Maybe there should be two Tarzan counts? A basic and an advanced.
I see three variations to Tarzans counting method. 2 balanced ways of counting Tarzan at level 2 and level 3 (which are basically the same where the 6-9 grouping can hold a value of 1 or 0.3), and the way he does it. When I come across people who are interested in Blackjack or card counting I'll probably show a few of them how to track the cards in the deck and will refer to the technique as the Tarzan Count... Tarzan balanced that is. He was right, it's all about displacement, deficit, and surplus.
ZK doesn't grasp the value of multidimensional counting. There is value in knowing that side counted ranks are at normal levels. Just think of the value of knowing the relationship of the 3 card groups to one another rather than just the surplus or deficit of the middle cards.Originally Posted by moses
Symmetries, symmetrical, symmetry. It seems that Tarzans way of deck composition breakdown and accounting for every card in a deck can be applied to the Hi-Lo strategy if the grouping of 7, 8, and 9 are tracked and given a pseudo point value with 100% accuracy. However since the Ace is counted as -1 there is no lee way for incorrect counting on Aces during practice when checking the last 5 remaining cards at the end of a SD, in other words players have to accurately track the aces. A player can tell what remains in a deck with Hi-Lo by grouping, with index/deviation plays that players already know...... several days ago and I would have never known any of this. The thing that stands out with this counting strategy is the symmetry of how the 7,8,& 9 are sandwiched in the middle.
People that have been using that strategy for quite some time have probably trained their eyes and brain to block-out the 7, 8, & 9. Any rebuttals or am I correct? Give it a try....
Last edited by Blitzkrieg; 09-18-2014 at 02:49 AM.
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.
Last edited by Blitzkrieg; 09-18-2014 at 11:12 AM.
You have a good point. I never really looked at a 4 column count the way you break down the 6-7 and 8-9 cards. If a player trains their mind to absorb the information in such a manner it should become second nature I would presume. That 15 vs 2 is normally a play I would stand on, but if a player has more information they may as well use it to the best of their advantage.
Thanks Moses but I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to help you much in the areas of tweaking IC, BC, or PE. It's going to take someone who has a lot more experience and the mathematical know-how to do those kinds of calculations. But I will look into the info you provided. I would like to think that in my head that a different type of indexing metric would have to be done with a Hi-Lo count that uses a Tarzan like approach where every card is counted since the 7,8, & 9 are being accounted for, kinda like a sensitivity indicator/index depending on how much of the deck is left. For example in a SD, at exactly 50% penetration suppose that all of the 7's, 8's, and 9's remain and since Hi-Lo is a balanced count lets say the count is a -6 and 3 player hands represent hard 12, 13, & 14 when the dealer may have a 4 showing. Decisions, decisions.
I got a few more ideas for a type of reverse indexing/memorization Tarzan-like approach for the middle groupings of cards with respect to penetration that should be applicable to every card counting system no matter what level is used by the player, but it's just a thought.
Last edited by Blitzkrieg; 09-18-2014 at 12:59 PM.
I explained everything pretty well I think. If you don't understand what I am saying I question whether you understand what Tarzan is doing. I will let him explain further. See my post this morning in Moses' thread "prob with indices" I think. Maintaining accurate "ratios" (I keep putting this in quotes because both Tarzan and Moses use counts that represent ratios rather than show them explicitly) is the power of the count. Your method takes deck estimation errors from skill level or rounding for managable math change the ratios predicted by your version of the count. I explained it twice. The error isn't just going to affect the equivalent math to determining a TC but also affect the ratios. Perhaps Tarzan will weigh in again. He already agreed with the idea your approach isn't going to work but he didn't explain why.
The sims are based on a linear application. Moses uses ratios which is far more accurate. Tarzan uses ratios of three equal card groups which is much more accurate than than what Moses does. The Efficiency Calculator while not show anything other than the linear application.
I'll just say that many card counting systems can be Tarzan counted and every card accurately tracked with 100% accuracy without regard to how many cards remain in a deck or decks. It's really not a hard task when you think about it and players can still play with the systems own index which is a bonus.
I was just pointing out that every card can be accounted for. Learning Tarzans counting technique was simple as well as the ability to account for any amount of cards in a deck via grouping, his method of play wouldn't take me long to learn if I wanted to use it. On top of basic strategy and counting Tarzan I don't see enough data to make a decision as to the power of his approach when compared to other strategies.
Last edited by Blitzkrieg; 09-18-2014 at 05:13 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks