Glitzensplizzle on my glockenspiel

[njrich]

Let's not make it sound harder than what it is

Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No Way ..It may take some time to learn but if the results are what you say then it should be.Laying it out in a teachable format may be just as hard if not harder than learning it. Keeping the masses from thinking they can just read the book and go play it in a week should be explained that it's not going to happen right from the start. If seminars were also available I would be really interested.

[KJ]

I know most people can't think like this because they are trained that PE tops out at .70 but imagine a PE in the .90's. You have the info to correctly double on hard 12. And a BC that is as good as any other count and level 1 to boot. Variance isn't a b*tch anymore. The bell curves are very tight around your playing decisions and bets meaning they are very accurate and get the most out of playing decisions by not giving much up by not using index plays when they are the correct move and more importantly using them far less prematurely and with a much smaller penalty on average per premature use of a play. It is unlike all the numberline counts in this nature.

Just a couple things you guys may not have thought of. Players tend to think the way a casino evaluates a player is to have some yo-yo up in surveillance count down the player. That is one way. The older way. Now there are computer programs that do so. And the computer programs have a very, very high PE and BC. A perfect count, if you will. So the higher BC counts, are going to corelate even closer to the computer making IDing players easier, not harder than simplier counts that corelate less with the computer.

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.

[Slacker13]

I question what I may do with the finished product as far as any publication though. I achieve just about as close to perfect play as it gets without having a computer app going as you play but this doesn't come without a little extra effort to train to use it is all, so it's just not for everyone. That being said, I concern myself with putting out there something that as far as commercial publication goes would move about 12 copies, with 7 of those copies being scarfed up by casino people so they can get their winkies all tied up in a knot thinking about how someone could somehow beat them out of some chumpchange. Maybe have it published the day after I croak!! Limits any effect it may ever have on me in my lifetime, that's for sure. Theoretically I could easily live another 50 years or so though. In any case and regardless of what I may do with it, I am going to have this project completed sometime in 2014. It's one of the most powerful counting systems ever devised, so perhaps worth recording for posterity.

If you publish a book, some undesirables will read it. That being said, will they understand and be able to recognize it in action? Seems most casino folk are looking for the more common methods of counting.

I think Amazon has some reasonable methods of publication. You can check their options here.

Good luck and much success with your project whatever you decide to do.

[mofungoo]

I know most people can't think like this because they are trained that PE tops out at .70 but imagine a PE in the .90's. You have the info to correctly double on hard 12. And a BC that is as good as any other count and level 1 to boot. Variance isn't a b*tch anymore. The bell curves are very tight around your playing decisions and bets meaning they are very accurate and get the most out of playing decisions by not giving much up by not using index plays when they are the correct move and more importantly using them far less prematurely and with a much smaller penalty on average per premature use of a play. It is unlike all the numberline counts in this nature.

Since you've drawn the bell curve you should know the advantage that you have. What is the improvement in advantage using your techniques compared with a single parameter system with an ASC such as HiOpt I or II?

[ZenKinG]

Tarzan and his future practicioners will be able to do everything except count down two tables simultaneously which is better than 10, 000 side counts in todays shoe games where there is mid shoe entry. Ill take halves, a great game, and counting down two tables over counting like a computer at the table.

NOW no way am I discrediting what you are doing, but the effort it would take to do all this wouldn't be worth it in a SHOE game because I'm weary of the FREQUENCY of the correlation where your groupings come into play.

Tarzan count would be best for some nice pitch games, but I don't see it worth it for todays shoe games where I believe you are better off counting multiple tables and the frequency of matchups that can benefit a tarzan count just doesn't seem like it would happen much. For a pitch game, different story you would absolutely crush it with the tarzan count, and you can't backcount pitch games so you won't be able to count down down multiple tables anyway so in my opinion pitch games is where the tarzan count should be used. In pitch also, you will see a lot more need in PE and matchup correlations. My .02.

[Three]

Just a couple things you guys may not have thought of. Players tend to think the way a casino evaluates a player is to have some yo-yo up in surveillance count down the player. That is one way. The older way. Now there are computer programs that do so. And the computer programs have a very, very high PE and BC. A perfect count, if you will. So the higher BC counts, are going to corelate even closer to the computer making IDing players easier, not harder than simplier counts that corelate less with the computer.

The cover is you get in get the money and get out very quickly. Only giving them a shoe or a few shoes to look at and making money without a big count keeps the trigger to computer evaluation from happening. You just look like some plop coming in to play for 15 minutes or so that got lucky. Hitting the casino tolerance win goal in no time is the best cover.

[Jabberwocky]

The cover is you get in get the money and get out very quickly. Only giving them a shoe or a few shoes to look at and making money without a big count keeps the trigger to computer evaluation from happening. You just look like some plop coming in to play for 15 minutes or so that got lucky. Hitting the casino tolerance win goal in no time is the best cover.

The all out hands down best cover is to never raise your bets. But IMO, this system would have it's best use for Spanish 21.

[Three]

Needless to say not much of a spread required with the most advanced techniques.

[TheRedKing]

I, for one, would love to gain insight on the strategy deviations used in the Tarzan count. Using a Muli-Parameter Suit Count already I've been itching to use this type of count in more than just one local table game. Although BJ is dealt much faster, I think with time I can get it down pat.

[ZenKinG]

If you're playing shoes you just DONT need this lol, not worth your time.

EXCELLENT count if you're a pitch player, you will absolutely kill the game.

[TheRedKing]

If it lowers variance by any good amount. I'm interested.

[ZenKinG]

lol do what you want

[seriousplayer]

Let's not make it sound harder than what it is. Like any other count you have to be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide small numbers rather quickly and there's a little more information that has to be memorized is all. I think any above average person could do it if they trained, studied and had the right motivation. All the math and calculations are all done for you and all you have to do is recall more recorded data than with other counts for playing decisions. You have to understand some basic fundamentals but it's primarily memorization of deck composition patterns that identify ratios of card groupings to one another which clarify the playing decision way beyond anything that uses the density of {T} to other cards alone as the basis of any index play. Eventually it all becomes very simple if you study it a bit... because you can train yourself to do anything you want to do if you really want to do it. I don't believe it to be much more effort than learning a level 2 or 3 count and the difference? The difference is significant. The accuracy is incredible and no, you don't have to be any sort of "Rainman" to do it.

Time is a factor as well. For example, lets suppose a simple level 2 count could be fully master in 3 years. It will take like 5 year to master a more complex count system and the significances is not big in terms of percentage of advantage. Now it will make the count system more attracting if it is easy to master and powerful at the same time.