+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 117

Thread: TARZAN's Count

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Then why doesn't hilo count 7s and leave 5s neutral?

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fat_bumblebee View Post
    Then why doesn't hilo count 7s and leave 5s neutral?
    Because the system wasn't designed to work that way. Removing the 5's from the deck has the greatest EOR (effects of removal) which is good for the players.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fat_bumblebee View Post
    Then why doesn't hilo count 7s and leave 5s neutral?
    I think the aim of a side count and the aim of tagging a block of contiguous ranks are different. Normal side counts are used to estimate the approximate ratio of high to low cards, whereas side counts are used especially for certain specific plays, such as 14, vs. 10, no? It does not seem to make sense to me to value a 5 as zero while the values on either side of it are tagged +1 or +2, but this is just an intuition on my part. It would seem to distort the ratio of high to low cards to do so. The side count of 7's is to gain extra information over the what the normal count gives, and the 7 can be used in more ways than other possible side counts. Is this right, zg? I think in hilo, additional information would be garnered by adding a side count of 5's, but not as useful as a side count of 7's. The 5's would be counted twice, once in the running count and once in the side count, but to different ends. Is this the way it works, zg? I have never used a side count, other than aces to some limited extent.
    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

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept and application of multiparameter adjustments and bivaluate approximations.
    I'm not. But I did take a look at some of the info that Griffin had to say about card groupings in that link you provided. Griffin compares the Gordon Count with Hi-Opt I whereas he notes that it's better to track 2 to 3 cards (6-9 groupings) with emphasis on 7, 8 & 7, 8, 9 in regards to the systems being used. One thing that I learned from Tarzans video and ability to track all of the card groupings, is that it can be done with other card counting systems. All of them I believe. I've counted and tried the technique with 3 different card counting systems in the last several days and it is possible to know deck composition breakdown at any moment. I see the tracking of the 7, 8, and 9 as the key, at least for the system I'm using. But being able to properly use the extra information to the best of my advantage is another story.
    Last edited by Blitzkrieg; September 23rd, 2014 at 04:33 AM.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    I'm not. But I did take a look at some of the info that Griffin had to say about card groupings in that link you provided. Griffin compares the Gordon Count with Hi-Opt I whereas he notes that it's better to track 2 to 3 cards (6-9 groupings) with emphasis on 7, 8 & 7, 8, 9 in regards to the systems being used. One thing that I learned from Tarzans video and ability to track all of the card groupings, is that it can be done with other card counting systems. All of them I believe. I've counted and tried the technique with 3 different card counting systems in the last several days and it is possible to know deck composition breakdown at any moment. I see the tracking of the 7, 8, and 9 as the key, at least for the system I'm using. But being able to properly use the extra information to the best of my advantage is another story.
    Try checking out whether the easiest of all CC systems, KO, might not benefit immensely by the independent tracking of the 8 & 9 (the 7 is a part of the low cards in this unbalanced count) and additionally the ace, even though it is one of the high cards counted in KO. At least with KO it is not much trouble to incorporate some additional "work."
    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

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    I'm not. But I did take a look at some of the info that Griffin had to say about card groupings in that link you provided. Griffin compares the Gordon Count with Hi-Opt I whereas he notes that it's better to track 2 to 3 cards (6-9 groupings) with emphasis on 7, 8 & 7, 8, 9 in regards to the systems being used. One thing that I learned from Tarzans video and ability to track all of the card groupings, is that it can be done with other card counting systems. All of them I believe. I've counted and tried the technique with 3 different card counting systems in the last several days and it is possible to know deck composition breakdown at any moment. I see the tracking of the 7, 8, and 9 as the key, at least for the system I'm using. But being able to properly use the extra information to the best of my advantage is another story.
    This is the difference between my count and others. There is no side count added in per se and side count(s) are more of an integral part of the count itself. The count is a four (or more) digit number that breaks down to a "ratio per deck". This is then compared against a memorized chart tailored specifically to that hand. Obviously the EOR of a (5), for instance, is different when you have a Tvs5 than when you have a 16vs9 and not only there but also dependent upon level of penetration into the deck. It all comes down to maximum utilization of the information provided. The ratio per deck falls on some point of a chart that you have reviewed that has any given series of numbers factored in to arrive at the most proper playing decision. You know exactly what effect a surplus or deficit of the middle grouping of cards has in addition to the density of {T} information provided by any count.

    An example of this that I've used before is 12vs2. The surplus or deficit of {6-9} for this hand weigh more heavily than density of {T}. The EOR of the {6-9} is approximately double that of small cards {2-5}. You can have a balance of cards to have a neutral count using Hi-Lo causing you to hit but if there's a large surplus of {6-9} the decision is to hit, with what can be a sizeable difference in EV for the hand. Imagine knowing you have a huge surplus of (6-8) with a depletion of (9) in the {6-9} grouping when faced with a 13vs2 in what would appear to anyone else as a neutral count and hitting it, with this being the absolute correct play. This is the power of what I do... The side count is essentially factored right in to this set of numbers and is as simple as matching this up to a chart you've seen to know whether you are in the red zone or if you are in the yellow zone with all the math of it having been previously worked out, you merely have to recall where that number set falls on the chart for that hand.

