+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: Fuzzy Beyond Counting

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Fuzzy

    Quote Originally Posted by DDutton View Post
    I second that motion.
    Sage, please run it down, a summary perhaps?
    The rights to that COUNT are owned and copyrighted by the Radical Leftist and Anti-American, mormon. He will sue if you post anything here about the "Fuzzy" count.

    "Midwest Masters Of Advantage", "Strength and Honor."

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2006

    Default straight from the horse's mouth

    fuzzy count? uhhh oh yeah.
    let me see now, ahhh ok, i haven't been keeping abreast on that of late....
    oh wait a breast, ahhh yes.
    hmmm, no, that's not it.
    well, yes the fuzzy count errhhh ehmm lemme see now, well guys i'm not currently writing a expose on that as it's not probably as invaluable as the Tarzan count. but it is definitely invaluable.

    i'll start off giving ya'll some food for thought. consider out of context excerpts from the interview below:

    Zengrifter Interview – page 5

    It seems you have broken away from the card counter “orthodoxy” over this and the
    related use of intuition?
    The hit-stand-double index for basic strategy departure is a wide-border “coin-toss” zone of
    perhaps two digits, plus or minus. Therefore, I encourage the use of one’s intuition when the
    decision is close
    . If decision by coin-toss will not reduce our effectiveness for these ever-frequent
    wide-border decisions, does it not stand to reason that we can learn to increasingly utilize the
    ‘meta-awareness’ faculties of our brain and “go with the force,”
    so to speak, to potentially obtain a
    subjective improvement over raw statistical expectation?
    Consider for example, that while our conscious mind may not be aware of that extra 4 or 5 still
    remaining in the deck, and not evident by our true count of +1 when we face 16 vs. 10, modern
    science tells us that our brain did notice the hit-not-stand situation, despite a true count indication
    to the contrary.

    I once debated this issue with Don Schlesinger, who labeled my approach “sloppy, with no
    inherent advantage over precise.” I countered that if he was to replace “sloppy” with “fuzzy,” as in
    what computer science calls ‘fuzzy-logic,’ I would opt for the latter.

    and uhmmm let me interject here, let us set this stuff on the back burner for a bit:

    Many times you’ve told me about your ‘New Age’ philosophy. Are there any ways in which
    these beliefs have helped you at the blackjack tables?
    Well, I once went through a phase where I only played blackjack at pre-determined times
    throughout the day that had been calculated by a nationally ranked astrologer, but my results were
    Seriously though my beliefs, which I occasionally use as cover, it never impairs the accuracy of my
    counting or bet sizing. I do, however, embrace a Buddhist-like paradigm of ‘universal mind’ by
    recognizing that all manifestation is consciousness. I prefer to call it ‘higher consciousness’ or
    ‘quantum reality’...................

    so mull that over a bit guys, cause i gotta head out on a lil road trip here at the moment and the little lady is gonna have my a$$ if i don't get off this computer..........
    more later.
    best regards,
    mr fr0g MMOA honorary predator
    that's my take on it your mileage may vary.
    for senior citizen fuzzy count click link:

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2006

    Default warm & fuzzy

    ...... ahhh, that was a great trip, wowser one of them times when one can do no wrong, a heater i guess, wow....

