+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 117

Thread: TARZAN's Count

  1. #76
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    Disagree. IMO its the play of stiffs in those moments when the bivaluate adjustment shows its real power.
    Sure, it has real power. But I would rather bias my real power towards the optimum for the $300 hands than the $10 hands.

    Nicest thing about the Tarzan Count is you can use the 6-9 vs. 10 part for your hitting of 12's, that's something that can come up when you have a lot of money down.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    82

    Default Not just 12vs2

    Quote Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey View Post
    Sure, it has real power. But I would rather bias my real power towards the optimum for the $300 hands than the $10 hands.

    Nicest thing about the Tarzan Count is you can use the 6-9 vs. 10 part for your hitting of 12's, that's something that can come up when you have a lot of money down.
    It goes way beyond just 12vs2 though and extends to all hands. How about knowing exactly what deck compositions in which you would double 12vs6? Can you do this with any count that only takes into account density of {T}? No, it's an impossibility. This occurs in what would be considered a relatively neutral count using Hi-Lo and not factoring in (8,9). I should go dig out the actual numbers on this one to show you what I'm talking about. It would give you a better idea of how the method works with this whole idea of comparing a ratio of groupings to a chart and simply studying it until every time you see that hand you can match up any given set of numbers to a relatively exact point on a chart that clearly defines your playing decision. It comes down to performing a set of choreographed and rehearsed moves that you train to perform at speed in real time at the tables. For instance, the count is 0-13-2-7r @2 1/2 and I have A,5vs3. Without even thinking about it or having to break it down I recognize the deficit {6-9} and know to double (Hi-Lo guy hits). It's a no brainer because I have studied the chart, know the effect of deficit {6-9} on this hand and know that I clearly fall into the zone to double with this particular deck composition without even thinking about it much, almost automatically. The Hi-Lo index is to double at TC+4 but guess what... Density of {T} alone means the index is inaccurate a good portion of the time... The index is wrong or at least wrong a good portion of the time. As a matter of fact, using {T} density alone as the sole factor in determining the index for this hand (accurately) is impossible! I should give you some more actual information on it all as I am sure you would be amused and impressed, AutoMonkey. It's not just another counting method that is not unlike any other counting method out there just some hybrid of something else. It's altogether different and looks at things from a different perspective.




  3. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post
    It goes way beyond just 12vs2 though and extends to all hands. How about knowing exactly what deck compositions in which you would double 12vs6? Can you do this with any count that only takes into account density of {T}? No, it's an impossibility. This occurs in what would be considered a relatively neutral count using Hi-Lo and not factoring in (8,9). I should go dig out the actual numbers on this one to show you what I'm talking about. It would give you a better idea of how the method works with this whole idea of comparing a ratio of groupings to a chart and simply studying it until every time you see that hand you can match up any given set of numbers to a relatively exact point on a chart that clearly defines your playing decision. It comes down to performing a set of choreographed and rehearsed moves that you train to perform at speed in real time at the tables. For instance, the count is 0-13-2-7r @2 1/2 and I have A,5vs3. Without even thinking about it or having to break it down I recognize the deficit {6-9} and know to double (Hi-Lo guy hits). It's a no brainer because I have studied the chart, know the effect of deficit {6-9} on this hand and know that I clearly fall into the zone to double with this particular deck composition without even thinking about it much, almost automatically. The Hi-Lo index is to double at TC+4 but guess what... Density of {T} alone means the index is inaccurate a good portion of the time... The index is wrong or at least wrong a good portion of the time. As a matter of fact, using {T} density alone as the sole factor in determining the index for this hand (accurately) is impossible! I should give you some more actual information on it all as I am sure you would be amused and impressed, AutoMonkey. It's not just another counting method that is not unlike any other counting method out there just some hybrid of something else. It's altogether different and looks at things from a different perspective.



    I've always been a believer in your system, just have not had the time or strong enough desire to learn it. It does take a certain passion to master such a system. Your system reminds me of Robert Downey Jr. in his role of Sherlock Holmes.
    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. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Before I consider buying the book, I will need to see: (1) proof that the plays are mathematically correct, and (2) proof of gain relative to other systems.

  5. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fat_bumblebee View Post
    Before I consider buying the book, I will need to see: (1) proof that the plays are mathematically correct, and (2) proof of gain relative to other systems.
    can't answer for Tarzan, but for the multiparameter approach refer to Griffin TOB.
    "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

