Roulette/Tarzan

**Frank Galvin** · 07-26-2017, 07:56 PM

Three, read the words used by Tarzan (not my words, but his) in the third paragraph of post thirty-two in this thread:

Sounds impressive but T Basic does not outperform Hi-Opt2, ASC, full indices. It's only with side counts, sub-groupings, and factoring in key card effect, an expert level of the system, that you are going to get that extra sliver of advantage to outperform it. The system allows for versatility, such as altering side counts for specific playing conditions, and uses the information derived to maximum usefulness. There is a ceiling, and we are truly talking about small differences between the performance of all advanced counts, but the system has been quite effective for me. Flash is a friend that has seen me play, knows a lot about what I do, etc., a biased opinion.

**lij45o6** · 07-26-2017, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by moses

I always ask myself. If I could make the same bet or investment again would I do it? If the answer is yes, then my game is fine and that's part of it. If the answer is no, then something is F'ed up. FIX IT.

Dogman 1234. Im coming up with a .947 BC.

Fort what? T count? What did you factor in?

**Frank Galvin** · 07-26-2017, 08:11 PM

6's to 9's, are not simply .33, but +/- .33. The same holds true for Aces, +/- depending upon whether in surplus or deficit status.

Insurance decisions use same columns from what I understand, but groupings are not measured in the same exact manner.

**Frank Galvin** · 07-26-2017, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by moses

A RCH. To listen to Flash in the past you'd think Tarzan would blow Hi opt ii across the room.

Mathematically, Hi-Opt II with Ace side count (and perhaps 7's), is nearly as strong as you can get without using a computer (excluding any discussion of Three's approach). Tarzan Count gets to nearly identical results, but depending upon the game, rules and pen, these two systems jockey back and forth for claims of superiority.

But if I could keep the Tarzan Count, I would always want to have access to that level of information every time vis-a-vis HO2 or other highest level counts. Information is like cash, king. You can make apparent stupid plays, like doubling a hard 12 against a dealer's 6.

But no matter what, cards still get dealt randomly (assuming a fair game), and despite superior information, we must not forget that we are only using better, stronger information than ploppies. You can still lose, even if you could bring a computer and use it at a table.

**Frank Galvin** · 07-26-2017, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by moses

970

Huh???

**Frank Galvin** · 07-26-2017, 08:31 PM

I don't know, um, play your system with the best accuracy you can, and scout, scout, scout for the best games.

Either that, or get your rod and strike a stone, and then wander in the NV desert for 40 years?

**Frank Galvin** · 07-26-2017, 09:01 PM

T3, let's agree to disagree. The apeman knows his system best, and a certain programmer AP and Don S. know the math/probability of the Tarzan Count best. You and ZMF have likely seen it, in all of its glory during several sojourns with the man. But please do not bullshit a bullshitter (IAAL).

Sometimes others know as much, or heaven forbid, more than you on a given subject, and do not have to use 2500 words in one post to share their thoughts! Volume does not change the merits of an argument.

**lij45o6** · 07-26-2017, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Three

I knew it was a waste of time trying to explain something non-linear. I don't even know why I try any more. Almost nobody gets it.

What do you mean by 'linear' and 'non-linear'?

Mathematically, when someone says linear...I go straight to vectors. But, what do I know?

Maybe clear the confusion over the term linear? I am curious as to what you mean by the term linear. May help add to the public discourse!

**Jack Jackson** · 07-26-2017, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by dogman_1234

What do you mean by 'linear' and 'non-linear'?

Mathematically, when someone says linear...I go straight to vectors. But, what do I know?

Maybe clear the confusion over the term linear? I am curious as to what you mean by the term linear. May help add to the public discourse!

If the index for Ho2, 16v7 is +14 that number was derived from the Avg. weight of all the cards combined together..However if you added just FOUR 7's to a single decks of cards, basic strategy for 16 v 7 would now be to stand, believe it or not...As you can see a non-linear approach is by far way better and way more precise..

**BoSox** · 07-27-2017, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Bricklayer

This obviously isn't bulletproof so I ask that people take into mind things like losing streaks. They will come no matter what but probably just a little bit less often with a system like this. If you don't know the odds of losing streaks in BJ then you need to be careful....so here is something to help people getting into BJ.

Losing streak averages: (approximations)
2 losses in a row...happens 1 in 3 tries
3 losses in a row...happens1 in 6 tries
4 losses...happens 1 in 12
5...1 in 25
6...1 in 45
7..1 in 90 and so on.

Now just because this Tarzan method or any card counting method increases the win %. It doesn't mean that the streaks will not come. Sorry for sounding like a ploppy I just don't want anyone to ramp big time and enter a losing streak bc you were "due".

When you talk about streaks as in this case losing streaks you are talking about trends which is worthless in concept. No good player thinks that they are due for anything good or bad, they bet up or down the situation based on what information they already have, and that's it. Now you seem to be implying that players look out for losing streaks as if they can spot them as they are taking place, and beware and bet less, which is pure bullshit and belongs on the disadvantage page. Players deal with negative flux, by staying with the proven game plan, and sound money management principals.

**Frank Galvin** · 07-27-2017, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by Three

I knew it was a waste of time trying to explain something non-linear. I don't even know why I try anymore. Almost nobody gets it.
Obviously I didn't use enough words but I am guessing a thousand times more words and you still wouldn't understand. I tried to keep it as short and simple as possible. If you don't understand the difference you probably never will. I hope somebody understood it. I kind of doubt it though.

Three, I would suggest you call ZMF to understand the naivete of your rant regarding my understanding of the subject matter. No need for me to elaborate further on this board.

I am perplexed by your perception that if you utilize more words to advocate your positions, that people might understand you better. That appears diametrically opposed to reality. Brevity is extremely desirable, and I suspect many here would concur. I am at a loss as to why you have chosen to convert this discussion into a referendum on the status of your perceived intellectual superiority. To mimic the twitter postings of a current cultural figure, sad.

For the past few years, I have defended your representations of your innate mathematical abilities to grasp nontraditional approaches to card counting, and had regularly solicited your engagement in PM's and e-mails to explore what you termed your 2D approach. We paused those discussions about 2 years ago when I endeavored to study from another AP who developed his/her own nontraditional, "nonlinear", counting approach.

Please accept people's questions and comments at face value, and do not read into them any challenge to your intrinsic value or intelligence. Over the past few months, whenever I have engaged you in discussions on this website, the conversation quickly transforms Into you inextricably feeling hurt and betrayed. I have neither intended to evoke such emotion, nor expressed any sentiments nor comments designed to cause that result. I am truly sorry that you end up feeling this way.

Have a great day today. Me, I am off to visit my mother in the hospital.

**Bricklayer** · 07-27-2017, 06:25 AM

Wow,
I'm glad this topic blew up haha. And yes sorry for sounding like a ploppy...it's why I'm taking up card counting. Thanks guys.
As we can see this style of play is a bit more complicated. I believe that for anyone interested in using this system like myself, that it is important to understand that learning something new takes time. For example:. Nobody earned their black belt overnight. The mastery was learned from many hours that led to years of preparing. Things take time is all so I hope you all chose the system that works best for you.

So I'm getting ahead of myself but ...Ok so it would be nice to get some actual numbers into proper play for this style. It seems like they might not be out there Idk.
It seems like there would be optimal play and maybe bet sizing ( for hand like 12 v dealer 6) based on the likelihood % a card was "due" ( obviously the higher the better to land a 18-21 if you had 12 lol). This would obviously pertain to the middle column the most. Maybe Tarzan can answer this or someone else? I wanna know if there is a guideline out there if not we have to make one.