Zen Count, explanation of Snyder system needed....

[marriedputter]

So I've been using (Hi-Lo) for a long time and know it extremely well. I have been considering moving to Zen because I know without a doubt that I am capable of using it.

As Snyder describes it, you take the RC and divide it by the decks remaining times 4 (I figured out that this essentially means that you are dividing by 1/4 decks). This gives you your "true edge" (as opposed to finding the TC in Hi-Lo). So if the RC is +8 and there are 2 decks remaining, 8 divided by 2 x 4 = 1% advantage.

Normally, with a 1% advantage with Hi-Lo, I would consider a TC of +3 to be a 1% advantage. However, if we compare the two systems using the numbers in my example, Hi-Lo gives you a TC of +4 (RC of 8 divided by 2 decks remaining), which is about a 1.5% advantage.

So my question is, why do I get two different advantage percentages when using two different systems? Do both report a different advantage percentage simply because they are two different systems?

Also, I have read online that some use the Zen Count but simply divide by the number of decks remaining and don't multiply by 4. I have even read that this is more effective than Snyder's way. What gives?

[ohbehave]

I will take a stab at it. Per your example, being a level 2 count a RC+8 in Zen will likely be something around RC+4 in HiLo which would give a TC+2 in HiLo which compares similarly to the true edge of 1% in Zen.

[BJGenius007]

So I've been using (Hi-Lo) for a long time and know it extremely well. I have been considering moving to Zen because I know without a doubt that I am capable of using it.

As Snyder describes it, you take the RC and divide it by the decks remaining times 4 (I figured out that this essentially means that you are dividing by 1/4 decks). This gives you your "true edge" (as opposed to finding the TC in Hi-Lo). So if the RC is +8 and there are 2 decks remaining, 8 divided by 2 x 4 = 1% advantage.

Normally, with a 1% advantage with Hi-Lo, I would consider a TC of +3 to be a 1% advantage. However, if we compare the two systems using the numbers in my example, Hi-Lo gives you a TC of +4 (RC of 8 divided by 2 decks remaining), which is about a 1.5% advantage.

So my question is, why do I get two different advantage percentages when using two different systems? Do both report a different advantage percentage simply because they are two different systems?

Also, I have read online that some use the Zen Count but simply divide by the number of decks remaining and don't multiply by 4. I have even read that this is more effective than Snyder's way. What gives?

RC +8 on Zen = RC +4 on Hi-Lo because the face card tag is +2 for Zen.

So in both system the advantage is 1%.

[marriedputter]

RC +8 on Zen = RC +4 on Hi-Lo because the face tag is +2 for Zen.

So in both system the advantage is 1%.

Makes sense. I knew it had to have something to do with the count itself. I didn't doubt that it worked, I just like to know why things work.

[paymypush]

So I've been using (Hi-Lo) for a long time and know it extremely well. I have been considering moving to Zen because I know without a doubt that I am capable of using it.

As Snyder describes it, you take the RC and divide it by the decks remaining times 4 (I figured out that this essentially means that you are dividing by 1/4 decks). This gives you your "true edge" (as opposed to finding the TC in Hi-Lo). So if the RC is +8 and there are 2 decks remaining, 8 divided by 2 x 4 = 1% advantage.

Normally, with a 1% advantage with Hi-Lo, I would consider a TC of +3 to be a 1% advantage. However, if we compare the two systems using the numbers in my example, Hi-Lo gives you a TC of +4 (RC of 8 divided by 2 decks remaining), which is about a 1.5% advantage.

So my question is, why do I get two different advantage percentages when using two different systems? Do both report a different advantage percentage simply because they are two different systems?

Also, I have read online that some use the Zen Count but simply divide by the number of decks remaining and don't multiply by 4. I have even read that this is more effective than Snyder's way. What gives?

I don't know anyone who uses quarter decks. The ones who used to have all changed over and the ones starting out use full decks.

[hitthat16]

Yep, use full decks. For reasons that are too complicated to explain here, the quarter deck system was found to be flawed.

[marriedputter]

Yep, use full decks. For reasons that are too complicated to explain here, the quarter deck system was found to be flawed.

So Snyder was wrong? Hmm...that's interesting. I wonder if he has updated this information in more recent versions of Blackbelt in Blackjack.

bigplayer, if you're reading this, I would love to hear how you use Zen.

