True Edge vs. True Count

**spassky962000** · 03-29-2014, 07:14 PM

Hi Norm,

You've probably answered this question many times before (I did do a search of the postings, but didn't find the answer yet), but can you explain why you think the Zen count (latest, copyright 2005) is more powerful using the true count = running count / # decks, rather than the true edge = running count / # quarter decks?
Is it something to do with what happens when the penetration is above 75%? It seems that if you use Arnold's conversion system (multiply by 4), that it wouldn't change anything. Or maybe you're talking about an older Zen count? Thanks again for your thoughts!

**bigplayer** · 03-29-2014, 10:24 PM

Simulations say that True Edge version is inferior likely for two reasons

1. Getting a TC by quarter decks and then flooring results in compromised index numbers, which is fine, but if you've bothered to learn a two level system for better playing decisions you're probably not interested in compromise index numbers
2. Unless you use fractional true counts for betting dividing by quarter decks results in sub-optimal (less exact) betting ramps. The more optimal your ramps are the better your system will perform. Divide the RC by quarter decks and that makes Zen each TC worth 1.28%, so in that regard True Edge calling a +1 TC = 1% over the house edge is incorrect by 0.28%.

**spassky962000** · 03-30-2014, 06:41 PM

Thank you bigplayer. I don't use fractional true counts, so this is very helpful.

**winnawinna** · 03-30-2014, 08:20 AM

I would also say that the errors increase since counting quarter decks is a lot harder than counting decks. In my opinion and experience, I would rather use a system with less errors than a system that is more complex to use. The problem with using sims is it only shows true mathematical numbers. It doesn't calculate real life situations where errors come in to play.

**Norm** · 03-30-2014, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by winnawinna

The problem with using sims is it only shows true mathematical numbers. It doesn't calculate real life situations where errors come in to play.

I wish people would stop saying this. You can sim errors.

**spassky962000** · 03-30-2014, 06:43 PM

Thanks winnawinna! I do make plenty of errors.

**winnawinna** · 03-30-2014, 08:28 AM

Norm....how. I have CVCX and how do I put errors in?

**Norm** · 03-30-2014, 08:33 AM

CVData supports this. Has for 15 years. A CVCX-type simulator can't.

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 03-30-2014, 08:39 AM

Following a sh*tstorm of negative feedback, Snyder published a complete set of ZEN COUNT indices to use in shoe games.

That set was far more complete than his published generalized matrix (in the original BBiBJ) from long ago.

See: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...nt_Indices.htm

**spassky962000** · 03-30-2014, 06:51 PM

Thanks ZenMaster_Flash. I did see this posting, but my book of BBIBJ (copyright 2005) has tables that don't seem consistent with the tables he gives here (after multiplying the indices by 4). I think I'm missing a version!

**bigplayer** · 03-31-2014, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by spassky962000

Thanks ZenMaster_Flash. I did see this posting, but my book of BBIBJ (copyright 2005) has tables that don't seem consistent with the tables he gives here (after multiplying the indices by 4). I think I'm missing a version!

You should generate your own indexes if you have CV-Data, if you'll private message me with your e-mail address I'll send you a complete set from +15 to -10 using Count Per Deck for Zen (Multiple Deck) including indexes for both late and early surrender. Just multiplying the True Edge indexes by 4 is not going to be very accurate.

**spassky962000** · 04-08-2014, 02:05 PM

Thanks again, bigplayer. Appreciate your help. I don't have CV-Data, just CV-Blackjack. I was unable to private message you. I think it is because I am still a "new member". I'll try again at some point in the future.

**Three** · 03-31-2014, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by spassky962000

Thanks ZenMaster_Flash. I did see this posting, but my book of BBIBJ (copyright 2005) has tables that don't seem consistent with the tables he gives here (after multiplying the indices by 4). I think I'm missing a version!

You are not working the problem the right way. Dividing the indices by 4 to get the quarter deck estimate fractional indices will show you why the 1/4 deck is weak without the fractional indices. With the approach you took (multiplying the 1/4 deck by 4) you are simply taking the error slot for integer indices in 1/4 deck and forcing it to show up in full deck estimates. By working the problem the other way and getting fractional indices you can see why 1/4 deck has such poor performance by comparison. That doesn't even factor in the deck estimation accuracy issues which may or may not factor in depending on your skill level for 1/4 deck estimates.