True count question

In reference to a single level count my question is simply this; Is there a universal standard for describing the true count, ie per full deck or half deck.

I call a running count of +3, with three half decks remaining +1 as per Uston, my friend +2 (3 / 1.5 decks remaining).

Which is more correct when conversing, as it previously led to some confusion before we discovered our different way of expressing the same situation. Is one expression more favourable or perhaps even more correct terminology for modern play.

"Is there a universal standard for describing the true count, ie per full deck or half deck ?

I call a running count of +3, with three half decks remaining +1 as per Uston, my friend +2 (3 / 1.5 decks remaining). Which is more correct when conversing? Is one expression more favourable or perhaps even more correct terminology for modern play?"

When people refer to the TC, if they make no other clarification, one can safely assume that they mean "True Count Per Full Deck". That's what the majority of counters are using, and that's what the majority of books out there are preaching.

As far as playing accuracy is concerned, the smaller the number of cards you divide the Running Count with, the greater your accuracy in gauging the True Count. And in single deck, you cannot but use less than full-deck for the divisor!

But there is no percentage in being that accurate in shoes. Dividing by full-decks-remaining in any shoe game is good enough.

"True Count Per Full Deck".

Makes sense.

"Dividing by full-decks-remaining in any shoe game is good enough."

Agree, but am used to half deck division & matrix no.s, & think it helps a little especially with insurance in the 4 deck I play.

"I am used to half deck division & matrix no's, & think it helps a little especially with insurance in the 4 deck I play."

The fewer decks in the game one plays, the more playing indices one should use.

The authors mostly agree (we will await for T-Hopper's dissent for quite a while, it seems, to appear in print) that in 4-deckers and beyond, the gain from employing more indices is marginal. But if you is able to memorize and deploy more than, say, the Illustrious 18, in a shoe, then go right ahead and do it! If you can divide by half-decks, quarter-decks or even number of cards remaining, then do that too. More power to you.

"The fewer decks in the game one plays, the more playing indices one should use."

Agree as more extreme true counts are possible.

"The authors mostly agree (we will await for T-Hopper's dissent for quite a while, it seems, to appear in print) that in 4-deckers and beyond, the gain from employing more indices is marginal."

Use Wong & Griffin for strategy advice, & they also concur. Makes sense also. The more extreme counts are unlikely to happen & when they do any advantage from strategy variation will be marginal.

"But if you is able to memorize and deploy more than, say, the Illustrious 18, in a shoe, then go right ahead and do it!"

I only memorise -1 to +8, & is enough on the positive side except maybe 1 or 2 plays a month. (1 deck is cut from use). Doubling is only permitted on 10 & 11, so that's not many decisions to remember.

"If you can divide by half-decks, quarter-decks or even number of cards remaining, then do that too. More power to you."

I divide by half decks as I have a neat trick, but intend to divide by full decks at other games. Am lazy only play the one game :)

Thanks for your clarification of common true count reference, & additionals.