Stuff and Nonsense !Originally Posted by redbuck
It would convince the casino dumbbells, after one indecipherable (to them) reading,
that nobody is capable of performing this count; thus enhancing their false sense of security.
Turning the Tarzan Count over to one of the mathematicians / casino consultants
they will certainly be told that the Tarzan Count is not a threat to their coffers.
"Griffin gives the maximum gain for violating Basic Strategy in a 6D game as .312% with perfect play"
Let us say that you are playing with state mandated rules in a Pennsylvania casino.
The House Edge is 0.33
Perfect play leaves one with a break-even game "off of the top"
ergo, a 3-1 spread is all that is needed to pay your bills. N'est pas ?
Bingo. Talking about the variance as a blackjack player would feel it. The quick to move back to the expected being lower variance while the wandering far and seemingly independent path of high variance not the mathmeticiens view of variance. Maybe I should call Trazan's variance easy to live with variance and HILO variance the b*tch she is.
I did it a long time ago but with computers that do it for you I doubt I could do it longhand without breaking out reference material. Even when I worked in the gifted and talented program of Martin Marietta as a youth they giant computers of the day did it for you. I aced the statistics courses that had me do it longhand in college.
Well spoken Flash. Think of it as playing a promotion that gives away the casino advantage and how that changes your betting strategy etc etc. The more experienced among the group that are having trouble understanding the value in the count can probably understand that. Not much waiting for an advantage because you start even with the casino. The slightest of plus counts and you have the edge. At a neutral count you are even with the house. It is like a HILO user being able to walk up to any table and wong in immediately at TC +1. A big boost to my early BR came playing a promo that gave me a slight edge off the top. I got to bet much higher than I usually did right off the top and made a killing.
Last edited by Three; 12-03-2013 at 08:53 PM.
OK, based on that, I would say that his system increases the edge, which improves the SCORE, but doesn't decrease variance itself in the strict sense. Again, not a criticism, just trying to understand better. Improved SCORE can happen through either a higher edge or a lower variance, and the practical result (i.e. faster bankroll growth) is very similar if you aren't hitting table limits. If you look up the definition of variance, you'll see that it involves taking an average across all possible outcomes of the square of the actual result minus the EV. Changing the EV makes a small difference but the real changes in variance only come by reducing the magnitude of the hand by hand deviations from the EV. The direction of the deviation isn't really a major factor as changing from (-1-0.02)^2 to (1-0.02)^2 on a relatively small number of hands isn't going to change the average much. The reductions in variance would have to come from making more of the +/-2 hands into +/-1 hands, etc., or by using a smaller average bet. But without that happening, you are still improving the SCORE by improving the edge, which is clearly a good thing.
Just want to say this has been a really interesting thread, and if/when Tarzan's book comes out I'll definitely buy it (as long as it's priced reasonably, like say $100 or less, and if it doesn't follow Grosjean's books trajectory, LOL)
Also IMHO this is more good evidence that blackjack is not dead... research like this into squeezing every last drop out of "old fashioned" techniques in the face of casinos making the games tougher and tougher means, to me, that there's life in the old girl yet.
As long as the casinos don't go all-electronic, if they keep real physical cards out of a real shoe on their tables for at least a little while longer, our game of cat & mouse that we play with 'em will go on.
-DBJT
I also find the thread quite interesting. The question is how many people can actually do it.
I was fooling around with a couple of ideas the other night and came up with thoughts as what Tarzan is trying to articulate. Maybe I'm on track - maybe not.
Basically, we use basic strategy and deviate from bs thru indices. We expand our concept of basic strategy, so that we create a basic strategy chart for each compartment of true account. So, for example, basic strategy at TC 3+ will be to split 99v7 etc etc. Our new indices would be based on surplus or deficit of essentially, quoting Flash, let's say neutral cards 7,8,9.and aces. So, we keep a primary count as stated. We now implement a couple of running side counts - aces specifically, and 789's. So, for example, in a 6d shoe, off the top there are 72 789's, after 1 deck, 60 and so forth till we hit the cut card. We simply count the cumulative number of those cards, so that, for example, after 3 decks, there should be 36 neutral cards left, comprising exactly 25% of the remaining cards (excluding aces). Our Play at this point would be based on the revised basic strategy for whatever the true count is at that point. New indices would be created based on trigger points of, let's say! plus 10-20-30% or surplus or deficit of those cards. So, at 3 decks remaining and only 25 neutral cards, there would be a hefty surplus and we would deviate from our new concept of basic strategy. Etc etc, still thinking about it.
The concept is simple enough. We create overall basic strategy through huge simulations. We then create indices by running huge sims on each compartment of true count. All Tarzan is essentially doing, is running simulations on the indices, to create secondary indices...........I think. Regardless - highly interesting.
I won't talk to you guys about math, percentages or sims about tarzan's count, the only thing I can say is that I saw Tarzan showing his counting (I feel very proud) and is amazing/orgasmic too see how it works, works perfectly for shoes, and for a pitch game is just a killer. Nothing to do with Hi-Lo, Halves, not even HiOptII, this is a count from another planet, this goes far beyond. Really guys, You don't really want to know exactly how many 2's, 3's, 4's 5's 6's 7's 8's, 9's, 10's and A's left in the decks? of course we want it, well, you can with Tarzan's count. He has been doing this for several years with incredible results, and now he is making a great effort to bring it to light, we should just be thankful that he wants to share tons of info with us. I don't know if hes in searching of profit, I really don't care, but I saw the method, not once, and believe me or not, worth it.
ZenKing, if one day you will ever see in practice the Tarzan's count, you'll laugh of Halves, I laughed about mine, just saying...
Blackjack will test your soul, your character, and the very fiber of your being.
Don Schlesinger.
The idea of keeping count of all cards is absolutely staggering. Sharing it or not with the masses is not going to get to many converts to his system - HOWEVER , what I kinda sorta suggested with my posts is that there is somewhere between a large and huge increase to be had in PE - that in a shoe game playing a system with high BC, and significantly improving PE is something to be looked at and nothing to sneeze at. I still want to know more.
I know what are you talking about, of course we want to know more, don't be skeptical, this is not a fkn scam, we will see it soon
Enviado desde mi SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 mediante Tapatalk
Blackjack will test your soul, your character, and the very fiber of your being.
Don Schlesinger.
I hear things like he has a "small spread" and whatnot -- but how small? How bad are the games Tarzan plays? How bad is pen....or does pen have a significant impact?
A normal DD player might spread 1-6. What is Tarzan spreading? 1-2? 1-3? What kinda games we talking, too? Are we talking about "bad games" that have higher than 0.5% HE? Or bad games that are.....truly....awful?
How does this even compare to the 'normal' pitch player? A normal pitch player might make about 3x his min bet in EV per hour (100/hr). What's Tarzan making in comparison?
On top of that -- what's the win/loss % of hands? I imagine the shift would have to be rather significant ....?
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks