Looking for info on DMHE/Gordon method

[Distant]

Hi all, I've been a reader of this forum on and off for the last couple years trying to read up the old threads. Recently saw a post mention a possible new book from Tarzan, I become curious and read all his posts on his method. Long story short, after couple hours googling on D.H. Mitchell and Gordon count, the info come up very sparse for me to start learning this system. I'm a newbie at this counting, have tried hilo and bought Verite software but haven't done anything meaningful with it, mainly because I haven't found a counting method I like. But this Tarzan count system really got me interested. I'm looking for as much information on the theory behind this Gordon/DMHE count system to start learning it (Since Tarzan's is not published and according to his posts, the theory is the same) and would appreciate any pointer as to where to get it. Cheers

[Three]

Not many today have the counting chops to keep 4 simultaneous running counts. Most people have trouble keeping one simple side count. Some have the chops to learn it quickly but that is rare today. People just aren't as skilled at counting as they used to be. Too many think more than a main count or a minimal number of indices is too much work like they think the casino will just hand them money and they don't need every advantage they can get.

[Blitzkrieg]

People just aren't as skilled at counting as they used to be. Too many think more than a main count or a minimal number of indices is too much work like they think the casino will just hand them money and they don't need every advantage they can get.

What would you attribute it to? Players just not putting in the work, lack of discipline, or has technology/software in BJ made players lazier over the years...

[Distant]

I'm not sure I have what it takes to learn it either but I usually like a challenge and would like to try is all.

Not many today have the counting chops to keep 4 simultaneous running counts. Most people have trouble keeping one simple side count. Some have the chops to learn it quickly but that is rare today. People just aren't as skilled at counting as they used to be. Too many think more than a main count or a minimal number of indices is too much work like they think the casino will just hand them money and they don't need every advantage they can get.

[ZenKinG]

Not many today have the counting chops to keep 4 simultaneous running counts. Most people have trouble keeping one simple side count. Some have the chops to learn it quickly but that is rare today. People just aren't as skilled at counting as they used to be. Too many think more than a main count or a minimal number of indices is too much work like they think the casino will just hand them money and they don't need every advantage they can get.

Ahh the older generation think they know everything and the new generation also thinks they know everything, hmm.. New generation wins on this one. Unless you're playing pitch games like the old days, all these crazy counts, 4 simultaneous counts, gordon count/tarzan count are ineffective and no way worth the effort because we might be talking pennies here. In shoe games, the count frequency to take advantage of all these little side count adjustments just won't happen many times over the long run to have an impact. Old generation thinks it's still the 80s where single and double deck games were the norm with great rules.

Pitch game with some decent pen, different story.

[Three]

Unless you're playing pitch games like the old days, all these crazy counts, 4 simultaneous counts, gordon count/tarzan count are ineffective

Really? The sims say different. Up to 20% increase in profits without even getting to Tarzan Count. I guess you make 5 times the pennies you are talking about with a simple count, 5*20% is 100%.

They don't happen much in the beginning of the shoe when you are making waiting bets but toward the end of the shoe the deck usually gets pretty whacky as anyone that side counts will tell you. If I remember right the end of the shoe is where the money is in most cases. If you side count 1 rank you won't see it come into play as often but DHME side counts 5 ranks (5 times the likelihood of being quite profitable info and Tarzan doesn't even have a main count but works from ratios of equal sized groups. Normal counting ideas do not apply. You bet big if the cards get whacky with the right deck composition, Most of the time the cards have some of the middle ranks whacky at the same time. Generalizations made about side counting one rank don't transfer well to card groups or many individual ranks. I like to make sure when I put those big bets out that I have the best chance to make big money. There is value in knowing the side counted cards are at expectation.

The other thing to think about is if you ever want to attack other games a single parameter count with no side counts invites variance to eat your BR. You can make so much more if you have the counting chops to do multiple counts with side counts. It will likely be the difference between destroying the game and struggling not to loss your entire BR. Most I know that tried to stick to the shoe BJ mantra of keep it simple failed in short order at other games. They mistakenly felt the simple approach would be sufficient because it just looks like BJ. The swings are huge compared to BJ in these games and your EV better be as well.

In shoe games, the count frequency to take advantage of all these little side count adjustments just won't happen many times over the long run to have an impact.

Old generation thinks it's still the 80s where single and double deck games were the norm with great rules

The older generation just wants the highest EV they can get. If they just straight count that means using some extra info. It is like getting a 5%, 10% or even 20% raise but the young pups don't want a raise because they don't want to do more work. We all do the "work" in the same time so I am not really sure it is more work. It is just using your time better.

[ZenKinG]

The older generation just wants the highest EV they can get. If they just straight count that means using some extra info. It is like getting a 5%, 10% or even 20% raise but the young pups don't want a raise because they don't want to do more work. We all do the "work" in the same time so I am not really sure it is more work. It is just using your time better.

I dont use a simple count, i use a level 3 that gets the most EV out of any single parameter count, and arguably greater than omega and hi opt II in shoe games, especially for the rules that i play. That's besides the fact. Old generation wants the highest EV they can get so much that they're stuck with their old ways of thinking and haven't noticed that their theories are now obsolete. Games have changed, pitch games aren't the norm anymore and until proven otherwise by some type of sim or calculation, you'll need some scientific proof to sway me.

I know you will bash on the current thinking of everyone just wants to see a sim and therefore are blinded by what's actually in front of them and the fundamentals of the game, but in this case I need some type of proof that in the LONG RUN these 1,000 side counts at the table for an 8 deck shoe game is indeed worth it. Not to mention almost no one can do it error free, and the people who can do it won't have the ability to have good cover while playing because of thinking like a computer and being extremely focused while playing, instead of grabbing a beer, slappin high-fives with the other plops, talking to the pit, more IMPORTANT things. The people who do those thousands of counts at the table all at once are most likely playing slow dealt shoe games with cover or fast dealt shoe games but most likely with no cover, either way you lose, let alone the fact that there's no sim or any proof showing any positive results from doing this in a shoe game. I would love to see anyone do all these counts and play 120-150 hands an hour, while chatting along with everyone at the table and acting like a degenerate.

Ill focus on playing the best games and playing fast dealt games at over 120 hands an hour with Halves, while having a good act. That's where the money is and that's where the longevity is.

[Three]

Not to mention almost no one can do it error free, and the people who can do it won't have the ability to have good cover while playing because of thinking like a computer and being extremely focused while playing, instead of grabbing a beer, slappin high-fives with the other plops, talking to the pit, more IMPORTANT things.

I don't know where you get this idea. If you do anything enough it becomes fast and effortless. If I sat you at a table and told you 2 where using all kinds of advanced counting techniques that few could do you would be surprised by who they are. To have the drive to do these types of things has the same drive for perfection in the other aspects you list.

I would love to see anyone do all these counts and play 120-150 hands an hour, while chatting along with everyone at the table and acting like a degenerate.

This is what they do. I have an insanely hard count and no dealer is too fast for me now. I interact and talk when necessary and it doesn't throw me off. The fact that you think it would shows you never drilled enough and played enough to get efficient and effortless at your count. If you did with a level 3 then you should see how they do as well.

Ill focus on playing the best games and playing fast dealt games at over 120 hands an hour with Halves, while having a good act. That's where the money is and that's where the longevity is.

It's funny you say that because the ones you are being critical of have been doing just what you say above for decades using their approach and are still welcomed back. Don't assume your own limitations are the same for others that are more driven to excel at this game.

[ZenKinG]

It's funny you say that because the ones you are being critical of have been doing just what you say above for decades using their approach and are still welcomed back. Don't assume your own limitations are the same for others that are more driven to excel at this game.

Really? Last time I remember, tarzan is playing marginal games LOL. They claim it's because he has no other access to games and with his super count he can play marginal games and still make more EV than an average player and still stay under the radar and be welcomed back, which in all fairness is just skeptical at best. If i had that ability, i would travel and play the very best games, i mean why wouldn't you? You would still have the same cover and be welcomed back. I thought these players are more willing and driven to excel at the game. They are so driven and willing to excel, that they can't travel? LOL

The people who CAN do these counts with cover and everything great, maybe they're a savant. With such a great skill set, why are they playing a game with such a small edge in blackjack, they should be applying it towards something with a far greater edge, with such a great skill set. Nonetheless, this is all speculative, even if they CAN do all these counts and have cover at the same time and play against a fast dealer, my first point still exists, someone show scientific proof that there will be a long run worthwhile difference in edge to correspond to the amount of effort it takes to learn all of this and also the effort to do it at the table. Not to mention the time to be completely accurate with no mistakes.

Because at the end of the day, the frequency of all these match-ups with surplus or deficit of cards where the sidecounts can be utilized won't be skewed heavily towards one side enough in the long run to garner any significant edge in a SHOE game. When it does skew towards one side, you STILL are not guaranteed to win those hands each and every time there is an imbalance and try to play the hand differently.

[Three]

the frequency of all these match-ups with surplus or deficit of cards where the sidecounts can be utilized won't be skewed heavily towards one side enough in the long run to garner any significant edge in a SHOE game. When it does skew towards one side, you STILL are not guaranteed to win those hands each and every time there is an imbalance and try to play the hand differently.

There is value in knowing that any side counted group is not out of whack. If it is a key card you know your weak index is a lot stronger. You may have a risk averse index play because the correlation is not good so you give up EV to control wild variance. If you knew the "neutral key cards" were at expected amounts you wouldn't need to give up the EV to avert the risk. If they were whacky then you make an exact play given their density. You use risk averse indices so you can give up some EV on some matchups and bet more money at the same RoR. What do you think you would bet at the same RoR if you could keep that EV without the added risk and play an exact index for the "neutral key card density? This is the math of the game. You can either win the same with much lower risk and a smaller spread or have the same risk while betting more which translates into more money. Perhaps you should spend more time learning how everything works than parroting what you here others say.

[ZenKinG]

There is value in knowing that any side counted group is not out of whack. If it is a key card you know your weak index is a lot stronger. You may have a risk averse index play because the correlation is not good so you give up EV to control wild variance. If you knew the "neutral key cards" were at expected amounts you wouldn't need to give up the EV to avert the risk. If they were whacky then you make an exact play given their density. You use risk averse indices so you can give up some EV on some matchups and bet more money at the same RoR. What do you think you would bet at the same RoR if you could keep that EV without the added risk and play an exact index for the "neutral key card density? This is the math of the game. You can either win the same with much lower risk and a smaller spread or have the same risk while betting more which translates into more money. Perhaps you should spend more time learning how everything works than parroting what you here others say.

Waste of my time arguing. Until i see any type of scientific evidence, just drop it please. Besides even if it worked and that's a BIG if, why waste your life and months even years to perfect this unpractical count in todays shoe games, when you can just play an extra 5 minutes per session with a level 1 count, LOL. Useless and obsolete for a shoe game.

[Three]

why waste your life and months even years to perfect this unpractical count in todays shoe games, when you can just play an extra 5 minutes per session with a level 1 count,

More time per session equals less longevity. Bigger spreads for the same EV equals less longevity. I could keep going but your longevity argument defeats everything you are saying. Learn the nuts and bolts of how things in this game work and then you will sound like you know what you are talking about.

[ZenKinG]

More time per session equals less longevity. Bigger spreads for the same EV equals less longevity. I could keep going but your longevity argument defeats everything you are saying. Learn the nuts and bolts of how things in this game work and then you will sound like you know what you are talking about.

100 simultaneous side counts while playing = more errors and less longevity because almost no one can do that while maintaining cover, therfore YOUR longevity argument is weak. Don't even bring up anyone who is willing and driven can master anything. If you want to defend yourself with that, why can't I defend myself saying I have great cover and that playing longer with a single parameter won't have an effect on my longevity? Works both ways. Nice try