Glitzensplizzle on my glockenspiel

[DBJT]

Still wondering what the final purpose of this thread is...

To convince Tarzan there's a demand for his book?
To schedule a date for that Vegas meet-up/demo idea?
To do something else? What?

Clearly, this 14-page (and counting!) thread, with heated arguments both PRO and CON, shows there's a demand for such info, and players of a wide variety of experience & skill are interested in learning about any "new" counting method...

I bet even the "ANTI" crowd would buy the book just to read it carefully, so they can try to "debunk" what it says

So, when's the book coming out, or where do I go to sign up for the Vegas meeting?

-DBJT

[zerg]

Amazing thread! Tarzan - I really think you should publish. A lot of people are interested. As you suggested, you probably wouldn't make much money. But you would be a new pioneer. Your name would be up there with the greats if your work is accepted by the community. People would say things like "I wonged into a shoe and Tar-doubled my hard 12."

Now for critique:

I think the benefits of this count are being a bit overstated in some cases in this thread.

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.

This is an exaggeration, as mofungoo points out...

Griffin gives the maximum gain for violating Basic Strategy in a 6D game as .312% with perfect play. Hilo gets .158%, or approximately half of what is possible.

So the improvement of perfect play over hilo is .312 - .158. An improvement of .154, which is a bit less than a 1/3 of a hilo TC. A better analogy would be to say upgrading to Tarzan is like adding the rule DAS (worth .14.)

Tarzan, In comparing his Tarzan Count play variations with "perfect play"

(generated by a Combinatorial Analyzer), has had a correlation of 1.0.

Yes, you read that correctly. 100% correct.

Surely it can't be 100%. For example, I would wager a computer would make better decisions on hard 17 VS dealer 10, as it looks like Tarzan groups 2-5 in the same bucket (correct me if I am wrong.) Not sure how often it is correct to hit 17, but I do remember reading about someone playing with a computer making the play. Do you ever hit hard 17 Tarzan?

That said, if it his PE numbers are close to what we are use to seeing in BE numbers, that would be amazing.

Same thing with PE, only even worse. You think doubling on a hard 12 will act as cover, and good cover because it is the correct play. But that is working against you. Such a double will draw attention, because it is an unusual play. Drawing attention is just plain bad. Doubling a 12 means one of two things. You are an idiot or an expert. And with your count with very high PE almost matching the computer perfect play PE. You have handed them the answer on a golden platter.

Now do all casinos use this technology. Of course not. Some still use a person. And those that do, it still takes a person being involved. But it is likely to be used more and more as technology continues to play a greater role and you are playing right into their hands by using a count that more closely corelates to perfect play. As time goes on your specialized, higher level counts, will help shorten your blackjack career.

I disagree with this. IMO doubling hard 12 would (and should) completely eliminate heat. It isn't something card counters do. I think the cover such unusual plays provide would be even more beneficial then the increased edge. If more than say 10% of counters switched to Tarzan count then you may be right, it could turn into the new (splitting tens.) As of right now I would love to be able to correctly double 12.

[KJ]

I disagree with this. IMO doubling hard 12 would (and should) completely eliminate heat. It isn't something card counters do. I think the cover such unusual plays provide would be even more beneficial then the increased edge. If more than say 10% of counters switched to Tarzan count then you may be right, it could turn into the new (splitting tens.) As of right now I would love to be able to correctly double 12.

I don't see it this way, zerg. My game is all about drawing as little attention to myself as possible. Almost everything I do, the way I enter the game, small buyins, right down to the way I dress, is designed to not bring attention to myself. I want to bring zero attention to myself and be forgotten 5 minutes after I walk away.

Now you say doubling a 12 is not something most counters do, and there is truth in that. But, any play where the dealer notifies the pit by yelling out, such as splitting tens, doubling 12, hitting a hard 17, draws attention. This mean, folks who otherwise wouldn't be taking a look, even a glance in my direction are now doing so.

Now let's take it a step further. The dealer yells out "doubling a 12". The pit's eyes now on you. Sure if you were to draw a 10 value and bust, they would almost assuredly dismiss you. You have bought some cover, but at a high price. But, with Tarzan's count, tracking 8's and 9's and knowing these cards are in abundance, (which is why you doubled), you pull an 8 or a 9 for a 20 or 21, winning your double, they are not so quick to dismiss you. They now take an interest in your play that they otherwise wouldn't and now may see some of those typical counter moves, spread, index plays, ect. Now you haven't bought cover, you have bought heat! (Where you otherwise would have gone unnoticed and flown under the radar)

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"You might not know the answer to this but how much potential gain is available compare to the traditional counts for the hands 16 vs 10, 15 vs 10 and 12 vs 2, that does not have PE =
1.00? Also, if surrender is available when does the count tell you to surrender? From card counting studies no matter what you do to 16 vs 10 is a losing hand but surrender reduce the lost."

For Surrender the I.C. is 1.0 as you have monitored the precise (in)balance of face cards.

The Tarzan Count gives the best decision choice given the data collected.

The Combinatorial Analysis runs demonstrate that.

There is some "noise" in the system due to the E.O.R. of different small cards for particular hand matchups.

This is a trade-off of course that grouping cards into sets forces ~ The very minor loss of total P.E. is quite acceptable.

As to your comment re: 16 v. X Yes, loss reduction is key, as with most hands the player has a negative e.v.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Doubling a hard 12 deflects heat, it does not draw heat.

How about hitting 13 vs 2 or 3 at a (slightly) positive count?

Laugh all the way to the bank, knowing that as you had

$200 bet, the pit critter had the EYE count your shoe ~

to find that the Hi-Lo TC was +1

They immediately summon a host to your table !

*****************************************

If this is a borderline hit via the Tarzan Count, one

makes the play because of the value of camouflage.

[Three]

So the improvement of perfect play over hilo is .312 - .158. An improvement of .154, which is a bit less than a 1/3 of a hilo TC. A better analogy would be to say upgrading to Tarzan is like adding the rule DAS (worth .14.)

Or the corollary that not playing Tarzan count is like playing BJ without the DAS rules.

[Three]

Do you realize that Griffin was referring to single deck games when he was describing the multiparameter approach?

Pretty much his whole book was written about SD games. They were the norm back then.

"Of course, side counts will give you headaches for multiple decks, but you don't get much for strategy adjustments on multiple decks anyway"

Tarzan you might as well stop playing those shoe games because Mo says you can't win with your tiny 8spread because the playing adjustments aren't worth enough and are giving you headaches. I know my crazy hard system was a headache to learn but it is easy to use at the tables now. It is as fluid as when I used a level 1 count.

[mofungoo]

Tarzan you might as well stop playing those shoe games because Mo says you can't win with your tiny 8spread because the playing adjustments aren't worth enough and are giving you headaches. I know my crazy hard system was a headache to learn but it is easy to use at the tables now. It is as fluid as when I used a level 1 count.

That was a quote that I used which I happen to agree with. Most blackjack authors also agree that basic strategy departures are worth much less in shoe games than in single deck play. The Tarzan system may "work" in a shoe game, but how well will it work compared to less complicated conventional counts? That's the question that needs to be answered and right now the answer is, "We don't know".

[ZenMaster_Flash]

It is certainly not Tarzan's fault that no simulator exists that can be used for the Tarzan Count.

However, "Facts On The ground" are of paramount importance.

I have personal first-hand knowledge that Tarzan has, for approx. a decade,

played BJ full-time ~ and has profited to the tune of a middle 5 figure yearly sum,

adequate for a comfortable middle class existence. We can use income

by hours / years as an empirical measure. We have an adequate sample size.

***********************************************

Mofungoo reminds me of the engineer who states "A hummingbird cannot Fly."

Facts on the ground, (or in this case, in the air), tell us otherwise; but until recently,

the actual physical mechanism by which hummingbirds fly had not been discovered.