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post
    It goes way beyond just 12vs2 though and extends to all hands. How about knowing exactly what deck compositions in which you would double 12vs6? Can you do this with any count that only takes into account density of {T}? No, it's an impossibility. This occurs in what would be considered a relatively neutral count using Hi-Lo and not factoring in (8,9). I should go dig out the actual numbers on this one to show you what I'm talking about. It would give you a better idea of how the method works with this whole idea of comparing a ratio of groupings to a chart and simply studying it until every time you see that hand you can match up any given set of numbers to a relatively exact point on a chart that clearly defines your playing decision. It comes down to performing a set of choreographed and rehearsed moves that you train to perform at speed in real time at the tables. For instance, the count is 0-13-2-7r @2 1/2 and I have A,5vs3. Without even thinking about it or having to break it down I recognize the deficit {6-9} and know to double (Hi-Lo guy hits). It's a no brainer because I have studied the chart, know the effect of deficit {6-9} on this hand and know that I clearly fall into the zone to double with this particular deck composition without even thinking about it much, almost automatically. The Hi-Lo index is to double at TC+4 but guess what... Density of {T} alone means the index is inaccurate a good portion of the time... The index is wrong or at least wrong a good portion of the time. As a matter of fact, using {T} density alone as the sole factor in determining the index for this hand (accurately) is impossible! I should give you some more actual information on it all as I am sure you would be amused and impressed, AutoMonkey. It's not just another counting method that is not unlike any other counting method out there just some hybrid of something else. It's altogether different and looks at things from a different perspective.



    Does your count have basically the same benefits as DHME, or have you built additional utility into it? I'm sure the advantages of the DHME have already been studied, so that this will give some idea to those interested as to the value of your system.
    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

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fat_bumblebee View Post
    Before I consider buying the book, I will need to see: (1) proof that the plays are mathematically correct, and (2) proof of gain relative to other systems.
    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    can't answer for Tarzan, but for the multiparameter approach refer to Griffin TOB.
    In "Theory of Blackjack" Peter Griffin alludes to "the ultimate human capability" using 2,7,8,9,A side counts placing the playing efficiency at .90 or so. He also notes the difficulty of incorporating the 6,7,8,9 in a point count as they occasionally behave as "low cards" and occasionally as "high cards" is how he puts it. I sought to bypass this obstacle and did it by separating TC for betting purposes and DC (deck composition) for playing purposes... they are two completely separate things and playing decisions are not necessarily actually based on TC. I look at the specific behavior of these cards on each individual hand rather than basing all playing decisions up a single integer upon a single number line. This is what breaks the boundaries of .70 playing efficiency barrier and even the boundaries set forth by Peter Griffin when he discusses the difficulty in factoring cards that "sometimes behave as low cards and sometimes behave as high cards" capping out PE at about .92 due to the difficulty in incorporating these values in any universal manner in a point count.

    Bumblebee, you also have to consider if I want to even sell you the book to begin with! Hahaha One thing I refuse to do no matter what is to buy you a copy of "Theory of Blackjack" though. I've provided enough snippets of information for virtually anyone to concur that my play is mathematically correct and you're going to have to go out and buy your very own copy of TOB since I'm not buying you one for Christmas or anything. I have said that not only is BC increased (as shown in the essay "Determination of TC for betting purposes") but PE is somewhere between .90 to .96 depending upon just how far down the rabbit hole you wish to go. Are you seriously saying, "Well gee... If I don't know whether the PE is exactly .92 or if it's exactly .95 so I'm just going to pout and stick with a PE that maxes out at .70 gosh darn it!" Yeah, .70 or so if you are using HiOpt2 but more like .51 PE using Hi-Lo, something like that.

    I don't know exactly because it's just that, how far down the rabbit hole do you wish to go? The {6-9} grouping breaks down further and you can side count (9), go ratio higher to lower on (6,7) compared to (8,9) within the {6-9} grouping, go ratio higher to lower on (2,3) compared to (4,5) within the {2-5}, etc. I've worked with a variety of subgroupings dependent upon the game I'm playing (6D, 2D, etc.). Does it matter whether it's actually .91 or if it's .96? My system is the means of achieving that ultimate human capability that Peter Griffin discussed and perhaps slightly beyond so we're going to quibble over whether it's .90 or it's .96 and that is any sort of primary consideration for examining the method? I would think the primary consideration to be (after you go buy a copy of "Theory of Blackjack") whether you have the aptitude to learn it, whether you have the determination to follow through to learn it and whether you will be playing enough blackjack in the remainder of your lifetime to make learning this feasible over other simpler methods. The bottom line is that there's just not going to be many people that ultimately learn this method regardless of whether it is publicized or not but it's interesting enough to be worth recording for posterity at least.

    I get back on the road soon and will be away from a computer and the writing project for a time once again so I need to blurt out whatever I have to say on the forums now and in a hurry. Please excuse me if I drop off here and there as I have along the way because I need to be out slumming around at a casino or two along the way someplace in a town near you!