    had a friend used to always say, "so many things, so many things...", dude would say it all the time. that's how i feel when i think about writing about this fuzzy count idear.
    just will say, the fuzzy count is pretty much of a flop, so stop reading now if you like.
    it's a great idea though. simplicity, ahh yeah, a'int that the way a great play is? simple, yeah!
    i dunno, the idea was pretty much, well, ok, say you been counting cards for a few years or so. pretty much you know the gig pretty well by then, no? but what a drag it can be, no? especially with a slow a$$ dealer, no? like the drip, drip, drip on the forehead of water torcher. so but if you are counting cards, it's a quantitative thing, numbers, running count and true count, pretty much sorta thing. so the fuzzy count idea is ok, well how about a qualitative approach as opposed to the quantitative?. then making decisions on the qualitative information as opposed to making decisions on the quantitative. then too, having had experience quantitatively counting cards using the 'normal' optimal approach then one can let that experience be ones guide in making qualitative decisions. pretty much that was the idea. when i was trying it out i also threw in some of the methodology described by author of No Need To Count, Leon B. Dubey, Jr. hey don't laugh guys, dude was a real genuine rocket scientist, lol.
    so but anyway, my results as compared to genuine 'normal' card counting were not impressive. down right scary, really, lol. then i also did some testing using Norm's cvbj software (great software by the way!!!). i'd try and fuzzy count playing the software, then go in and look at the logs and see how my raised bets compared to what the software said the true count was sorta thing. geesh it was kind of frustrating to see how often i'd end up raising my bet when the count was negative, lol.
    so but anyway, i still love the idea, the simplicity of it, the more natural approach, if it would just work lol.
    i a'int giving up on the idea, just other sorta plays have become important for me to mess with for now, so the whole gig is on the back burner for me for now.
    best regards,
    mr fr0g MMOA honorary predator
    that's my take on it your mileage may vary.
    for senior citizen fuzzy count click link:

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Atlanta area


    Quote Originally Posted by sagefr0g View Post
    I once debated this issue with Don Schlesinger, who labeled my approach “sloppy, with no
    inherent advantage over precise.” I countered that if he was to replace “sloppy” with “fuzzy,” as in
    what computer science calls ‘fuzzy-logic,’ I would opt for the latter.
    From Wikipedia --

    Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic; it deals with reasoning that is approximate rather than fixed and exact. Compared to traditional binary sets (where variables may take on true or false values), fuzzy logic variables may have a truth value that ranges in degree between 0 and 1. Fuzzy logic has been extended to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. The term "fuzzy logic" was introduced with the 1965 proposal of fuzzy set theory by Lotfi A. Zadeh. Fuzzy logic has been applied to many fields, from control theory to artificial intelligence. Fuzzy logics had, however, been studied since the 1920s, as infinite-valued logics.

  5. #20


    Quote Originally Posted by sagefr0g View Post
    i don't rightly know, just i was remiss in excluding such methodology from my inquiry, is all. historical methods of obtaining an advantage (pre Thorp) that wouldn't be considered illegal cheating is what i'm interested in.
    i know Thorp in his book wrote about the Greasy chicken eater at the bj tables, but card marking now would be considered illegal cheating, probably was back then as well i guess, just hard to prove on that guy.
    Mnemonics is one way. Other ways include hand signals, coded language, body posture tells, manipulation of a chip/coin/dollar placement, working as a crew, card marking, card bending, edge sorting, dealing seconds, having a card mechanic mechanically control the deck to have certain cards remain in play while cutting other cards out of play on the next deal. Arnold Snyder in his book, "The Big Book of Blackjack" briefly recounts a Vingt-et-un player I believe in France or somewhere back in the "old days" who boasted that he was the best around. I think he must have been a card mechanic or a sleight of hand specialist who was ripping fools off left and right.
    Last edited by Blitzkrieg; January 17th, 2017 at 10:28 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Counting and Insurance
    By Automatic Monkey in forum Modern Blackjack
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 8th, 2017, 07:44 PM
  2. CSM Counting?
    By THEBARKINGSTORK in forum Modern Blackjack
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 24th, 2016, 07:20 PM
  3. Seriously Moo, a Counting Boot Camp?
    By Machinist in forum Gambling AP Community Miscellanea
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: April 17th, 2016, 01:52 AM
  4. How to Practice Counting
    By MJOK in forum Modern Blackjack
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 6th, 2016, 12:03 PM
  5. Sniffing Rosemary for Better Card Counting
    By zengrifter in forum Psi -powered Living & Gambling
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 7th, 2014, 10:39 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts