+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 117

Thread: TARZAN's Count

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katz View Post
    Lady Tthree was always fond of boasting how high his IQ level is (Mensa?) and that other mere mortals always have trouble understanding what he is on about, because of his way-superior, genius-level intellect. I wonder how many times he mentioned those points, in his 7000 posts. Let me take a guess... a conservative ten% makes it 700 posts, looks pretty close.
    The only way this man can wake up is when he runs out of good luck!

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fat_bumblebee View Post
    So you really think there is much to gain to put 6 and 9 in the same group other than for the convenience of creating another group of four cards to go along with [2-5] and [10-K]?
    I don't know what their is to gain in Tarzans count. I'm trying to understand the concept of the counting strategy that he uses. It's very different from what one would consider as the industry standard. I would have to think that he utilizes the 6-9 grouping as a way to keep track of the remaining cards since the 3 main groups break up the deck into 1/3's or 33%. I really don't understand why cards in that grouping are assigned a tag value of .3

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    I don't know what their is to gain in Tarzans count. I'm trying to understand the concept of the counting strategy that he uses. It's very different from what one would consider as the industry standard.
    Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept and application of multiparameter adjustments and bivaluate approximations.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept and application of multiparameter adjustments and bivaluate approximations.
    Is that an adjunct to cross-deviatory dissonant reverberatory dissimilitudes of parallel paradigms in oscillatory chronic bivaluatory synchronizations? Yes, I am well familiar.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    I don't know what their is to gain in Tarzans count. I'm trying to understand the concept of the counting strategy that he uses. It's very different from what one would consider as the industry standard. I would have to think that he utilizes the 6-9 grouping as a way to keep track of the remaining cards since the 3 main groups break up the deck into 1/3's or 33%. I really don't understand why cards in that grouping are assigned a tag value of .3

    "I don't know what their is to gain in Tarzans count." (I could do a "Don Schlesinger" right now! Spelling, grammar) There is a gain!

    -In the posted essay, "TC for determination for betting purposes" a clear increase is demonstrated in betting correlation. You can research the math of it or I can explain it to you in one word... displacement. If the deck has a percentage of high cards to low cards and you add a bunch of {6-9} did you increase EV or lower EV? If the deck has a given percentage of high cards to low cards and you take away a bunch of {6-9} the same ratio of high cards to low cards did you increase or lower the EV? Hint: If there are more {6-9}, then there are less {T} by volume in the deck. Start punching some values into a computer and you'll see this trend. Although there is a slight increase in betting correlation, the biggest gain is in playing efficiency.

    Let's elaborate on the increased playing efficiency of this system. The value of keycards to a given hand often has more effect on EOR than density of {T} with regard to playing decisions. How you may look at a 12vs2 is a lot different than the way I look at a 12vs2, for example. The index for 12vs2 using Hi-Lo is +3. This is based on density of {T} and nothing else because the (7-9) are not factored in at all using Hi-Lo. Removal of a random {6-9} from an even distribution of {6-9} has double the EOR value of a random {2-5} taken from an even distribution of {2-5}. With this being the case and since (7-9) are not factored in using Hi-Lo the index is often incorrect. The value of surplus of deficit {6-9} have considerably more effect than removal of {2-5} on this hand, approximately double the value.

    I'm going to do a little "cherry picking" and make a case in point comparison. I have a count of 20-0-8-8r @2, calculate the TC+4.6 and betting accordingly. A Hi-Lo player would call this TC+7, assuming an even distribution of {6-9} but assuming we both had the same bet out there of $1000 (which we wouldn't) and got a 12vs2, a crappy negative expectation hand that you don't want to see in any count, much less a positive count that you have a larger bet on the table. I
    would hit according to the index, losing about $205 and the Hi-Lo player would stand, losing about $360. Add in the betting correlation information and I would lose about $103 because my max bet would not be out there.

    Why does this happen? Because the surplus of {6-9} have more impact on the correct playing decision than the higher number of low cards compared to high cards. The much increases EOR values of the {6-9} grouping, particularly the (8,9) have more impact upon this hand than anything else. They are keycards for this hand completely ignored and unaccounted for in any way by the Hi-Lo player.



    "It's very different from what one would consider as the industry standard."

    -I didn't create the system to conform to any standard other than to be as efficient as possible. Griffin, Grosjean, Wong, Mitchell, Snyder, Schlesinger and others... Everything I do is based on elements from all of them, using their math and calculations and merely taking a different approach. For any of them to question what I do is to question themselves... they created me and all donated little pieces and elements of what I do! I developed my methods to suit my own tastes over the years and in that respect went off on various tangents of what I thought would enhance my skills for my personal use. I had no intent of ever sharing any of it, thinking it all as nothing more than just another counting method that would be considered perhaps too difficult, strange or obscure to anyone else. I thought it would look to others like it was dreamed up by the “Col. Kurtz” of blackjack and like in “Apocalypse Now” he seriously fell off the program and resorted to tactics that others would consider insane.


    "I really don't understand why cards in that grouping are assigned a tag value of .3"

    -Because that happens to be the closest approximation of EOR value for the grouping in terms of a fractional value, such as 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 rather than tossing a numerical value out there that carries out to 6 or so decimal points or whatever it is. It is based on the calculated EOR of the grouping and not something I just dreamed up. I have talked about a perfect symmetry that occurs using these groupings having to do with EOR value of {2-5} = EOR value of {T} and how this forms a basis upon which you can calculate the other variables from there, which are the {6-9} and (A). This reminds me of people questioning basic strategy. It's not good enough to know the basic strategy move... they have to know why. You can explain until the cows come home or you can tell them, "STFU and memorize this basic strategy chart!"Hahaha Go dig around looking at EOR values in various publications and you will see lots of whys but knowing why won't help you learn the system any faster. It's a matter of following procedure more than worrying about the whys that have all been worked out for you. The math of it all checks out.




    Name:  12vs2chart.jpg
Views: 281
Size:  34.5 KB
    Last edited by Tarzan; September 10th, 2014 at 03:35 PM.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post
    "I don't know what their is to gain in Tarzans count." (I could do a "Don Schlesinger" right now! Spelling, grammar) There is a gain!

    -In the posted essay, "TC for determination for betting purposes" a clear increase is demonstrated in betting correlation. You can research the math of it or I can explain it to you in one word... displacement. If the deck has a percentage of high cards to low cards and you add a bunch of {6-9} did you increase EV or lower EV? If the deck has a given percentage of high cards to low cards and you take away a bunch of {6-9} the same ratio of high cards to low cards did you increase or lower the EV? Hint: If there are more {6-9}, then there are less {T} by volume in the deck. Start punching some values into a computer and you'll see this trend. Although there is a slight increase in betting correlation, the biggest gain is in playing efficiency.

    Let's elaborate on the increased playing efficiency of this system. The value of keycards to a given hand often has more effect on EOR than density of {T} with regard to playing decisions. How you may look at a 12vs2 is a lot different than the way I look at a 12vs2, for example. The index for 12vs2 using Hi-Lo is +3. This is based on density of {T} and nothing else because the (7-9) are not factored in at all using Hi-Lo. Removal of a random {6-9} from an even distribution of {6-9} has double the EOR value of a random {2-5} taken from an even distribution of {2-5}. With this being the case and since (7-9) are not factored in using Hi-Lo the index is often incorrect. The value of surplus of deficit {6-9} have considerably more effect than removal of {2-5} on this hand, approximately double the value.
    Yes BUT ... am I mistaken that betting accuracy, while improved, is not the main thrust - that the enhanced PE due to optimal stiff
    play accounting for the bivaluate cards is paramount? (this would be true for the classic DHM-type multiparameter adjustment.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    82

    Default

    That's a bingo, ZenGrifter! The increased betting correlation is nothing compared to the gains in PE with this type of system but the gain in PE really shines on certain types of hands.
    Last edited by Tarzan; September 10th, 2014 at 04:55 PM.

