See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1220212223 LastLast
Results 274 to 286 of 293

Thread: Glitzensplizzle on my glockenspiel

  1. #274
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    883


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I'm not convinced that Tarzans system is any better than some of the stronger systems already in use to make a significant difference in wins. If Tarzan insists on it, more power to him.
    Last edited by Blitzkrieg; 09-18-2014 at 05:18 PM.

  2. #275
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Thus alter the accuracy for defining the best large bet opportunities - 10-10-8 is far better than 2-2-0.
    The pen tell you what that 2-2-0 is in actual ratio. That is why I use the quotes around ratio. If your pen estimate is off some it doesn't affect the ratio much as it would for BK's method but he seems to still want to use the info linearly hence the idea of using the same indices with applying Tarzans method to any count. Ratios aren't used in linear calculations. Tarzan.s method has multidimensional ratio based indices that are not calculated at the table. The pen combined with the 3 column count is the equivalent of a calculated TC and the index is in 3 dimensions with the pen being a fourth dimension. The index look s different at different levels of pen and different ratios. It is hard to explain but Tarzan illustrated quite well in one post he made.

  3. #276
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    I increase accuracy. Why don't you admit that I'm right and yes it does work with Hi-Lo, Tarzans counting application fits on Hi-Lo like a glove and it is an innovation that is unheard of to me. 7,8, & 9 act like an axle for which everything else revolves. Instead of telling me how it cannot work, tell me how it "can" work. It seems like a type of Super Hi-Lo count because every card can be accounted for and every grouping. What you regard as a lot more difficult seems like child's play to me and the accounting of cards using HI-LO strategy can be 100% accounted for at any moment and it doesn't matter how many decks are in play for the counter and it comes with an index that already exists! This is what practitioners of Tarzans count have been waiting for, being able to use his approach to counting with an index, here is something for them to ponder.
    Forgive me for not posting much. I've been busy to say the least, on the road here and there minus my computer, etc. Where to begin... wow... Moses tosses some tag values out there that make no sense and don't add up mathematically to me in his speculations and experimentations, Tthree goes on in broad generalizations of theory behind it that explain much of it but nothing specific which can possibly further confuse rather than clarify and Blitzkrieg has it in mind to make my count into just another stale old count that is not unlike every other counting method out there! What are friends for??!??!!!Hahahaa

    Allow me to explain what this world of difference is. Let's say I have a count of 8-0-7-10r @2 1/4 and there is an even distribution of {6-9}. At a glance I can see it adds up to a neutral count and I toss my minimum bet out there. That's it... that's pretty much the extent of the usefulness of this TC information, it told me how much to bet. From there I am dealt a 12vs2 and the count has become 10-0-8-10r @2 1/4. I estimate the ratio per deck at 4-0-3 and see that it's still well into the zone to hit simply by matching up this ratio to known values on a chart. Without even having to do the exact calculation I know I am well within the range to hit without further calculation and without having to factor in the (A)... it would be overkill. It would take a lot more than one (A) to sway the decision that deep into the zone to hit.

    The configuration of the three numbers 10-0-8 puts me well into the zone to hit this hand. If
    it was closer to the line I would have to make a more exact determination but this one sticks out like a sore thumb. Aces have little effect on this hand but the effect they do have is that surplus Aces decrease EV and deficit Aces increase EV. The Hi-Lo player does not differentiate this and counts (A) the same as a {T}, when in fact for this hand the Ace counts as a "one".

    What happened to the Hi-Lo player? Well, he gets the 12vs2, adjusts his count and figures he has TC+3 or more (depending upon (6)'s) and stands (which is the incorrect playing decision). What the Hi-Lo player is going on is this TC information, a dot on a number line for his playing decision. No matter how much information you apply to come up with that one dot on a number line, you are still basing your playing decision on this one dot on a number line. This means the index has it's limitations, which I will point out.

    As you may (or may not) recall I mentioned about an article Arnold Snyder came out with many years ago talking about maximum use of the information provided by side counts. He basically stated that unless the information was properly utilized that the side count would be ineffective or less effective, a true statement. What this implies is that if you add a side count, you had better understand how it affects specific indices and how to use the information provided.

    I went for maximum utilization and went so far as to make any and all side counts an integral part of the count basically. Why is Tarzan Count different than other counting methods? What is the biggest difference? TC is only for betting purposes with Tarzan count and all playing decisions are based on deck composition. Let's get back to out 12vs2 for a minute. The way I look at it is different than the way you look at it. TC has nothing to do with the playing decision. Playing decisions are based upon specific deck composition. I treat them as two completely separate evolutions.

