Slippery: Couple Questions for Norm

[Slippery]

I have a couple questions about the Zen count.

I seem to remember reading a post where you stated that using the Zen count from 82 outperfromed the Zen count from 98 due to the fact that 82 calculated the true count per deck and the 98 form calculated it per quarter deck. I have not simulated this, but I am attempting to understand this comment from a logical standpoint. Both the true count and the true edge, in their own method, estimate the actual advantage or disadvantage a player has at a given spot in the deck. If one is playing the strategies correctly, this estimation of advantage or disadvantage should be the same. What am I missing?

The second question I have revolves around a couple of simulations you have for the Zen count on CVCX. Specifically the 6 deck game where you use the I18 from Zen 82 and show positive results. I compare this to the simulated results of Zen 98 with complete stategies indicates a negative result. (In all other games 1,2, and 4 decks, the Zen 98 outperformed the Zen 82) What parameters did you choose in the simulations that would produce these results?

Thanks for your response.

[Norm Wattenberger]

I seem to remember reading a post where you stated that using the Zen count from 82 outperfromed the Zen count from 98 due to the fact that 82 calculated the true count per deck and the 98 form calculated it per quarter deck. I have not simulated this, but I am attempting to understand this comment from a logical standpoint. Both the true count and the true edge, in their own method, estimate the actual advantage or disadvantage a player has at a given spot in the deck. If one is playing the strategies correctly, this estimation of advantage or disadvantage should be the same. What am I missing?

This is speculation on my part; but I'll give my reasoning. Suppose you calculated the TC per one-tenth deck. The count would nearly always be 0. You'd have a few +1's and a tiny number of +2's. You really couldn't select a truly optimal betting ramp. When you divide by full decks, you can calculate a betting ramp that has more midpoints and is therefore more accurate. With a spread of 8:1 dividing by quarter-decks, you may bet one unit at TC0 and eight units at TC+1. No room for ramping at all.

The second question I have revolves around a couple of simulations you have for the Zen count on CVCX. Specifically the 6 deck game where you use the I18 from Zen 82 and show positive results. I compare this to the simulated results of Zen 98 with complete stategies indicates a negative result. (In all other games 1,2, and 4 decks, the Zen 98 outperformed the Zen 82) What parameters did you choose in the simulations that would produce these results?

Most of the parameters in CVCX sims can be set by you since each file contains 2,000 sims with differing parameters. Parameter settings set in all pre-run sims include: Dealer peeks on Ace, 1/4 deck resolution, player at third base. If you tell me all of the CVCX settings used in your comparison, I can probably point out why Zen '98 didn't fare as well.