    I approach completion of my manuscript, essentially the "how to" manual of exactly how to do this. It is what I consider the most effective card counting method ever devised.
    Name:  12vs2chart.jpg
Views: 176
Size:  34.5 KB

    Last edited by Tarzan; November 4th, 2014 at 05:58 PM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Exactly speaking, how much extra gain are you talking about in the two examples? How huge is huge?

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fat_bumblebee View Post
    Exactly speaking, how much extra gain are you talking about in the two examples? How huge is huge?
    50% relative-increased advantage, I would estimate without attempting any math-basis.
    "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

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    50% relative-increased advantage, I would estimate without attempting any math-basis.
    No way. It is a brilliant and effective system, but being there are already 2D systems that give you close to 100% betting correlation, the big gain is going to be from playing efficiency, and you can only get so much from that even if you were to have a computer doing a CA for every hand. I'd estimate a 10-20% benefit over High-Low and about as powerful as RPC or HO2+A with full indices.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post
    Try checking out whether the easiest of all CC systems, KO, might not benefit immensely by the independent tracking of the 8 & 9 (the 7 is a part of the low cards in this unbalanced count) and additionally the ace, even though it is one of the high cards counted in KO. At least with KO it is not much trouble to incorporate some additional "work."
    The 7 in KO or REKO would have to be pseudo counted twice since it is a part of the low cards, along with the ace which is a high card. I have not been working on tracking a 3 or 4 card grouping since late September. It takes a while to learn a smooth technique to be able to do it flawlessly and I don't feel like it's something that is out of my reach. Making proper use of the info during game play and being able to make adjustments in strategy is something that I'm not sure about. Unless I notice that the deck is so obviously tilted in regards to NO or very few 7's, 8's, and 9's being seen in a SD or DD game and lets say I'm 50% or more through the deck. Then it becomes a bit more clear for possibly more aggressive plays on those 12's, 13's, and 14's.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post
    This is the difference between my count and others. There is no side count added in per se and side count(s) are more of an integral part of the count itself. The count is a four (or more) digit number that breaks down to a "ratio per deck". This is then compared against a memorized chart tailored specifically to that hand. Obviously the EOR of a (5), for instance, is different when you have a Tvs5 than when you have a 16vs9 and not only there but also dependent upon level of penetration into the deck. It all comes down to maximum utilization of the information provided. The ratio per deck falls on some point of a chart that you have reviewed that has any given series of numbers factored in to arrive at the most proper playing decision. You know exactly what effect a surplus or deficit of the middle grouping of cards has in addition to the density of {T} information provided by any count.

    An example of this that I've used before is 12vs2. The surplus or deficit of {6-9} for this hand weigh more heavily than density of {T}. The EOR of the {6-9} is approximately double that of small cards {2-5}. You can have a balance of cards to have a neutral count using Hi-Lo causing you to hit but if there's a large surplus of {6-9} the decision is to hit, with what can be a sizeable difference in EV for the hand. Imagine knowing you have a huge surplus of (6-8) with a depletion of (9) in the {6-9} grouping when faced with a 13vs2 in what would appear to anyone else as a neutral count and hitting it, with this being the absolute correct play. This is the power of what I do... The side count is essentially factored right in to this set of numbers and is as simple as matching this up to a chart you've seen to know whether you are in the red zone or if you are in the yellow zone with all the math of it having been previously worked out, you merely have to recall where that number set falls on the chart for that hand.

    I approach completion of my manuscript, essentially the "how to" manual of exactly how to do this. It is what I consider the most effective card counting method ever devised.
    Attachment 28329
    I just typed a reply and it didn't save. Congratulations on completing your card counting method. I understand the jist of what your saying in your examples. How many other charts have you produced and does the strategy change with multiple decks in play as in 6? I did a little work with the group tracking and it takes a while to train the brain to be able to do it, it is difficult to do it the way you do it. I also don't know how to utilize the chart you provided. There are a lot of moving parts with your system.

  12. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey View Post
    No way. It is a brilliant and effective system, but being there are already 2D systems that give you close to 100% betting correlation, the big gain is going to be from playing efficiency, and you can only get so much from that even if you were to have a computer doing a CA for every hand. I'd estimate a 10-20% benefit over High-Low and about as powerful as RPC or HO2+A with full indices.
    Tend to agree, momentary lapse of cognitive discernment.

    Notwithstanding, the full-power of the Tarzan block adjustment approach may nonetheless add in excess of 25% additional gain.

    Tarzan (and m'Lady Tthree) may disagree.

    Remember, I was an enthusiastic practitioner of bivaluate adjustment (7s mostly and later the 7s/8s block) back in the day, and ultimately gave it up.
    "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. #73
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    Again, read Griffin, Humble, Mitchell, etc. -- 7s outrank all the others for boosting PE.
    Yes, but only in a flat-bet game. In a game with a spread where you are only betting a lot of money in atypical decks with a lot of 10's and A's, and you're not even in the game when those cards are in short supply, the PE values of the cards change. I don't believe these guys took that into account. This is why Zen is so effective, it can have better spread-adjusted PE in a shoe game than an ace-neutral count because at high counts the ace acts like a minor high card for playing decision, being you are splitting 10's and doubling on 10 vs. 10 and 10 vs. A.

