Glitzensplizzle on my glockenspiel

[Blitzkrieg]

I hope I was clear that your count with the pen included is as accurate as Tarzan's count. Every card counted plus the pen has the same specific deck composition defined as Tarzans count with the pen info. The difference is how the info would be used. To get the most out of each count reams of info would need to be committed to memory and it probably comes to personal preference as to which is easier to use. For me Tarzan's count gives a much better mental picture of the current situation. Interpolation between known situations would be quite intuitive. I think you method would interpolate as easily. What you lose is the ratio of middles to lows or middles to highs easily at hand. The info is still there but it is buried in the linear count and all cards counted and the pen. If all your play was just based on the memorized info that is probably a moot point but if some plays are based specifically on this info it is no longer easily available. So basically from an application standpoint the counts are probably the same but it would probably be harder to get a feel for using the info without relying on your memory.

Basically in short both ways are the same except for visualization which is a personal preference. I think Tarzans approach is better for visualization. The other practical issue is is in shoe games without the normalization of the three columns the middle card group number would get awfully big. 4 decks into a 6 deck shoe it is expected to be 64 and could be as high as 96. The linear count would tend to stay around 0. 0, 64, 16 would be 2 complete decks left compared to Tarzans 0, 0, 0, 16. You would no doubt get used to your counts neutral situations but visualizes it from the count would take a lot more experience. Since you weren't interested in actually using the count in a casino it is a moot point.

I am impressed with your advanced counting skillz. They can be worth a lot in the right situations. You ma want to look at other games than blackjack in your area. You may find a much bigger edge with far less heat putting the abilities to their best use with some advanced counting techniques. Unfortunately BJ advanced counting techniques are not worth as much and the heat is high.

I do not lose the ratio of middles to lows or middles to highs, like you mentioned all of the info is there. It's all there. I really don't know how to take advantage of Tarzan Count just yet, other than that I can account for card groupings and the unseen. I was thinking that if someone did count in this manner, maybe there could be a set of indexes created which mathematically relates with the way Tarzan keeps count and the way I count Balanced Tarzan count because I was already thinking about indexes which relate with the ratio of middles to lows or middles to highs.

Tarzan is the subject matter expert on his count and I would already think that he has his set of indexes for the games he plays and the way he counts. I wonder what he thinks and if there is some kind of mathematical relationship with the indexing, with a balanced way of doing Tarzan Count in regards to what he is already doing.

[Three]

I agree the info isn't lost it is just not as easily visualized which really doesn't matter since the index boundaries are memorized for each level of pen. I restated everything to try to be clear on this but I am not sure I was based on your response. It seems like we are saying the same thing so I will leave it at that.

Tarzan is the subject matter expert on his count and I would already think that he has his set of indexes for the games he plays and the way he counts. I wonder what he thinks and if there is some kind of mathematical relationship with the indexing, with a balanced way of doing Tarzan Count in regards to what he is already doing.

I will let Tarzan have at this. His indices are complex for each play. It is not like a linear count were you have a number as an index. The reality is the index is a multidimensional barrier in multidimensional space defined by lots of memorized points in that space hence the literally reams of tables being memorized for all the plays.

[Blitzkrieg]

BK. I'm working on the same thing myself. I'm not sure you can have a "one size fits all" approach. The application for PE and IC is better served for single deck. Wheres, the way I understand it, BC is the key barometer for multi deck. Bet spread and playing style would factor into the single deck game. Hence, it's not a matter of can you do it as much as it is will they let you do it.

I'm not sure if there is a "one size fits all" approach to this either. It's not like I'm going to stop using REKO to go to a counting technique that I really don't understand myself but can count. More so I wanted to give Tarzan feedback that I can keep track of all of the cards in a deck, even though it may be slightly different than how he handles counting, it seems similar to me. There is more than one way to skin a cat to get the same result.

[Three]

More so I wanted to give Tarzan feedback that I can keep track of all of the cards in a deck, even though it may be slightly different than how he handles counting, it seems similar to me. There is more than one way to skin a cat to get the same result.

It would make counting the count easier and more familiar to people while having the exact same count (data point) expressed in a different way. It might be easier or preferred by some users. It would be a snap to convert his indices to such a form since you know the difference between column 1 (lows) and column 3 (T's). the straight count of the middle cards would get very large but counting adding one for each card isn't hard. That is worth putting in the book.

Making the count more accessible to different peoples comfort levels would be useful. Perhaps a chapter on converting Tarzan's method to a balanced count with 2 side counts.

[ZenKinG]

It would make counting the count easier and more familiar to people while having the exact same count (data point) expressed in a different way. It might be easier or preferred by some users. It would be a snap to convert his indices to such a form since you know the difference between column 1 (lows) and column 3 (T's). the straight count of the middle cards would get very large but counting adding one for each card isn't hard. That is worth putting in the book.

Making the count more accessible to different peoples comfort levels would be useful. Perhaps a chapter on converting Tarzan's method to a balanced count with 2 side counts.

To utilize all of the side count adjustment information supplied by the Tarzan count is obsolete for a 'shoe' game. The frequency of the hand matchups that has an abnormal number of a certain card or cards left to be played just doesnt occur frequent enough to make any money off of it. And when in fact there is a discrepancy of certain cards being a rich number or poor number left in the shoe it still doesn't guarantee you will win that particular hand as well. Add in all the trouble to keep all these counts simultaneuously while trying to have an act and play 100% correctly at the same time with all indices just makes it not worthwhile.

I rather play 5-10 minutes extra per session to net the same or greater EV than having to utilize 1,000 side counts at the table. In the real world there's no doubt for a 'shoe' game I would come out ahead just from playing a strong single paramenter count such as Halves with full indices instead of the almighty Tarzan count practicioner.

[Tarzan]

Watering it down somehow would render it less effective or ineffective to such a degree that you might as well just go with standard issue Gordon count with side counts... or just go with HiOpt2 with (A), (7) side counts or whatever. Tthree, who knows more about the count than most people is making it sound more complicated than it is.

Blitzkrieg, think of the three primary groupings of {2-5}, {6-9} and {T} as exactly that, a grouping and the Aces off to the side in their own little special group unto themselves. There are important reasons for this having to do with matching up visualizations in terms of a ratio per deck to a chart(s) and the ability to make calculations in real time at the tables quickly and efficiently. Think of those three primary groupings as three separate parts of the same building and Aces off in their own smaller building off to the side. Instead of RC+4, you are simply using the three digit number 4-0-0 is all. Only not quite because RC+4 for you can also be 1-9-0, 2-6-0, 3-3-0, 4-0-0, 8-0-3, 12-0-6, etc. factoring in the (A) after the fact. This is an important procedural aspect having to do with speed and ease that you would see the importance of in time.

[Blitzkrieg]

Watering it down somehow would render it less effective or ineffective to such a degree that you might as well just go with standard issue Gordon count with side counts... or just go with HiOpt2 with (A), (7) side counts or whatever. Tthree, who knows more about the count than most people is making it sound more complicated than it is.

Blitzkrieg, think of the three primary groupings of {2-5}, {6-9} and {T} as exactly that, a grouping and the Aces off to the side in their own little special group unto themselves. There are important reasons for this having to do with matching up visualizations in terms of a ratio per deck to a chart(s) and the ability to make calculations in real time at the tables quickly and efficiently. Think of those three primary groupings as three separate parts of the same building and Aces off in their own smaller building off to the side. Instead of RC+4, you are simply using the three digit number 4-0-0 is all. Only not quite because RC+4 for you can also be 1-9-0, 2-6-0, 3-3-0, 4-0-0, 8-0-3, 12-0-6, etc. factoring in the (A) after the fact. This is an important procedural aspect having to do with speed and ease that you would see the importance of in time.

Oh, how so? It only took me a few hours to learn how to count it after I devised a technique on how I would be able to reproduce the ability to predict the groupings of 5 cards. It didn't take me long to realize that cancelling was a simpler way of doing the same thing, therefore balancing the count. If I wanted to, it wouldn't take me long to get very proficient with counting Tarzan. I'm sure I would be below 30 seconds in a SD before the end of the month, maybe in a week/week and a half. But I ask myself, why would I want to endure the task of leaning how to use this technique when I don't even know/understand the deviation/index plays as well as other aspects of this counting technique. In a way I was looking forward to using this technique and doing battle with the casino. Is this the first time that someone has presented balancing Tarzan count to make it easier to use/count? How would a balanced method of Tarzan counting differ from your approach? Can you produce any results that are mathematically different from one another or did I miss something?

[Three]

The problem I see is in using the count. You would need much stronger deck estimation skillz to come up with the same results for plays. It is akin to straight side counting versus a balanced side count. In a straight side count quarter deck estimation skillz is a must but using a balanced side count you are accurate without needing to estimate decks so precisely. Like turning HILO into a dual count of HIOPT I and a balanced A/2 side count. The sum is HILO. The side count is accurate even if you estimate decks at 1/2 deck or 1 deck but a straight side count would have suboptimal results without quarter deck accuracy. The interesting thing with Tarzan count is the opposite is true, balancing two columns to a linear count makes the ratios depend on very accurate deck estimation skillz for the play.

Here is an example of what I mean:
Tarzan count, ignoring aces, 3-7-0 with 2 decks left defines ratios based on the current pen. If your pen estimate is off a little the ratios don't change much you know you have seen 4 more middle cards than lows and 3 more lows than T's.
Changing that to +3,71 with 2 decks left has the same info but if your deck estimate is off by:
1/4 deck: Converting BK's count to Tarzans "ratios" you get 3-4-0 or 3-11-0 when it should be 3-7-0.
1/2 deck: Converting BK's count to Tarzan's "ratios" you get 4-0-1 or 3-15-0 when it should be 3-7-0.
Then you have to add the error from the deck estimation being off by 1/4 or 1/2 a deck to the error shown above. You are compounding the tinty error for deck estimation being off a little into a large error.

So Tarzan's method is like the error in RC for a small deck estimation error and BK method is like a mistake in counting (even though you didn't make one) plus a small deck estimation error. This most likely will kill most or all of the gain in PE for this method of counting.

[Frank Galvin]

Tthree - I am truly interested in digesting Tarzan's counting system. I have used HiLo, RPC, Zen and Adv. Omega II. Always felt that there was more to counting so as to be able to more accurately predict whether Low or High cards would be coming on a playing decision. Tarzan's approach taking the Middle cards into effect, appears intuitively to address that goal.

I need a starting point for practice, as I learn through immersion into any subject (multi-sensory experiential learning style). Consequently, I would like to know whether Blitzkrieg's method of learning how to keep the count (See post 247 in this thread) accords with the method by which you learned Tarzan's system? I am not delving into how the count is used, whether straight strategy or a deviation. Just want to know how best to practice so as to internalize a method for the counting of the three (3) groupings (Lows 2-5, Mids 6-9, Highs 10/J/Q/K). Side counting Aces is no big deal, already doing that.

Thank you for any assistance that you "can" provide. I realize that Tarzan is working on his manual/book/system, and that he desires to distribute it as a whole, but I am eager to jump in and start to learn the basic mechanics of his method, not the fine tuning.

[Three]

I would like to know whether Blitzkrieg's method of learning how to keep the count (See post 247 in this thread) accords with the method by which you learned Tarzan's system?

I don't use Tarzan's count. I use a different multidimensional count. I keep a level 2 balanced count and a level 3 balanced count simultaneously. Combining the two gives a linear application for betting but keeping it as a count pair gives a multidimensional application. For the linear application count pair totals form a true count and the entire bin of pairs are averaged to an advantage with a wide range around it. By using it as count pairs each count pair in the bin has its own average advantage and hopefully a tighter bell curve around that. You can take a very high linear BC and get much more accurate with both your advantage estimate at any time and the width of the bell curve (range of advantages around your estimate). This makes results much more certain. As you walk the line of EV that is higher than the linear application, the leash your dog (actual results) is on is much shorter than the linear application. I always really liked the analogy of explaining AP results as an owner walking a dog down the straight path of EV and the dog is on a leash free to wander as far as the leash allows on either side of EV.

I just know Tarzan and instantly realized the value of a multidimensional approach as he told me about what he does. He could tell I got it before he even explained it. So many great APs can't get their mind to think any other way than linearly they can't see the possibilities. They think of it as a linear count with side counts which is not what it is.

[RoadWarrior]

Tthree - I am truly interested in digesting Tarzan's counting system. I have used HiLo, RPC, Zen and Adv. Omega II. Always felt that there was more to counting so as to be able to more accurately predict whether Low or High cards would be coming on a playing decision. Tarzan's approach taking the Middle cards into effect, appears intuitively to address that goal.

I need a starting point for practice, as I learn through immersion into any subject (multi-sensory experiential learning style). Consequently, I would like to know whether Blitzkrieg's method of learning how to keep the count (See post 247 in this thread) accords with the method by which you learned Tarzan's system? I am not delving into how the count is used, whether straight strategy or a deviation. Just want to know how best to practice so as to internalize a method for the counting of the three (3) groupings (Lows 2-5, Mids 6-9, Highs 10/J/Q/K). Side counting Aces is no big deal, already doing that.

Thank you for any assistance that you "can" provide. I realize that Tarzan is working on his manual/book/system, and that he desires to distribute it as a whole, but I am eager to jump in and start to learn the basic mechanics of his method, not the fine tuning.

Interesting!

[Three]

I need a starting point for practice, as I learn through immersion into any subject (multi-sensory experiential learning style). Consequently, I would like to know whether Blitzkrieg's method of learning how to keep the count (See post 247 in this thread) accords with the method by which you learned Tarzan's system?

See post 266 for the cost of using this balance count. Learn it as Tarzan does it. Keep 3 4 acrd staright counts that are normalized periodically to have the lowest one become 0 and the others reduced the same amount (3-8-9 becomes 0-5-6, everything reduced by 3).

I would like to caution all that are considering this, it will take most people a long long time to master the count (if you can do it at all) and then you have to memorize a lot more than you ever had before. It will take a very strong determination to finish what you are starting. If you get that far and accurately do it the rewards are great. I wonder how many that start can get there. I think most can do it but question whether they have the strong will necessary to get through the preparation of skillz to do it. I think my count is probably harder to do but that may differ from one person to another. For me I think my count is not harder to do but it is very complicated. Tarzan's count is very easy once you train your mind to do it. You are just counting incrementally and normalizing periodically to keep the numbers small. The daunting task is to remember 4 numbers at once without mixing them up and adding to the right column. That is not all that hard but may take lots of training to master depending on the person. I know one guy that mastered it in days. Another tried for months and gave up. Everyone's brain works differently and responds to new training differently. It took me 2 months of constant drilling to get my count down every time. After 5 weeks I saw my first improvement. After that small improvement I improved very quickly. How many are willing to keep drilling after almost 5 weeks with no improvement?

[Blitzkrieg]

ZK makes a valid point. Question for T3 or Norm. Where would the Tarzan count fall in the Popular Card Counting Strategies Summary Table
in Norm's book Modern Blackjack? Perhaps if readers could apply a value to BC, PE, IC, Ease, it would help them to determine if they wanted to absorb more.

I wonder if they could tell you. Ease of use would be 0.3 counting it Tarzans way if it were to be ranked. It's not an easy count to tackle. That's where the problem lies with this system, it's not easy to use unless there was a way to make it more player friendly and this is an honest assessment. I see nothing wrong with more than one approach to the same system. If I had to count and play it Tarzan's way I probably wouldn't give it a shot...maybe, rather just look at a level 2,3, or 4 system that's a whole lot easier to work with and will still give a player a great shot at leaving the tables a winner. By balancing the Tarzan count for my use maybe I did simplify and water down the great Tarzan count to a parlor trick in mere hours, but it still checks out and works.

Auf Wiedersehen!