***********************************************

I am certain that there are several computer programmers who are lurking here.

Will one (or more) of the code-crunchers step forward ? <foot-tapping>

[ZenKinG]

Perfect insurance only provides an extra 2 dollars an hour in win rate and not much difference in SCORE. Can just imagine the little differences with counting groups of cards.

It just feels as a marketing scheme going around in this thread by flash and tthree as they know him personally over the years, of course they will back him up.

No one needs to count like a computer at the table, one error or two consistently will wipe away any hypotethical advantage you have. Besides almost no one will be able to handle this and when they do it will probably be meaningless

Why not have a strong act and play only the best games. Blackjack is so easy to beat, who cares about an extra 10/20 hr and im being aggressive, because i doubt tarzan count can even produce more than 5/hr win rate over other counts and a much lower std deviation and substantial higher score.

How about you play an extra 5-10 minutes per session in your career and you'll wipe out any of this 5,000,000 side counts or non linear hypothetical grouping of cards for doubling and splits, when the frequency is so low in a shoe game to have an abnormal abundance to have a good EV opportunity, let alone it happening when you have a hand to double or split.

This also goes toward MavSharps bull**** book, give me a break, stop spamming this website with pointless books about counts that promise you the world. Go count two-three tables at once with a strong BC count, playing only the best games, finding stores who will take a big spread, great pen and rules, possibly even a rare great pitch game, THATS where the money will come from.

P.S. this rant is toward shoe games. Pitch game different story.

[Freightman]

I have personal first-hand knowledge that Tarzan has, for approx. a decade,

played BJ full-time ~ and has profited to the tune of a middle 5 figure yearly sum,

adequate for a comfortable middle class existence. / [/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
As opposed to Mofungoo,
I think there is relavence for shoe games, and as previously stated, think portions can ba adapted as addendums to existing count systems, and like you, would love to see some simulations if and when they become available. That being said, I am curious on shoes as to win rate per hour, spread to achieve win rate, percentage session win rate (in itself not relavent unless quantified by style of play) vs. bankroll size. From this base %edge can be calculated and extrapolated to anticipated edge on higher spread, You've intimated an approx 50k yearly income which in itself is not significant unless hours are low and combined with other types of income.

[Ouchez]

I think KJ, playing in Vegas, using his unique M.O., is on the verge of matching Tarzans numbers, while using a normal Hi-Lo count. That is meant to take nothing away from Tarzan, but just that a player with unique SKILLZ and TACTICS, can still do extraordinary things.

An AP that thinks for himself, plays outside the box, and does not slavishly follow the dictates or beliefs of Snyder, Wong, or any of the other BJ Guru's,,, but blazes their own path, in advanced AP SKILLZ, be it STing, CCing, or HCing, etc.,, they will find a different and better way to perform and win! They are the Lewis and Clarke of todays BJ world.

Ouchez

[Rudy]

It would seem to me that Tarzan may just be the greatest CCing Phenom of all time.

Ouchez

Well said, unfortunately there are people who do not want to understand your point.

Every session for Tarzan is a winning session, no matter if he's playing a terrible game or not, but why? well, because he takes advantage of several situations. One of them: the "neutral count", when well mixed cards and the shoes in question never hit a poor count, (regardless pitch or shoe) while we using our count keep loosing 8 out of 10 hands in the same scenario, and we still playing, because we don't want to wong out due the "count is neutral", so neutral like those 7's 8's and 9's. Like Tarzan said before, "those neutral cards are not so neutral". The question here is: Are you able to detect a huge quantity of 6-9s played ahead and recognize this particular situation that we face every time we sit down to play? Neither Omega, RAPC, ZEN, HiOptII, not even Halves!
If the count that each person uses is so good, I really do not understand why this confrontation? I can feel envy in the air, I don't know why... But for Christ's sake! Let the man work and wait for the book! After that you can crucify him, but for now, what you can achieve is that someday he regrets sharing this with us, it would be a shame...