  14. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey View Post
    Yes, but only in a flat-bet game. In a game with a spread where you are only betting a lot of money in atypical decks with a lot of 10's and A's, and you're not even in the game when those cards are in short supply, the PE values of the cards change. I don't believe these guys took that into account.
    Disagree. IMO its the play of stiffs in those moments when the bivaluate adjustment shows its real power.
    "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

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey View Post
    Yes, but only in a flat-bet game. In a game with a spread where you are only betting a lot of money in atypical decks with a lot of 10's and A's, and you're not even in the game when those cards are in short supply, the PE values of the cards change. I don't believe these guys took that into account. This is why Zen is so effective, it can have better spread-adjusted PE in a shoe game than an ace-neutral count because at high counts the ace acts like a minor high card for playing decision, being you are splitting 10's and doubling on 10 vs. 10 and 10 vs. A.
    First of all, Hey there AutoMonkey hope all is great with you! I will attempt to answer numerous questions with one post if I can pull it off. The only thing beyond mastery of my method would be to have a computer app for perfect play with you at the table. Some things (well many things really) were lost on basic DHM/Gordon as far as betting correlation and seemed like a waste of data to me. I took these groupings and redefined them, basically looking at them in a somewhat different way.

    When I have done card counting demonstrations for people (that are fellow counters), sometimes I will do something to convey the concept that there are alternative methods of solving and evaluating any given problem that would seem altogether foreign and unusual but have an incredibly efficient result. I write down a series of long multiplication problems such as 374847x.011x.012=, etc., etc., about five or six of them, hand someone a calculator and ask them if they think they can solve the problems faster on the calculator than I can solve them by hand. If I feel like fleecing them I could ask if they'd like to wager on it. Anyway, I blow through them before anyone can possibly do them on a calculator. Brainy brilliant? Nope! It's only a matter of looking at the problem in a different way, nothing more. It just happens to be incredibly fast compared to the standard method is all. You see, I am merely using Trachtenburg math which I studied when I was young as a hobby. It's a matter of following a set procedure and training to follow a certain bunch of rules for a given situation.

    It stuns and amazes people before I even start the card counting demonstration but ultimately I explain to them that it's only a matter of following a procedure, it's incredibly simple and I could teach this to a 10 year old kid. It's pretty much the same with my count... I am looking at the problem in a different way, from a perspective of ratios of card groupings to one another and availability of key cards in 330 combinations ranging from approximately -10 to +10, with individual chart(s) and side notes for each hand.

    Let's go back to this 12vs2 and examine how (A) factors into this particular hand compared to others and why specific knowledge of (A) in surplus or deficit affect each hand differently. Surplus (A) mean a lot when doubling {T}, but are not so spiffy when doubling 11. Everyone knows this of course but with a 12vs2 the (A) means only like .002, .003 range in EV, relatively neutral with surplus and deficit (A) having very little effect on the playing decision. Depending upon the hand you have a given card or grouping has a relatively neutral effect or it can have a very sizeable effect. In the case of 12vs2, the (A) has very little effect. For instance, if I have 12vs2 and the count is 0-16-5-8r @2. I break this down to a ratio per deck of 0-8-2 and stand (Hi-Lo guy hits this). If I have a count of 5-0-5 per deck I hit, if I have a count of 0-5-0 per deck I stand. Any count imaginable breaks down to being clearly in a given zone to hit or stand and anything on the line of demarcation or anything close to it is a matter of as little as .001 in EV between the two decisions. In other words, the difference in EV between 0-4-2 and 0-5-2 is so close that it's practically a coin toss but the difference in EV between 0-0-2 and 0-9-2 is significant. Does one or even two surplus or deficit (A) per deck have much effect on this hand? No. If the count was 0-16-5-10r @2 does it alter the decision? No, not for this particular hand.

    It's all about following procedure, studying the effects of key cards for a given hand and familiarizing with some charts and notes for each hand. You acclimate to following procedures and it would all fall into place and seem less complicated. To answers Blitzkrieg's questions I think I covered most of it but the thing is I completed the counting method long ago. It's been a matter of putting it into an organized typewritten format that is easily interpreted and understood by others. My original plan was not to release any of it publicly, so my notes and things have always been a sloppy mess, just stacks of shit everywhere with no rhyme or reason to it all. I still debate as to making it public from the standpoint of people feeling that it's more than they want to try to do, the viewpoint that "Hi-Lo is all you need to make it in this world" (which I find absurd) or even the possibility that casinos like Maryland Live would shit themselves at the thought that a human can be damn near as good as a computer in terms of playing efficiency and might win enough off them to buy a sno-cone at the local Dairy Queen.

    Last edited by Tarzan; November 5th, 2014 at 02:36 PM.

+ 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