Has anyone here ever tried to keep two counts?

[KJ]

experiencing little or nothing in the way of "mental fatigue" doing it for extended periods and able to give a complete breakdown of the deck composition at any given point.

Can I ask how you know this, Tarzan? Do you practice your count at home for 5-6 hours straight, with no interruptions and then check the remaining makeups of the cards? Even if you did so, that would be a skewed test, because it isn't under casino condition, plus the final test to check the remaining deck composite, would create a 'break' that you aren't afforded in the casino.

The only real way to determine if you are experiencing more errors than you think or admit would be if you could examine a tape of your actual casino play, which I don't think any of us have the ability to do. In the absence of such a actual play examination, I just have a real problem with players claiming that they don't experience mental fatigue or make more errors, yourself, with your unique abilities included. It goes against how the human brain works. I mean unless at some point you have managed to cease being human as well.

[muffdiver]

We might ask "Jane" about Tarzan's humanity?

[21forme]

I would definitely spread to two hands, if you can get away with it. Here in Vegas, spreading to two hands, especially on the DD games, draws attention and I am not willing to endure that extra attention at the few local DD games I play.

Quite frankly, what to do with this extra Ace side count info is one of my dilemmas. I know how to use that extra info for a better insurance count and decisions. Also, like you, I might take a few specific doubles just a hair earlier, A8v5, 8v6 and 9v2 for example. But if you start bumping up your bet extra, you risk over-valuing this information, because the info is already included in your main count.

I have never done this in Vegas, for the reason you mentioned.

Regarding what I use the informatio0n for, Don S. made an excellent post (either here or BJ21, I don't recall now) on what indices to adjust and how. There was also a fairly old post on BJ21 which I printed out - the first line is "Adjustment to the Hilo RC for each single surplus ace in the undealt deck/shoe." I believe it was a POM. Cacarulo's handle is mentioned in the post, but he didn't make this one (perhaps Doghand?)

I never make betting decisions based on the ace side count, only playing decisions. In another BJ21 post from a few years ago a sim was done to look at the edge by TC when all aces had already been played, and the difference was insignificant compared with a "normal" ace distribution at the same TC. That may seem counter-intuitive, but the math is the math.

[KJ]

I have never done this in Vegas, for the reason you mentioned.

Regarding what I use the informatio0n for, Don S. made an excellent post (either here or BJ21, I don't recall now) on what indices to adjust and how. There was also a fairly old post on BJ21 which I printed out - the first line is "Adjustment to the Hilo RC for each single surplus ace in the undealt deck/shoe." I believe it was a POM. Cacarulo's handle is mentioned in the post, but he didn't make this one (perhaps Doghand?)

I never make betting decisions based on the ace side count, only playing decisions. In another BJ21 post from a few years ago a sim was done to look at the edge by TC when all aces had already been played, and the difference was insignificant compared with a "normal" ace distribution at the same TC. That may seem counter-intuitive, but the math is the math.

Thank you, I will research those posts on BJ21. I read through the archives a lot when I first joined but really should do more reading through the archives, if only to refresh some ideas that you have read before. It's one of those things that you know you should do more often, but just never seem to get to.

[Blitzkrieg]

It is a main count for playing and a balanced side count for betting. The linear approach to the combined count gives perfect BC but the 2 dimensional approach rather than a combined linear approach to betting makes perfect linear BC look pretty weak. I have been sworn to secrecy about some of the system. That part is not mine but I took it so far beyond that by adding a 2nd count and abandoning the linear approach to betting with a straight side count of which I am very proud.

.

So what kind of balanced side count are you using for betting purposes?

[Tarzan]

Can I ask how you know this, Tarzan? Do you practice your count at home for 5-6 hours straight, with no interruptions and then check the remaining makeups of the cards? Even if you did so, that would be a skewed test, because it isn't under casino condition, plus the final test to check the remaining deck composite, would create a 'break' that you aren't afforded in the casino.

The only real way to determine if you are experiencing more errors than you think or admit would be if you could examine a tape of your actual casino play, which I don't think any of us have the ability to do. In the absence of such a actual play examination, I just have a real problem with players claiming that they don't experience mental fatigue or make more errors, yourself, with your unique abilities included. It goes against how the human brain works. I mean unless at some point you have managed to cease being human as well.

I'm in Vegas. I'd been on an all night long blackjack marathon through several casinos. I arrived back at the hotel room by the next morning and about the time I was getting ready to pass right out the phone rings. It's Michael Shackleford whom I asked about a tentative meeting with while in Vegas stating that he had a short window for time if I could pop right up which I did. I wasn't going to pass up meeting him so with no sleep, worn down from being up all night, etc.... I could still blow through two decks and lay out exactly what the deck composition was with no errors repeatedly. I've done counting demonstrations in hotel rooms after playing for hours and hours on the casino floor while quite tired with the same result whether fresh and rested or quite physically tired. I can count while half asleep and out of it, probably just from doing it so much, the repetition of it I suppose. Numerous people have seen me do this.

I'm not saying that fatigue doesn't increase the likelihood of making an error but when I make an error it can be something like misgauging the ratio of (6,7) within the {6-9} grouping by one card, so not necessarily the end of the world. I've made mistakes but not very often and not significant enough to make any difference.

[Three]

Tarzan speaks the truth. I have witnessed his demonstrations many, many times. The only error I witnessed was once when he was seriously impaired. No respected AP would play when they are in such a state. He did do it flawlessly dozens of times and said he thought he may have made a mistake on the time he did make a mistake. He was 1 card off. I will wager his system one card off is more accurate than any of the simple systems.

[Ouchez]

So you are talking DD here Tarzan? You use two decks when employing this count, only in the DD game, is that what you are saying?

O

[muckz]

Tarzan normalizes the count regularly so that the lowest number of the columns, as you put it, is 0 and the other two are reduced by the same amount. So the numbers don't get large that often in a 6 deck shoe. He uses pen as a fifth "column" to define an exact ratio of sorts. A count of 7, 5, 0, 12 is quite different when 2.5 decks have been played than when 4 decks have been played. He doesn't need to calculate the difference because he already knows it for both pen levels. No math at the table only counting. That is what inspired my no math at the table approach for linear computations.

If Tarzan can do it for a 4 or 5 dimensional system then doing it for a linear system is easy. Just learn the bin ranges for each true count at each level of pen. You probably already know it without thinking anyway. For flooring TC calculations:

TC -1: RC -2 to -1
TC 0: RC 0 to 2
TC +1: 3 to 4
TC +2: 5 to 7
TC +3: 8 to 9
TC +4: 10 to 12
etc

If there are 2.5 decks yet to be seen and the RC is +7 you know the TC is +2 because you know the bins and bin RC +5 to +7 is TC +2 for 2.5 decks unseen.

This method works excellent with unbalanced systems since most have a pivot ~hilo tc2/4. Near the pivot point it is very unlikely that I would ever do a TC calculation, comparing the RC to a schedule of numbers is much easier and quicker.

[Three]

So with a 7,5,0,12 is he dividing each column by 2.5 when that many decks have been played?

No, he knows all the plays for any count and pen. Just like you memorizing basic strategy. He knows before he sits down x,y,z,a with 2 decks left is a stand and with 4 decks left is a hit. He does no math at the table for playing decisions. For betting he must come up with an advantage estimate which involves a little math.

Last we corresponded, Tarzan mentioned assigning each card a point value. I've done that and am very pleased with the results. More $$$ faster = Less playing time.

I have car pooled to a casino with him a few times. He has a win tolerance goal in mind and each time he hit it before I even picked a table. It is amazing how powerful his count is. I have to play a long time for an advantage count to make decent money. He just wins it no matter what the count. Powerful systems require a very small spread. That helps with longevity. Hardly play to hit the goal. Hardly spread to hit the goal. I am amazed he ever gets heat.

[Three]

Implemented your suggestion of a mid-level bet. The results have been phenomenal.

I am glad I could be a help. SD is not my game so I was going by research I did just in case I played SD. I wasn't sure how the sim and theory would translate to real play. It usually does just fine but real play has its quirks that don't always translate to the computer very well.

[Blitzkrieg]

I'm in Vegas. I'd been on an all night long blackjack marathon through several casinos. I arrived back at the hotel room by the next morning and about the time I was getting ready to pass right out the phone rings. It's Michael Shackleford whom I asked about a tentative meeting with while in Vegas stating that he had a short window for time if I could pop right up which I did. I wasn't going to pass up meeting him so with no sleep, worn down from being up all night, etc.... I could still blow through two decks and lay out exactly what the deck composition was with no errors repeatedly. I've done counting demonstrations in hotel rooms after playing for hours and hours on the casino floor while quite tired with the same result whether fresh and rested or quite physically tired. I can count while half asleep and out of it, probably just from doing it so much, the repetition of it I suppose. Numerous people have seen me do this.

I'm not saying that fatigue doesn't increase the likelihood of making an error but when I make an error it can be something like misgauging the ratio of (6,7) within the {6-9} grouping by one card, so not necessarily the end of the world. I've made mistakes but not very often and not significant enough to make any difference.

Negating the Aces do you place more importance on a particular grouping than the others? Learning how to count this way do you think it would be easier to count the 2-5 grouping and 6-9 grouping with a SD and then add the Ten grouping once I can successfully account for all the cards in the first two groupings in a SD? When practicing and spreading out 4 player hands and a dealer hand what is the technique that you use to tally the 3 column total negating aces, is it mainly through repetition and muscle memory?

I found an old post of yours on BJinfo.com where you went over a TC conversion with this count. Below I have underlined it, but wouldn't it be a TC of 6 where you have 12/2decks? If it was a 6D game and 4 decks have been spent are you likely to see much higher totals in the 3 columns that you gave in the example I underlined?

Tarzan's DHME count

---

"Let's go into the basics of the "Tarzan Count" in
a broad brush sort of way. As was mentioned before the cards are broken down
into groupings. To give you an idea of how this works, take a deck of cards and
remove the 4 aces. Now split the cards up into 3 groups as
follows:

2-5's

6-9's

10's

You will notice that these
are 3 equal piles, essentially 1/3 or 33% of the deck each, 16 cards in each
pile. This ratio of these groupings of course remains constant regardless of the
number of decks.Your count is on these 3 groupings of cards and aces. What is
the advantage of knowing (when the TC is nearly neutral) that 15 more 2-5,s have
been played than 6-9's and 13 more 10's have been played than 6-9's? The answer
is obvious. The most prevalent cards coming are likely 6-9's!

These three
groupings are counted with relevance to each other and aces are only counted as
a 4th grouping only as a finite number of aces played with no correlation
relative to the three groupings. Once you achieve perfection there is more if
you wish to add it, tracking number of 9's played of the ratio of the 6-9
grouping but let's not worry about or go into that just yet or here as I wish to
keep this simplistic.

This number of cards played in a given grouping is
also easily broken down to a PERCENTAGE of likelihood relative to penetration of
a shoe game. For instance:

33% 33% 33% (qty. played)

2-5's 6-9's
10's X

These are the percentages at the beginning of the shoe. Let's say
you are playing against 6 decks and want to know an accurate percentage of the
relevance of each burned/used card that has been played. In a 6 deck
shoe:

Decks Remaining / Impact on percentage of each card
(rounded)

5 / .41% per card per grouping, round to .4%

4 / .52%
per card per grouping, round to .5%

3 / .69% per card per grouping, round
to .7%

2 / 1.04% per card per grouping, round to 1%

This is
essentially the basis along with sims to provide applicable index plays. This is
not something that you need to memorize over and above the count but you will
find yourself calculating these percentages as you go after using this system
long enough, hence the rounding factor.

Let's put this into an
example---

You are playing a six deck shoe and upon looking over at the
discard rack, you see that you have spent 4 decks; There are 2 decks remaining.
The count is "8-4-0-(12)" . This is to say that 8 more 2-5's have been played
than 10's, 4 more 6-9's have been played than 10's, and 12 total aces have been
played out of 24 total.

Now let's evaluate this. TC conversion is TC4.
There are 12 total aces remaining in the two remaining decks (this is obviously
a good count warranting a higher bet with a few extra aces in there to be had as
icing on the cake!). Let's predict the percentage of likelihood of what the very
next card will be (we are rounding this as they might get upset about you
bringing your calculator to the blackjack table). Our chart shows that this far
into the shoe each card has a whopping 1.04% effect! We round this to 1% and we
know that for the very next card:

Grouping Percentage

2-5,s 25%
(There is a 25% chance the next card is a 2-5)

6-9's 29% (There is a 29%
chance the next card is a 6-9)

10's 45% (There is a 45% chance the next
card is a 10)

Aces............................There are 4 aces beyond the
norm, 12 remaining in 2 decks, meaning "aces rich"

You don't actually
need to know these percentages. You merely need to understand their concept for
deriving the index plays involved and know and understand those.

Let's go
back to the count itself for a moment. How do you very very rapidly count these
three groupings? It's EASY!! Pathetically easy. You know how you break a
fraction down to it's simplest terms? For instance, 4/8 breaks down to 1/2? You
are doing the same thing! You have a set of 3 numbers that all correlate to each
other (The aces are simply a finite count by themselves)---- If you have a count
of "12-4-5-X" this breaks down lowest terms by deducting from each! "12-4-5-X"
becomes "8-0-1-X". There is always a ZERO in the group and you have subtracted 4
from each group. To go on and on without breaking it down to simplest terms is
not feasible if not impossible. You merely need to know how many of a given
grouping have been played OVER AND ABOVE the other groupings and not the totals.
If you practice this simple mathematical breakdown to simplest terms it becomes
very easy to you and you are able to do the breakdown as you go and as you are
counting.

Let's do a common sense application of all this. Let's say the
count is -------> "15-0-15-X" and you have 3 decks remaining of the 6 deck
shoe. You are heads up and "play all" in a nomidshoe. Obviously you would have a
minimum bet out there at this point but....do you hit a 13 against the dealer's
2? This is the added advantage of this type of count in a nutshell, this
particular example.

There is more to add after the count becomes second
nature (if you want to go further), which is a side count of 9's with regard to
the ratio of 6-9 grouping played which also comes to play on what I call the
amazingly illustriously luminous 50 or so index plays that go with "the whole
enchilada".

There are books and references available on "DHM EXPERT", I
think. This is the system I have used for over 20 years, having never even tried
or done anything else. I like it, I trust it.

I hope I slapped all this
down accurately as it was off the top of my head but I'm sure if I made any
mistakes, my fellow blackjack pros will provide additional critique!!"

[OGBasher]

Negating the Aces do you place more importance on a particular grouping than the others? Learning how to count this way do you think it would be easier to count the 2-5 grouping and 6-9 grouping with a SD and then add the Ten grouping once I can successfully account for all the cards in the first two groupings in a SD? When practicing and spreading out 4 player hands and a dealer hand what is the technique that you use to tally the 3 column total negating aces, is it mainly through repetition and muscle memory?

I found an old post of yours on BJinfo.com where you went over a TC conversion with this count. Below I have underlined it, but wouldn't it be a TC of 6 where you have 12/2decks? If it was a 6D game and 4 decks have been spent are you likely to see much higher totals in the 3 columns that you gave in the example I underlined?

Tarzan's DHME count

---

"Let's go into the basics of the "Tarzan Count" in
a broad brush sort of way. As was mentioned before the cards are broken down
into groupings. To give you an idea of how this works, take a deck of cards and
remove the 4 aces. Now split the cards up into 3 groups as
follows:

2-5's

6-9's

10's

You will notice that these
are 3 equal piles, essentially 1/3 or 33% of the deck each, 16 cards in each
pile. This ratio of these groupings of course remains constant regardless of the
number of decks.Your count is on these 3 groupings of cards and aces. What is
the advantage of knowing (when the TC is nearly neutral) that 15 more 2-5,s have
been played than 6-9's and 13 more 10's have been played than 6-9's? The answer
is obvious. The most prevalent cards coming are likely 6-9's!

These three
groupings are counted with relevance to each other and aces are only counted as
a 4th grouping only as a finite number of aces played with no correlation
relative to the three groupings. Once you achieve perfection there is more if
you wish to add it, tracking number of 9's played of the ratio of the 6-9
grouping but let's not worry about or go into that just yet or here as I wish to
keep this simplistic.

This number of cards played in a given grouping is
also easily broken down to a PERCENTAGE of likelihood relative to penetration of
a shoe game. For instance:

33% 33% 33% (qty. played)

2-5's 6-9's
10's X

These are the percentages at the beginning of the shoe. Let's say
you are playing against 6 decks and want to know an accurate percentage of the
relevance of each burned/used card that has been played. In a 6 deck
shoe:

Decks Remaining / Impact on percentage of each card
(rounded)

5 / .41% per card per grouping, round to .4%

4 / .52%
per card per grouping, round to .5%

3 / .69% per card per grouping, round
to .7%

2 / 1.04% per card per grouping, round to 1%

This is
essentially the basis along with sims to provide applicable index plays. This is
not something that you need to memorize over and above the count but you will
find yourself calculating these percentages as you go after using this system
long enough, hence the rounding factor.

