T3

[NotEnoughHeat]

Moses. How do you keep your count?

I understand that you base your decisions of percentages from each column. Do you use three or four columns?

[NotEnoughHeat]

So I thought if I had an idea of some of the Tarzan TC's in the 4 column listing, I might be able to get a larger sample size. Kind of grasping at straws as a SIM cannot be ran. At least in the near term.

It seems like we all need to open up a few stats books and take a programming course. There's lots of stuff out there that we either haven't simed or haven't figured out how to sim.

You can probably find some of Tarzan's charts around somewhere on here if you think you could benefit from it.

[Crutoy37]

I believe the way Tarzan calculated true count was dividing count in (2-5) column by count in (10) column.

Mosses, how much success have you had using this system? And have you tried it in a shoe game?

[Crutoy37]

How long ago did you switch to it and how long it it take to master the count? What method did you use to remember each column?

[Freightman]

I've had alot of success. But got the boot alot. Never play shoes. I'm certain I could memorize columns over two decks.

Over 2 or more decks, recognizing percentage of the whole for each of 10's- 8,9's, - 6,7,8,9's - 2,3,4,5's plus an ace side count would be dynamite. What would be very interesting is the interaction of the group proportions to your betting ramps. In it's simplet form, you are still comparing high to low cards enhancing your playing efficiency by comparing the ratios of intermediates. Most count systems can't recognize this. I'm definitely conscious of this factor, and can recognize the issue in general terms, but not to specific terms, as it relates it to me. T3, Tarzan, I think, essenrptially do the same thing, though in different ways.

Here's where I see the difference for you. I believe you've said it takes you about 3 hands, heads up, in a Single deck for your column count to start working its magic. So, you need 6 or 7 rounds to make this pay. All things being equal, I think your proportion of hands played to recognize the same advantage in a double deck would be less, therefore, your profit potential per hand played should increase. Expanding to 6 deck shoes opens up whole new markets for you.

Curious as to your thoughts.

[Frank Galvin]

...You know I'm sort of a religious guy. I'm waiting for God to understand T3s system so he can xplain it to me. Lol

To paraphrase a political joke nearly 15 years old, "Do you know the difference between Tthree and G-d?"
"When Tthree talks, G-d listens." ; )

[NotEnoughHeat]

Here's where I see the difference for you. I believe you've said it takes you about 3 hands, heads up, in a Single deck for your column count to start working its magic. So, you need 6 or 7 rounds to make this pay. All things being equal, I think your proportion of hands played to recognize the same advantage in a double deck would be less, therefore, your profit potential per hand played should increase. Expanding to 6 deck shoes opens up whole new markets for you.

Curious as to your thoughts.

I'm not sure if you would be that much better off in 6D w/ moses' count. From what I understand, it's design is focused on PE and you would probably lose a lot of that power in the typical depth you would have an edge. I don't know how moses's BC holds up though but that's another consideration. At the end of the day looking into this might just devolve into one of the perennial debates here on counts.

Moses obviously has better insight on the specs of his count so he can comment.

I'd think that the move to DD wouldn't be so bad and would give him more games to play.

[lij45o6]

I would never say better without a SIM. I've heard jockeys say they could tell when the horse was a better animal underneath them. That's the feeling I get at the table.

It could be compared to a catcher (4 column) to a pitcher (conventional). The catcher calls signals for the pitch and waits for the ball. The pitcher throws the ball and hope to hell it's a strike.

Instead of BC and PE, I look at what is gone and thus what remains for small (minimum) and large (maximum) bet decisions. The problem was I couldn't get enough large bets. Now with the tweaks in 110, I can. However, it's still far less than the conventional counter is used to making.

Tarzan is an interesting player. I'd enjoy spending an afternoon of 100 questions with him.

There are 96 cardss in each of 3 columns. Can you imagine a count of 40- 70- 80? I'm sure there is no room left in my brain to count beyond that without busting a spring. So I'm not sure about the 24 Aces. I've got 10 fingers, 10 toes, two eyes, two butt cheeks so I suppose I could track them. Lol

My understanding in DD is 1 to 8 spread. I'd have to learn more from others before deciding how to develop a one and/or two hand spread that is consistent with the numbers and also casino tolerance. For instance, is two hands at 4 each considered 1 to 4 or 8 by our opponent?

Could you not reduce the columns of each group like they do with Heath/Gordon systems?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

moses,

I agree that you could learn a lot from Tarzan.

Counting by columns can make you a powerful

player if done correctly, which you are not.

The numbers never rise very high at all.

Almost always single digits in a SIX deck game.

That is because when properly played, you are

rendering RATIOS. As such, after every round

your numbers are reduced by the smallest of

the main three columns. i.e.

You have played a couple of hands and have

seen 3 baby cards, 4 middle cards and 2 Face card.

