Re: Rounding, truncating

From Stanford Wong's BJ21

Posted by Halver on 20 Nov 1997, at 8:27 p.m., in response to Rounding, truncating, posted by Pete Moss on 17 Nov 1997, at 9:43 p.m.

Pete,
I'm glad to see someone discussing this. What are your thoughts on the following:

Wong PBJ ('81 edition) 'Halves Adjusted For Aces, 4D, S17' Hard 12 vs. 4 index = 0; a TC of -0.1 would round to -1 and you would take a hit.

Now, assume truncating (like in Wong PBJ '94 edition); a TC of -0.9 would trunc to 0 and you would stand. This doesn't make sense to me.

All 0 "zero" values seem to take on a different meaning between the methods of calculation. Also, under Scenario A, the indices for Hard 12 vs. 4,5,6 are 0,-1,-1, respectively. Under Scenario B, they become 0,0,0. I don't see how the strategy decisions can really become the same.

When playing, the way I handle these 3 decisions is:
Hard 12 vs. 4 = 0 or greater I stand
12 vs. 5 = -1 or less I hit
12 vs. 6 = -1 or less I hit

I'd be interested in any feedback.

Responses