    I can have a TC+3 and due to a bunch of extra Aces and when I get that 12vs2, the deck composition may dictate that I hit rather than stand, depending upon how close to the index I am. In essence, the TC+3 for 12vs2 can be wrong when using counts such as Hi-Lo. The Hi-Lo player could be standing on TC+4, doing the right thing and be totally wrong as far as actual correct playing decision due to the limited information. The EOR of a {6-9} is twice as much as a {2-5} for this particular hand. Take away two (2)'s, three (7)'s, four (8)'s and one {T} off the top of two decks and you have a 12vs2 in front of you the correct decision is to stand with Tarzan Count... the Hi-Lo guy hits it because the count is less than TC+3, near neutral. It is the sole piece of information that he is going on. Where the Hi-Lo (or other system) player uses about 20 points between -10 and +10, I use 330 unique points within this same range to define deck composition and this matches up to known values on charts for the specific hand. The precision is incredible.

    You must bear in mind that if you add side counts to Hi-Lo to make "Super HiLo", you must be able to apply the information to all of your index play to make it worthwhile. You must also bear in mind that you would be creating a count that is not unlike any other count out there that would have it's limitations on playing efficiency if you are basing your playing decision upon a single integer on a single number line.
    Last edited by Tarzan; 09-19-2014 at 02:50 AM.

  4. #277
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    If I'm understanding Tarzan correctly, a 2-2-0 in the scenario above would be a TC of 2.6 which is good. However, 10-10-8 is a rare prime large bet opportunity. 50% 10-As remain.
    That is the RC not the TC. Also aces are not shown. 10-10-8 or (2-2-0 with 1/2 deck left) would have TC about double RC.

  5. #278
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    You can have deck compositions that add up to the same TC but pan out to different playing decisions depending upon the hand, many of which would be undetectable using other counts. In the essay "Determination of TC for betting purposes", I made a comment about four deck compositions that all added up to the same TC as follows:

    8-0-6-4r @1 TC0
    +2
    -2

    12-0-9-8r @2 TC0
    +3
    -3

    3-2-0-1r @1 TC0
    +3.6
    -3.6

    0-6-2-8r @2 TC0
    -2
    +2

    For the hand A,5vs4 the basic strategy is to double and the index is to hit at TC-1, correct? This happens to be the best assessment given the information provided using Hi-Lo and others.

    I went on the mention that for the hand A,5vs4 (using Tarzan Count) you would hit in the first two examples and double in the second two examples even though the TC is the same in all four examples. This was to help show that TC determination and playing decision using Tarzan Count are not "joined at the hip" as with all other counts and are more like close cousins at best. Knowing the exact ratio of key cards in relation to other cards for a specific hand is what gives it the much increased playing efficiency. What hurts you more with a 12v2, a (3) removed or an (8) removed? What helps you more with an A,5vs4, a (8) removed or a (4) removed? Does this spell out why playing decisions based on TC alone are not as accurate as playing decisions based on deck composition and ratios of card groupings to one another?
    Last edited by Tarzan; 09-19-2014 at 02:41 AM.

  6. #279
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    If I'm understanding Tarzan correctly, a 2-2-0 in the scenario above would be a TC of 2.6 which is good. However, 10-10-8 is a rare prime large bet opportunity. 50% 10-As remain.
    10-10-8 and 2-2-0 are the exact same thing, only a matter of identifying the pen. You are talking about SD obviously so you are talking about 2-2-0-Xr @.5, TC+5.2 not factoring in Aces... add in +2.4 for each remaining (A). I'm starting to think you didn't read the essay on this.

  7. #280
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Where did you get 2.4 for each remaining Ace? I thought they were valued at -1.2?
    aces weighted 1.2/deck for TC, 1/2 deck left so each ace is weighted at 1.2/(1/2) = 2.4

  8. #281
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Where did you get 2.4 for each remaining Ace?
    Oops! I should have read my OWN essay damnit... (just kidding). Hurriedly typing, I should have said +2.4 for each extra (A), as in if you had three (A) left at 1/2 deck remaining, then +2.4 would get added to your TC+5.2 at 1/2 deck remaining. If one (A) was remaining in the deck, then it would be TC+2.8, deducting the value of one (A). If two (A) remain at 1/2 deck, then it's TC+5.2
    Last edited by Tarzan; 09-20-2014 at 12:39 AM.

  9. #282
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    I'm not convinced that Tarzans system is any better than some of the stronger systems already in use to make a significant difference in wins. If Tarzan insists on it, more power to him.
    The only thing better than what I do would be to have a computer app at the table with you calculating perfect play. I don't recommend trying that, though. The last time I pulled out my phone at a blackjack table the pit made a beeline in my direction as if their pants were on fire. I've made some simple observations using a HiOpt2 expert where I compared the playing decisions of both in various deck compositions side by side and there's a lot that seems to blow by the HiOpt2 player using (A) and (7) side counts that is very obvious to me, primarily because they are using a single point of reference on a number line despite the additional information provided by the side counts as opposed to my four digit number (that also breaks down to subgroups).