Let's put this into an
example---

You are playing a six deck shoe and upon looking over at the
discard rack, you see that you have spent 4 decks; There are 2 decks remaining.
The count is "8-4-0-(12)" . This is to say that 8 more 2-5's have been played
than 10's, 4 more 6-9's have been played than 10's, and 12 total aces have been
played out of 24 total.

Now let's evaluate this. TC conversion is TC4.
There are 12 total aces remaining in the two remaining decks (this is obviously
a good count warranting a higher bet with a few extra aces in there to be had as
icing on the cake!). Let's predict the percentage of likelihood of what the very
next card will be (we are rounding this as they might get upset about you
bringing your calculator to the blackjack table). Our chart shows that this far
into the shoe each card has a whopping 1.04% effect! We round this to 1% and we
know that for the very next card:

Grouping Percentage

2-5,s 25%
(There is a 25% chance the next card is a 2-5)

6-9's 29% (There is a 29%
chance the next card is a 6-9)

10's 45% (There is a 45% chance the next
card is a 10)

Aces............................There are 4 aces beyond the
norm, 12 remaining in 2 decks, meaning "aces rich"

You don't actually
need to know these percentages. You merely need to understand their concept for
deriving the index plays involved and know and understand those.

Let's go
back to the count itself for a moment. How do you very very rapidly count these
three groupings? It's EASY!! Pathetically easy. You know how you break a
fraction down to it's simplest terms? For instance, 4/8 breaks down to 1/2? You
are doing the same thing! You have a set of 3 numbers that all correlate to each
other (The aces are simply a finite count by themselves)---- If you have a count
of "12-4-5-X" this breaks down lowest terms by deducting from each! "12-4-5-X"
becomes "8-0-1-X". There is always a ZERO in the group and you have subtracted 4
from each group. To go on and on without breaking it down to simplest terms is
not feasible if not impossible. You merely need to know how many of a given
grouping have been played OVER AND ABOVE the other groupings and not the totals.
If you practice this simple mathematical breakdown to simplest terms it becomes
very easy to you and you are able to do the breakdown as you go and as you are
counting.

Let's do a common sense application of all this. Let's say the
count is -------> "15-0-15-X" and you have 3 decks remaining of the 6 deck
shoe. You are heads up and "play all" in a nomidshoe. Obviously you would have a
minimum bet out there at this point but....do you hit a 13 against the dealer's
2? This is the added advantage of this type of count in a nutshell, this
particular example.

There is more to add after the count becomes second
nature (if you want to go further), which is a side count of 9's with regard to
the ratio of 6-9 grouping played which also comes to play on what I call the
amazingly illustriously luminous 50 or so index plays that go with "the whole
enchilada".

There are books and references available on "DHM EXPERT", I
think. This is the system I have used for over 20 years, having never even tried
or done anything else. I like it, I trust it.

I hope I slapped all this
down accurately as it was off the top of my head but I'm sure if I made any
mistakes, my fellow blackjack pros will provide additional critique!!"

Alright, so reading over this leads me to a couple questions that I hope someone can help me with.

1. How does he come up with these numbers?
These are the percentages at the beginning of the shoe. Let's say
you are playing against 6 decks and want to know an accurate percentage of the
relevance of each burned/used card that has been played. In a 6 deck
shoe:

Decks Remaining / Impact on percentage of each card
(rounded)

5 / .41% per card per grouping, round to .4%

4 / .52%
per card per grouping, round to .5%

3 / .69% per card per grouping, round
to .7%

2 / 1.04% per card per grouping, round to 1%

2. How can one sim this to create index plays? Is this possible in Casino Verite? How much more should one expect to make over your average level II system?

3. Other than strange index plays, how does this provide more cover than say Zen or Hi Opt II with a large amount of indices. Are you not still putting out large bets on high counts and small bets on low counts?

4. Is there any information out there on the DHME count that anyone would be willing to share?

Thanks for any replies.