Someone with a low hand will hit, probably more than once.

A hitter receiving a big card stops hitting, small -> continues.

On the whole, I suspect the apparition of big cards ensures that there are less cards drawn than smaller cards, because of the choices of the players.

So when small cards appear, is there not only more big cards in the deck but also a smaller deck?

Quote:Boney526I disagree with the couple of people who said the count wouldn't tend to go towards 0 f you stopped counting, because obviously at the end of the deck the count will be 0 again. I don't really think that's a useful piece of information, though, since if you missed a part of the deck it'd be more accurate to count those as burned or undealt.

If you're using strategy decisions along with bet spread, go for the last position. If not it doesn't matter.

If the last card is a 10, the TC is 100 before drawing the last card. They don't play to the last card. And the tendency is for the TC to remain flat. It starts at 0, and tends to remain there...once it changes it tends to remain there. I agree, not very useful info. But if you do not understand it and want to, it may help.

Quote:Boney526I disagree with the couple of people who said the count wouldn't tend to go towards 0 f you stopped counting, because obviously at the end of the deck the count will be 0 again. I don't really think that's a useful piece of information, though, since if you missed a part of the deck it'd be more accurate to count those as burned or undealt.

If you're using strategy decisions along with bet spread, go for the last position. If not it doesn't matter.

EDIT - Didn't realize it was true count. I suspect that it would, but the effect would be ridiculously small until the very end of the deck, which doesn't even come up in any game ever.

You suspect it would what? True count tends to remain the same as more cards are dealt -- ie, it is equally likely to go up as it is to go down, regardless of what the current TC is. This is obvious from the definition of true count.

The TC at the end of the shoe is not 0, it is undefined.

Quote:kubikulannSome one who received two tens will not hit.

Someone with a low hand will hit, probably more than once.

A hitter receiving a big card stops hitting, small -> continues.

On the whole, I suspect the apparition of big cards ensures that there are less cards drawn than smaller cards, because of the choices of the players.

So when small cards appear, is there not only more big cards in the deck but also a smaller deck?

What you are seeing as choices of the players, I am seeing as the random emergence of cards. If I could control the strategy of players, I would make them all hit and/split every hand until they busted...then when the count was positive, they'd either quit playing or always stand. Standing on 20 isn't much of a strategy choice. I do not see how their choices could possibly affect the distribution of cards. The count will remain unaltered, and its tendencies will not change...your ability to capitalize could be impaired by their strategy in the short-run.

Quote:SonuvabishIf the last card is a 10, the TC is 100 before drawing the last card. They don't play to the last card. And the tendency is for the TC to remain flat. It starts at 0, and tends to remain there...once it changes it tends to remain there. I agree, not very useful info. But if you do not understand it and want to, it may help.

The OP is trying to use it because he can't count and play at the same time. So he wants to back-count, wait until the count is good, and then jump in and play until the end of the shoe.

Ignoring the cut card effect, this should more or less work, except for the fact that your variance will be much, much higher. You will often be overbetting your BR, which makes it a bad idea.

Well, that assertion is what I'm asking about. As I wrote above, I wonder if the differing strategy in front of large or small cards can affect this assertion, that would be true in pure random draw situations.Quote:AxiomOfChoiceTrue count it is equally likely to go up as it is to go down, regardless of what the current TC is. This is obvious from the definition of true count.

Can you prove it mathematically?

I've tried with the simple Ace/Five count, but if somebody already has the calculations, I'm willing to read them.

Quote:AxiomOfChoice

The TC at the end of the shoe is not 0, it is undefined.

Good point.

Irrelevant...Quote:SonuvabishIf I could control the strategy of players,

If it helps you to understand, consider players using BS only.

Excuse me, you are confusing two threads.Quote:AxiomOfChoiceThe OP is trying to use it because he can't count and play at the same time. So he wants to back-count, wait until the count is good, and then jump in and play until the end of the shoe.

I'm not counting (we have CSM anyway). I'm interested in a mathematical problem.

Quote:kubikulannWell, that assertion is what I'm asking about. As I wrote above, I wonder if the differing strategy in front of large or small cards can affect this assertion, that would be true in pure random draw situations.

Can you prove it mathematically?

I've tried with the simple Ace/Five count, but if somebody already has the calculations, I'm willing to read them.

I'm no mathematician and can't write proofs, but this is something fairly obvious. It just might be the given.