[Three]

As Snyder describes it, you take the RC and divide it by the decks remaining times 4 (I figured out that this essentially means that you are dividing by 1/4 decks). This gives you your "true edge" (as opposed to finding the TC in Hi-Lo). So if the RC is +8 and there are 2 decks remaining, 8 divided by 2 x 4 = 1% advantage.

Don't use this use snyder's other Zen TC system.

Normally, with a 1% advantage with Hi-Lo, I would consider a TC of +3 to be a 1% advantage. However, if we compare the two systems using the numbers in my example, Hi-Lo gives you a TC of +4 (RC of 8 divided by 2 decks remaining), which is about a 1.5% advantage.

What you are getting with each is an advantage estimate for the average advantage of all counts adding to that RC with that number of cards remaining. The range within the actual advantage represented is quite large with a cluster on the low side of the mean if I remember right. Each count will get its own advantage estimate and each will have deck compositions where that advantage is spot on and where it is way off. If there are lots of 5's removed compared to the rest of the low cards Zen will be far more accurate and have a much higher advantage estimate. If lots of 2's have been removed HILO will have a much higher advantage estimate but still be less accurate. When low cards are removed equally from all low ranks both counts should come up with about the same advantage estimate and be pretty accurate.

So to answer your question just what do you expect the count to be for each count removing 1 of each low card 2-6 from a 2 deck shoe? HILO would have a TC of about +2.5, RC +5 with about 2 decks left. Zen would have a RC of +8 with about 2 decks left. for an advantage estimate of 1%, RC +8 divided by about 8 quarter decks. Hmmm, those figures look familiar.
.

Also, I have read online that some use the Zen Count but simply divide by the number of decks remaining and don't multiply by 4. I have even read that this is more effective than Snyder's way. What gives?

Imagine you want to get the closest look at your data. One look stretches the data out 4 times as long so you can see things with the naked eye. The other has the data graphed in 1/4 the space causing you to get out rulers and magnifying glasses to see what is there. Which do you think will be easier to use and give more accurate results when examining the graphs? You would need indices to 1/4 TC to get the same accuracy of integer TC with full deck divisor. Now LVBJ would be using indices of -0.75, 0 and +0.75 instead of +3, 0 and -3. Math is now needed to go two extra decimal places at every index play.

[marriedputter]

So to answer your question just what do you expect the count to be for each count removing 1 of each low card 2-6 from a 2 deck shoe? HILO would have a TC of about +3, RC +6 with about 2 decks left. Zen would have a RC of +8 with about 2 decks left. for an advantage estimate of 1%, RC +8 divided by about 8 quarter decks. Hmmm, those figures look familiar.

Don't you mean that with HILO the RC would be +5 with a TC between 2 and 3? There are 5 low cards, not 6. Your Zen count is accurate though.

[Three]

Don't you mean that with HILO the RC would be +5 with a TC between 2 and 3? There are 5 low cards, not 6. Your Zen count is accurate though.

Yes, I made a mistake. Thanks for the catch I will change my post.

[bigplayer]

bigplayer, if you're reading this, I would love to hear how you use Zen.

I use Snyder's original "Count Per Deck" version of Zen using custom risk averse indexes generated with CV-Data. Each +1 of High-Low is worth +1.8 of Zen so Zen +10 = High-Low +6. Each High Low is worth roughly 0.5 and each Zen TC is worth roughly 0.3. (obviously this is not exact because edges don't change in a completely linear fashion as Don has explained many times and as you can see by checking a betting sim on CVCX.). As Grifter once said, you get more granularity using a count per deck system with Zen than the later True Edge version.

BP

[marriedputter]

I use Snyder's original "Count Per Deck" version of Zen using custom risk averse indexes generated with CV-Data. Each +1 of High-Low is worth +1.8 of Zen so Zen +10 = High-Low +6. Each High Low is worth roughly 0.5 and each Zen TC is worth roughly 0.3. (obviously this is not exact because edges don't change in a completely linear fashion as Don has explained many times and as you can see by checking a betting sim on CVCX.). As Grifter once said, you get more granularity using a count per deck system with Zen than the later True Edge version.

BP

Thank you BP.

[marriedputter]

Yes, I made a mistake. Thanks for the catch I will change my post.

Thank you for the detailed explanation Tthree. I appreciate your assistance.

I think that I am going to cross over to Zen. I won't apply it though for a long time. Lots of practice needed.