    Last edited by Tarzan; November 6th, 2014 at 01:04 AM.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post
    It goes way beyond just 12vs2 though and extends to all hands. How about knowing exactly what deck compositions in which you would double 12vs6? Can you do this with any count that only takes into account density of {T}? No, it's an impossibility. This occurs in what would be considered a relatively neutral count using Hi-Lo and not factoring in (8,9). I should go dig out the actual numbers on this one to show you what I'm talking about. It would give you a better idea of how the method works with this whole idea of comparing a ratio of groupings to a chart and simply studying it until every time you see that hand you can match up any given set of numbers to a relatively exact point on a chart that clearly defines your playing decision. It comes down to performing a set of choreographed and rehearsed moves that you train to perform at speed in real time at the tables. For instance, the count is 0-13-2-7r @2 1/2 and I have A,5vs3. Without even thinking about it or having to break it down I recognize the deficit {6-9} and know to double (Hi-Lo guy hits). It's a no brainer because I have studied the chart, know the effect of deficit {6-9} on this hand and know that I clearly fall into the zone to double with this particular deck composition without even thinking about it much, almost automatically. The Hi-Lo index is to double at TC+4 but guess what... Density of {T} alone means the index is inaccurate a good portion of the time... The index is wrong or at least wrong a good portion of the time. As a matter of fact, using {T} density alone as the sole factor in determining the index for this hand (accurately) is impossible! I should give you some more actual information on it all as I am sure you would be amused and impressed, AutoMonkey. It's not just another counting method that is not unlike any other counting method out there just some hybrid of something else. It's altogether different and looks at things from a different perspective.



    That's the problem though, you might be able to double 12 vs.2 with 8,9 vs. everything else, but not 6,7,8,9. Those cards are too valuable to a dealer with a deuce.

    As far as the stiff soft doubles, sure, an author called counts like these "dry counts" and a lot of this data is useful for splits too. But you have to keep it in perspective; your total win rate isn't increased that much by fancy plays on splits and soft doubles, even if you did have a computer with you. Give me an ace and face with a big bet down, that's what gets the money! Not knocking it at all, it does have value and if you can implement it well, that's great, it's a winning system. I would only warn against overestimating its value.

    Being I'm also a guy who uses fancy counts, if I'm playing a game where I need good plays I'm usually using some variation on the forbidden JSTAT count, also known as the Fry Count. Sidecount the aces, and you now have perfect insurance information. Sidecount the 5 vs. the 9, and you then have much higher BC and superior PE on certain plays. There are a lot of places you can go with that count.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post

    Bumblebee, you also have to consider if I want to even sell you the book to begin with!

    You won't sell it to me and I won't buy it either because you don't know how your system compares to others! All you can do is to use lengthy statements to describe how powerful it is. Good luck with the sale. I'm doing fine with my simple system. I will not buy or invest effort in something without knowing how good it is.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Don S. is a well known BJ author. Here's what he said about your magic system:

    http://www.bj21.com/boards/free/free...gi?read=168062

  11. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fat_bumblebee View Post
    Don S. is a well known BJ author. Here's what he said about your magic system:

    http://www.bj21.com/boards/free/free...gi?read=168062
    Not at all. DonS is discussing multi-level counts.
    Multiparameter systems that take into account the bivaluate nature of key cards like 7s, in general, and Tarzan's count in particular,
    are not bound by the linear limits of multlevel counts. Were you confused about the difference between multilevel and multiparameter?
    "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. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fat_bumblebee View Post
    You won't sell it to me and I won't buy it either because you don't know how your system compares to others! All you can do is to use lengthy statements to describe how powerful it is. Good luck with the sale. I'm doing fine with my simple system. I will not buy or invest effort in something without knowing how good it is.
    Until now I would say that Tarzan never had a thought toward making money from the sale of his system, only making money from the use of his system. In all these years, he has never tried to hype his system for sale, only explain somewhat how it works. If I were still serious about playing, I would jump at a chance to try on his work of a lifetime. He swears by it, and he doesn't seem a maniac to me. But that's just me-- I believe he has something quite extraordinary, although difficult to work unless one immerses himself in it-- it should be a hoot and I'm tempted to resume my playing days. Only by doing it can anyone expect to evaluate it. I'm not sure it's adaptable to a Norm sim, because it doesn't work in mechanics like other systems, using ratios instead of merely counts, but I may b wrong about that.
    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

  13. #88

    Default

    At the end of the day all that really matters is what method or system people feel comfortable playing Blackjack with and if the $$$ is being made.

  14. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    At the end of the day all that really matters is what method or system people feel comfortable playing Blackjack with and if the $$$ is being made.
    Forsooth.
    "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. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    Forsooth.
    such is the point of contention regarding stuff like little Johnny and Sally's school grades, is it ok to make c+, b's or does mommy and daddy want them to get all a's?, and what should they want?
    stuff like is illustrious 18 as illustrious as every possible index?
    and now we find there is even such a thing as a bivaluate nature to the cards?
    yoiks.
    i'm like Aslan, i think i'd like to give Tarzan's treatise a read.
    so much for the fuzzy count.
    best regards,
    mr fr0g MMOA honorary predator
    STRENGTH - HONOR - HEART
    that's my take on it your mileage may vary.
    for senior citizen fuzzy count click link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTiP4ZIUfI

+ 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