[For simplicity, I shall not reference the side-counted

Aces, that are the most critical part of ANY BJ count.]

So now you are visualizing 3 - 4 - 2

Reducing this automatically it is accurately reconfigured

by subtracting 2 (smallest number) from each column

making the smallest number always zero.

Now 3 - 4 - 2 becomes 1 - 2 - 0

The Tarzan Count gives the ratios accurately

altering Basic Strategy plays.

The power of the count is strong, but the BEST

feature of the procedure is that it provides you

with ACCURATE, but weird looking plays, that

work VERY well to baffle pit critters, leaving

them scratching their heads as you double on

a f'ugly hard 12 or hit a 13 vs 3 at a positive T.C.

The Hi-Lo infested pit critter and EITS see these

as suicidal plays.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

As the immortal beloved redoubtable Peter Griffin wrote:

For 16 vs 10 if there is more or less 5's than 6's available

that is a better indicator than any counting system provides.

[lij45o6]

Not letting that negative in Flash. There is nothing more powerful than knowing exactly what has been played and exactly what remains. Question is, how far can you go? I'd be the first to admit I couldn't hold that memory from 3 to 6 decks.

What you do with the information depends on what the game offers. For example, there is no point in fretting over doubling on any two cards or 9 or DAS If the rules say you can only double on hard 10,11.

To use Flash example for single deck. 3- 4- 2 no Aces played. I "know" exactly 9 cards have been played. Why in the world why I reduce to 1- 2- 0 and estimate a little less than 1/4 deck is gone?

Suppose 8 tens 10 6- 9s 10 2- 5s are played. I know 40% 10s remain 30% 6- 9s remain 30% 2-5s remain from these 3 groups. Suppose 2 Aces have been played. I know there are still two Aces that remain. I also know 30 cards have been played. This is a good value. Any increase in the 69s or 25s column makes it an even better value.

This is a prime example of know your dealer. A dealer that shuffled this hand away is best to avoid. A dealer that gives me 1 hand is worth playing. The dealer that lets me play two hands is gold.

If I have the ability to know this, then why would I break it down to 0- 2- 2 and looking over at the discard tray to estimate a little over 1/2 deck remains?

The casino asking players to jump from 2 decks to 6 decks is an absolute joke. I extend both hands, palms up, then close my fists and raise both middle fingers to this notion and walk away.

I know, I know, they give a higher spread allowance and more plays. But if there were say 1000 Tarzans in the world their butt cheeks would cinch up real quick.

IMO, there are far more lucrative ways to invest ones money and time. From what I've read on the forum, there are far more players attacking shoes with more dollars than sense.

How far you can go is computer perfect play using CA analysis every card drawn. Which is, funny to say, what the Ape-Man has been trying to accomplish.

Deck estimation is just that: an estimation. You don't need to know HOW many cards have been drawn, just that you have one less 2-5 cards, two less 6-9 cards, or three extra 10's.

The beauty is in the simplicity of the "count". (I feel I can quote "count" here Flash, since it is not a counting system)


To ZenMaster_Flash:

Would you agree that moses would benefit from the Tarzan System? A simple system than that of which moses is currently using?

[Freightman]

I detect a minor pissing contest. Strange, never saw one before

Here's a philosophical point. The purists will tell you that there can only be one correct play for any given situation. Given absolutely exact circumstances between 2 players - such as bankroll count system, Kelly ratio etc etc - yeah, I would agree.The comment as a generality is hogwash.

One uses risk averse indexes while the other uses EV maximizing indexes. Reason for the difference could be aversion to risk as well as size if bankroll, taking ror issues into consideration. Always pass on 16, or do whatever the index says - obviously preference with heat issues taken into consideration. Some if us will research a solution to a oriblemproblem, others expect tsk be spoon fed. So all kinds if different issues as well as styles of play. Dozens of examp,es.

Live and let live.

[Freightman]

I think Tarzan is great. Probably, THE best solution to the 6 deck game IMO. But why take away knowledge in the pitch games?

Are we selling books? Or playing cards?

An example of the difference presented to me a few days ago. Suppose you have 12vs6. If Tarzan can double on any two cards, then a surplus of middle cards might allow him to double down. He gets a 7 and dealer busts 16.

Same situation for me in single deck, I'd want to know exactly how many 67s and 89s are played and remain. I can't double if it's not offered. So the question is to hit or stand on a minimum bet. No big deal. One concern is not only the dealers option but directive at some casinos to start shuffling early if AP play is suspected. Suppose all the 89s are exhausted and 7 of 67s remain. I might hit to improve my position IF it's a low risk move. But if 67s are exhausted and 89s remain, the dealer is likely going to bust anyway. Again, why wouldn't I want to know this information if I could do it?

And therefore, your best play is that which is based on the information at your disposal. Accordingly, your best play may well be a major deviation from basic.