Zen Count TC per deck indices

[TBST]

Fellow counters,

I like to use the Zen count cause it is a good count to use for double deck games and shoe games. Now I have heard that the original count per deck performs better than quarter deck. Could anyone direct me where I can find the TC indices true counting per whole deck?

Thanks for your help

TBST

[moo321]

I believe this is it:

http://blackjackforumonline.com/cont...nt_Indices.htm

[TBST]

I believe this is it:

http://blackjackforumonline.com/cont...nt_Indices.htm

Thanks for the post from both of you according my Zen question. Now dividing by whole decks in Zen means that 3.5 decks left need to be rounded by 4 doing nearest whole deck estimation in Zen. Do we do that also in pitch games?

Thanks clearing that up.

TBST

[bigplayer]

Each True Count for Zen is worth roughly 0.32% swing in expectation.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I used the ZEN Count for the first decade and a half of my Pro career.

Hence, my handle !

The most attractive thing about the ZEN Count is that it is a powerful

count for shoe games and pitch games as well, without side-counts !

[Jabberwocky]

I used the ZEN Count for the first decade and a half of my Pro career.

Hence, my handle !

The most attractive thing about the ZEN Count is that it is a powerful

count for shoe games and pitch games as well, without side-counts !

I've been playing UBZ4 with sidecounted Aces in SP21!

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Jabberwocky,

you said: "I've been playing UBZ4 with side counted Aces in SP21!"

What are the tags that you are using - I am unfamiliar with "UBZ4"

[Ryemo]

Fellow counters,

I like to use the Zen count cause it is a good count to use for double deck games and shoe games. Now I have heard that the original count per deck performs better than quarter deck. Could anyone direct me where I can find the TC indices true counting per whole deck?

Thanks for your help

TBST

The link posted by Moo321 is what you need. If you'd like more literature on the TC version of Zen, you would need Arnold Synder's 1st edition of 'Black Belt in Blackjack'. The 1st edition isn't easy to find, but I purchased a used copy on Abebooks.com. I use Zen and started off learning TE indices, after reading Synder's 3rd edition of BBIB. After some research and consulting other forum members, I understand that the TC version indices are more powerful, so I had to re-learn my index plays. Good luck.

[Three]

You should be able to do the math for 3.5 decks left with no rounding. Think multiplication. You can either use 7 for even TC's and floor the TC to the nearest whole number TC. Like RC +33, the events of 7 are 28 (TC +4*2 = +8, you multiply by 2 because you are getting the even TC's) and 35 (TC +5*2 = +10). The nearest is +10 but you are short of the RC of +35 so the floored TC is +9. If you were over the nearest even TC then you would floor to that TC, i.e. RC +30 floored to TC +4. If you do this enough you won't even be doing any math. You will just know the TC without thinking about it. Most of use know the multiplication tables by heart and just know the answers to all the multiples of any deck remaining estimate. If you want to skip the multiplication just memorize the sequence for each deck remaining possible. It is just a matter of knowing which in the series corresponds to the multiple that will become your TC. There are so many different ways you can work any math problem you should be able to rework any math problem you have to do at the tables to be another problem you find easy for you. You should be able to get to where you really don't have to think about any math. You just know the answer. I like to think of it as a train with so many seats on each car. You have a number and need to figure out which car the seat number is in. With all the deck estimations as 8 or less left you should just know what the highest seat number is in each car without thinking about it. If a series of multiples is not intuitive study them until you know them in your sleep. I think most could do multiples of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. Only 7 might take some extra study but most probably know the multiples of 7 as well. I don't even think in terms of TC boundaries. I reduce the index to a RC for the current deck penetration or think about what RC's are the bet increment boundaries. Then I just compare the RC's so I never convert the current RC to anything. I always have the current RC as my only thought about where we are.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

TBST,

yousaid:

" ... dividing by whole decks in Zen means that 3.5 decks left need to be rounded by 4 doing nearest whole deck estimation in Zen. Do we do that also in pitch games?"

Learn to "FLOOR" as "Rounding" is starkly inferior.

In a pitch game you will be doing True Counts by less than one deck,

or you are playing the wrong games !

In order to divide by a fraction flip that little fraction over and multiply.

e.g.:

.5 decks remain 1/2 becomes 2/1 so you double your Running Count.
.3 decks remain 1/3 becomes 3/1 so you triple your Running Count.
.2 decks remain 1/5 becomes 5/1 so you quintuple your Running Count.

[Jabberwocky]

Jabberwocky,

you said: "I've been playing UBZ4 with side counted Aces in SP21!"

What are the tags that you are using - I am unfamiliar with "UBZ4"

The tags:

0 0 3 3 2 1 0 -2 -2 0

[moo321]

The tags:

0 0 3 3 2 1 0 -2 -2 0

That system is far from optimal. The 7 is not a low bet card (it has almost no EoR), and it plays as a low card for almost every hit/stand decision (12-14 vs. low cards). And it still plays as a low with 15 v. 2-3, because you don't want the dealer to have it in the hole or catch it as a hit card. It also overvalues the 9, which is a slight (.2% or so) high bet card. The six is as strong of a bet card as the 3, but you have no count for the 3, and double-count the 6.

I suspect the monkey count would outperform that with only a simple level 2. And certainly there are level 3 systems with a side count that would beat the hell out of that system. Like double the winrate.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Jabberw',


I have to agree with moo321 as far as the tags go.

These are very far from optimal.

I suggest that you reduce the 7 to zero and make the trey +2;

and reduce the 9 to -1, keeping your preferred inbalance.