    This was "cherry picking" of course but this little experiment showed that I am going to easily catch things that the HiOpt2 player will not, to include information critical to making the proper playing decision. I essentially blew HiOpt2 right out of the water, although in extremely positive counts and in the most critical situations the two systems will fare about the same, having the same playing decisions for the most part.

    Imagine a ship at sea in a situation where all electronics are lost for some reason so they have to navigate the old fashioned way. If they get a bearing from a point on shore, this is a "line of position". It is like the x and y intersecting on a graph. It tells the seafaring, nonelectronics functioning sailors that they are somewhere, someplace along this line of position. If there is more than one point of reference on the shoreline and they can get two lines of position this would be much more accurate in determining their position. Alas, even two lines of position are not perfectly accurate so adding a third line of position would give an extremely accurate position where these three lines intersect. The more points of reference you have, the more accurate your estimation of position is. I think that if the guy running the Costa Concordia would have read this post not only could he have the potential of being a better blackjack player but maybe he wouldn't have smashed the boat into a big rock? If you are driving the Costa Concordia along the shoreline, would you go with one line of position and think this quite good enough or would it be better if you had at least three lines of position? I use multiple points of reference in layers as needed applicable to the specific hand in question until I have the absolutely most correct decision and have no need to calculate further.

    Going back to our 12vs2 as an example, the (8,9) are key cards. The {6-9} groupings EOR is double that of the {2-5} grouping for this hand, 0-3-0 per deck is about the same as 6-0-0 per deck. Furthermore, if there's a huge surplus of Aces and you have a larger bet out there HiOpt2 would catch this (the Aces) but not the (8,9) within the {6-9} grouping. Any count that does not side count Aces would go off TC information alone and be totally wrong on their playing decision a portion of the time, standing when they should be hitting the hand. As I pointed out here and in other posts, making an incorrect playing decision when there is a larger bet on the table is costly.
    Last edited by Tarzan; 09-19-2014 at 03:03 AM.

  10. #283
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Moses, what are Vegas hookers doing in Reno??!!??! Hahahaha

  11. #284
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post
    This was "cherry picking" of course but this little experiment showed that I am going to easily catch things that the HiOpt2 player will not, to include information critical to making the proper playing decision. I essentially blew HiOpt2 right out of the water, although in extremely positive counts and in the most critical situations the two systems will fare about the same, having the same playing decisions for the most part.
    I was there for this I believe, at least one episode of this. To be fair to Tarzan both Tarzan and the expert were cherry picking in an effort to get at the truth about how both counts compare to specific situations. The method of cherry picking should have seen both Tarzan count's relative weaknesses and strengths. Obviously Tarzan method was better for a lot of things but it was to look at a broad range to represent the totality of BJ. Tarzan's count performed great being better or comparable in almost every case. Where it was expected to be worse it was very close. Where it was expected to be better it was a lot better. That is very impressive for a level 1 count compared to the best level 2 count. It was expected that the level 1 count (Tarzan Count) would fall well short on at least some issues or bet amounts. Mostly it was expected to fall short a little on betting and be very strong relatively for playing. There were only minor differences for all the decisions, betting or playing, that were cherry picked to show Tarzan count's relative weaknesses to counting the strongest level 2 count. Everyone was surprised how well Tarzan count faired were EORs would lead you to believe it would be weaker like other level 1 counts.

  12. #285
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    You misunderstood. Those LV hookers you've talked about in other threads are actually from Reno. Biz is slow here. lol
    Moses look what happens when you get to serious about BJ and forget about the hookers. You forced them to migrate to Vegas.

  13. #286
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    I'm not convinced that Tarzans system is any better than some of the stronger systems already in use to make a significant difference in wins. If Tarzan insists on it, more power to him.
    I'm not trying to convince you, merely expecting you to look at things in an objective manner, which you have. Whether you were to take up this specific count or not, I've got you thinking about the concepts behind it. You have enthusiasm and talent if you can do this type of count in only a few weeks time also! All these bits and pieces we pick up along the way help us become better players, after all we are all students of the game with the learning process an ongoing thing. I have been at this for a lot of years, can practically quote passages out of "Exhibit CAA" and despite trying to I will never learn it all. Just how many years might you ask? The first blackjack I ever played in live casino conditions was in Bob Stupak's VegasWorld in the 80's when they were running a promo for blackjacks paying 2:1 on Wednesday nights. Things have changed a lot since then! I've learned new AP tactics in bits and pieces over the years to include very recent years, rolling with the punches of the gaming industry... It all adds up to you being a well-rounded AP. Whether taking up this count or a count such as this or not, maybe some of the bits and pieces will ultimately help you become a better AP in the long haul.
    Last edited by Tarzan; 09-19-2014 at 08:42 AM.

Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1220212223 LastLast

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
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.