What is so hard to understand?

A one deck section of a shoe is as likely to come to something that resembles a single deck, on any section that is a single deck in size. But that is a low probability.

Starting with basic strategy.

The 2nd deck of a shoe and the last deck of a shoe will have the same correlation to a true count based on counting the first deck of a shoe. All that changes, with counting all the cards up to the last deck is that a round at that point is better evaluated, and the true count is more extreme.

But the true count being more extreme exhibits more bow-effect. And even if something like a single deck results for the last deck, a round would have to be on the exact 52 card barrier to play like a single deck. Weighing the gains, and grouping them by the initial true count, which is now more extreme and showing more nonlinarity, results in a more bowed curve of edge versus true count in the middle.

But what is gained in the middle is lost in the higher true counts in your spread. The highest bet in your spread is "topped," like a cut christmass tree.

Playing strategy gains tend to straighten out the curve. Sims of such have generally falled to note a true count rounding and grouping error, that is confused with a real FA. But deep game do create a situation where some playing gains show up in unusual ways, with counts that put more power in the "PE," and make it more profitable still to use more indexes, but having the overall edge for all counts rise, deep into a shoe is simply nonsense.

But go ahead and bet more pursuing non-existant gains deep into a shoe; deep games are great but there is no floating advantage to also try to capture. Maybe that little extra betting in your spread will be what brings that backoff, for no gains whatsoever, other than overbetting your spread.

I'm probably not the only one who didnt quite get you.
If I'm guessing correctly, you are talking about your favourite subject: The floating advantage.
I think you're making two propositions:
1.A situation in a shoe game with a neutral count and 1 deck remaining is identical to a single deck situation from the top
2.Floating advantage is only effective with count 0.

I agree with your first proposition as far as ev is concerned but the playing strategy might differ in some cases.
In an SD-game you wouldn't hit 7/7 vs. 10 as only 2 sevens are remaining but in the shoe game you would always hit as you have seen only 2 of 24 sevens.

Your second proposition is in my view totally wrong.
Let's look at a situation with TC +4 and now you get 5/5 vs. 6.
Early in the shoe there wood only be an insignificant rise in TC but
if only 1 deck is left the count would now have risen to +7 thus giving much more chances to win the double either by making a good hand or the dealer busting.Isn't this called floating advantage?

Francis Salmon

(1)If you compare a round one deck in with a round started with one deck left, and sim them, they will come to the same average edge.

(2) If you then count the first deck through to the one deck in round, that true count will have the same correlation to both the deep and shallow rounds.

(3) If you then compare the true count before the deep and shallow rounds, the count for the deeper round will have a wider amplitude range but actually a slightly lower correlation with the shallower true count.

(4) If you average all the deeper round results according to the true count, they show the bow-effect. Evidence for any floating edge as has been championed by the clones is tainted by the rounding error I have described; true counts are discrete, and observed true counts creep up within every rounding range past one deck penetration. But the bow effect does exist. It unlike the alleged FA is a near (there is a very very weak exception) total wash: where the actual basic strategy edge is higher than the count indicates in the middle count ranges, it is lower in the higher and all more extreme ranges. The highest bet in your spread will include all of the count ranges that are trimmed by the bow effect (DS answers are totally wrong about that).

(5) But the bow effect is limited by adding more playing efficiency gains--learn more indexes and go to a more PE count. T-Hopper discovered this and the bow effect is the best IMHO explanation for it. You think of strategy gains as the gains you get with flat betting removing the betting gains. But what T-Hopper found (funny he is now being dissed by some former teamates for heavens keeping player card rebates while being unfairly limited to wages only by that team, just after his postings? Did they snitch on him? He like most of us used several AKAs... He has been gone...) is that the playing gains were showing importance in games not normally thought of as anything more than games for focusing on betting efficiency.

(6) The extra gains from comparing a high PE count to a lower PE count exceded the isolated measure of the PE gains, in T-Hopper's sims. What I think is happening is that the playing gains have cancelled the drop in betting efficiency that normally expresses itself as the bow effect. It is also interesting that a drop in betting correlation would have a definite bias and shape to it.

(7) In a roundabout way Maverick got the entire concept here: the way to exploit the alledged FA is not by trying to alter one's betting ramp for this bend in the edge versus TC curve deeper in, but to use more indexes and higher PE counts, so that the playing gains compensate for where the betting gains not only fall off but distort otherwise.

(3) compared with