One of the chapters lists SBA simulation results of many different games. I've taken some of these results and built spreadsheets for different games that allow me to see the effects on EV, Std Dev and ROR of changing bet spreads and bank rolls.
The book I had seems to group results of certain hi-lo True Counts for the single deck simulations.
For example, the single deck,h17,60%-pen,2players-total,I18,play all table has no entries in the rows for the true counts +3 and +7. Instead, the results seem to be grouped into the adjacent counts/rows.
Why is this? How can I model a different bet amount for +3 vs. +2 ?
Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Forgive me, but I don't have my copy of the book for referencing page numbers.
So with +3 RC, assuming the other guy plays basic strategy, he'd take a hit with one or two little cards. Likewise, the dealer would hit one or two little cards, thus making the total dealt out after the first round >= 7.
The deck quarters must be rounded and not truncated. For example if 7 to 19 cards are out then 3 quarters of remaining deck are used to convert to TC. 20 - 32 cards => 2 quarters. Right?
Thanks for answering. I should've read the BJA text more closely.
I wonder what other TCs won't occur. For +9, you'd need RC +7 in the first 19 cards (2 rounds).
In my play, I often find TCs of 3. Perhaps my deck estimation is more refined than quarters. Or maybe I use some TC rounding instead of truncating.