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post



    I am in the process of putting the whole system into an easy enough to understand format, the official "how to" manual of this.




    Three counts for the Elven-Kings under the sky,
    Seven for the Dwarf-Lords in their halls of stone,
    Nine for mortal men doomed to die,
    One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
    In the land of Casinos where the shadow lie.
    One count to rule them all, one count to find them,
    One count to bring them all and in the cash flow bind them,
    In the land of Casinos where the shadows lie.


    There's an important point that Arnold Snyder made in his article about utilization of the information. The additional information from side counts is useless unless it is properly utilized in your calculations of your betting and playing strategies. Something I sought out long ago, right from the beginning was to achieve maximum utilization of information. Where other counts have about 20 points of reference between -10 to +10 I have 330 unique points of reference over that same span. These specific "fingerprints" of deck composition match up against a memorized chart(s) for each hand, providing maximum utilization of the information derived from the DHME style groupings. I seriously question how many people may ever learn it though.

    There is in fact a certain sense of pride in having a playing efficiency that is as close to a computer using perfect play as it gets. I attribute my methods and tactics to my overall success over the years but there may be those that may claim that I am nothing more than a lucky slob that happens to be sitting on the happier side of the bell curve, a valid topic so who knows...
    That's a cool video, but I don't think the challenge in the count lies in the actual counting of it. It's on figuring out how to use the information.
    Last edited by Deathclutch; September 10th, 2014 at 04:55 PM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post


    I have a count of 20-0-8-8r @2,

    What does it mean? [2-5]=20, [6-9]=0, [T]=8, [A]=8 with 2 decks left?

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fat_bumblebee View Post
    What does it mean? [2-5]=20, [6-9]=0, [T]=8, [A]=8 with 2 decks left?
    It means he has seen

    20 more 2-5s than 6-9
    12 more 2-5s than T's
    8 Aces remaining

  11. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fat_bumblebee View Post
    So how much extra advantage do you gain knowing vs not knowing all these? I know the exact composition at the start of the shoe, but so what?
    For BC the gain is modest, considering that the BC for a good ace-reckoned level 2 or 3 count is near 100, but the best multi-level count will typically top out at a playing efficiency of 70 - adding ONLY a multiparameter adjustment for 7s will increase the PE by nearly 50%, as I recall. So when I played HO-2 in the 70s and early 80s I side-counted aces and 7s and made the bivaluate adjustments for only those two cards, but I abandoned the multiparameter approach after Snyder's Zen came out.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  12. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    For BC the gain is modest, considering that the BC for a good ace-reckoned level 2 or 3 count is near 100, but the best multi-level count will typically top out at a playing efficiency of 70 - adding ONLY a multiparameter adjustment for 7s will increase the PE by nearly 50%, as I recall. So when I played HO-2 in the 70s and early 80s I side-counted aces and 7s and made the bivaluate adjustments for only those two cards, but I abandoned the multiparameter approach after Snyder's Zen came out.
    Actually, prior to abandoning the multi-parameter I started counting the 7s-8s as a block, but then I gave it up.
    The 7s are the most powerful, which is why I've often argued that ZEN with 7s side-count will trump HO-2 with the obligatory Ace side-count.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fat_bumblebee View Post
    The only way this man can wake up is when he runs out of good luck!
    My goodness gracious, I have never been so insulted in all my life!
    I shall not further cast my peals before the swine, you fat bumbling bee!

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathclutch View Post
    It means he has seen

    20 more 2-5s than 6-9
    12 more 2-5s than T's
    8 Aces remaining
    Then why would a HILO player call it TC+7?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    So when I played HO-2 in the 70s and early 80s I side-counted aces and 7s and made the bivaluate adjustments for only those two cards
    You played in the 70s? How old are you?

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Breaking Vegas: Card Count King
    By Katz in forum Casino Anecdotes & Trip Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 16th, 2013, 01:04 PM
  2. The Clinton Body Count (my 10,000th post)
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 1st, 2008, 10:00 PM
  3. 2004 Vote Count off by 9,000,000
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2006, 01:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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