 3 decks left and +1.5 true with 2 decks left. At a +3 true count, both systems are about as accurate as each other, but you spend more of your time between true counts of 0 and +3.

As for the balanced level 2 Mentor Count, truing up to two decks rather than one is actually more accurate. Since you've doubled all the index numbers you'll often arrive at true counts that would've been halfway between two integers, but are now on whole numbers, such as with +3.5 vs. +7 (which both have identical values). It's the same methodology by which level 2 counts are more accurate than level one counts.

Clarifying the last post: Notice that when you arrive at +3.5, you'll round it off to +3 and play it as such. When you go by the "count per 2 decks", you play it as the +7 (+3.5) that it actually is -- a bit more accurate.

Being a beginner I have not yet incorporated a balanced system into my arsenal that requires a true count conversion (still using unbalanced KO) but it was mentioned that you round off from 3.5 to 3, do you always round down or would you round up at 3.5 as with basic mathmatics?

Thanks!

In hand held games, coming off the top with 2 units is highly recommended for cover purposes. In terms of penalty, you're losing the basic strategy percentage of the extra amount once every new deck. I.E: in double deck with say six rounds per deck, your raw dollar cost is about 0.35% x 1u x 1/6th per shuffle. In shoe games, 2 units off the top isn't abad idea either, since you can leave that 2u bet sitting out there for the whole two minutes or so that it takes the dealer to shuffle. If you get in 16 rounds per shuffle, your cost is 0.5% x 1u x 1/16th per shoe.

With index numbers for basic strategy departures, you generally want to round downwards to the decision for the next lowest whole number. This is due to some studies which have said that it's more costly to "jump the gun" than to be a bit latent.

That's one of the reasons why converting to a "count per 2 decks" rather than to the "count per deck" is desirable. If the precise index number for standing with 12 vs. 3 is +1.5, your system's index number will be +2. But if you convert to the count-per-2-decks, your system number will be +3, which IS +1.5 at a count-per-deck conversion.

I will have to look into this two deck conversion when I begin my balanced system...