T count simulation

[Tarzan]

For 12vs6, with 1 1/4 decks remaining in a 6 deck shoe, envision having 14 more {2-5} removed than {6-9}, 12 more {T} removed than {6-9}, there is a higher ratio of (2,3) to (4,5) in the remaining {2-5}, there is a higher ratio of (8,9) to (6,7) in the remaining {6-9}, there are two (6) in the remainder, there are four (A) in the remainder... you are well into the zone to double 12vs6. You will only see this on a 5/6 game, occurring maybe twice or three times in a year of full time play, not on a 4.5/6 game... think about this for a minute...

12vs6 is not that relevant, but demonstrates what you can do using the count. In any case, I look forward to the results of the simulation and having SCORE values for the system.

[seriousplayer]

Of course The Gordon Count can uncover uncommon but correct plays
e.g. Doubling on a hard 12 vs 6. Try thinking about this (admittedly)
uncommon deck/shoe composition with a middle-card imbalance:

With a 12 vs. 6, the 9 is a Key Card. The 8 and 7, are semi-Key Cards.

A Key Card is a rank that, in surplus (or deficit), radically improve
the play of your hand ~ while decreasing the dealer's chances.

Just extrapolate to the logical extremes and see how you would
play a hard 12 if there is a very high probability of both (or either)
your next card and/or the dealer's hole card being a 9 or an 8.

The T-Count, (at its core), uses the average E.O.R. for the low and
middle card groupings. Tracking numerous ranks individually is very
difficult, and The Gordon Count also requires an adjusted True Count,
based upon values of the side-counted ranks. Those adjustments
differ in extremis per hand-matchup. Think about it. Thus a P.E > 0.90
is in effect.

I M H O, the Gordon Count is surely impractical as I know only one
person capable of employing it. He is far too wealthy to play much
BJ these days.

I know players who have studied under Tarzan's individual face-to-face
tutelage. All are happy with Tarzan's mentorship, but constrained by a
non-disclosure agreement, they do not leap to publicly praise the T-Count.

The T-Count can be learned, and deployed under real-life casino conditions.

In a pitch game, the power of the T-Count is beyond impressive.

In a shoe game, it is simply powerful.

What you talking about regarding the key cards is called Sklansky's key card concept

[moses]

Beyond the three groupings and ASC, there are grouping imbalances and side counts, such as side counting the (6),(9), noting the ratio of (2,3) to (4,5) within the {2-5} grouping, etc. There is a level of difficulty but an upside of versatility, with the same primary count providing volumes of information and easily translating to adapt to a wide variety of playing conditions, such as side bets.

Tarzan. Do you honestly believe the average blackjack players can do this? Many threads turn into a level one vs level obscurity discussion. Reminds me of a scene when a guy takes his lawnmower into the shop because it won't start. The owner takes a look at it and scatches his head. He calls the top mechanic over who gives it a couple of yanks. Now all three of them are standing around the mower looking puzzled. The new kid walks up, twists off the gas cap, looks down in the tank and says "it ain't got no gas in it."

Verite will tell the blackjack players how much gas they have in their tank, so to speak. Either they can do it or they can't. It's no crime if they can't, but you've got to take that look into the tank.

I can go 5 columns 23,45,67,89,tens and side count Aces. Quite frankly, at that point, the game is exhausting and no longer fun. Plus there is no need (in the pitch game). So 4 columns and an Ace side count works just as well, if not better. I've had to practically pull it out of Don S to get my answers. But now the EoRs tags line up perfectly and insurance is perfect.

So this is where it appears to be something from the land of bullshit. 3 groups, An Ace side count, a 9 side count, a 6 side count, a split count that tracks the 23s and 45s separately. Plus you're doing it over the course of 312 cards. Seriously Tarzan, I'm not saying "you" can't do this. I am saying you are probably the only person on this earth that could do it. Now, if you can, why reduce the groupings? Why not just remember every card and/or in more groups? It reads as though you are doing it anyway.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Sklansky's key card concept

Sklansky wrote just a mention of Key Cards.

No elaboration to speak of.

[Ustonzen]

Dude, moses if you cant do it thats fine..get off tarzans jungle berries about it.
Its not theoretical physics - its a finite set of parameters - dedication and repetition are the keys that unlock its doors - not genius-caliber intellect nor savantian capabilities.
You should be asking what it would take to learn it, not if it can be learned..

[moses]

Have you actually played in a casino yet? Simply playing out 10k on hands on Casino Verite will be a tell whether a person can do it or not. Perhaps try it and quit belly aching about your pathetic life?

[seriousplayer]

Sklansky wrote just a mention of Key Cards.

No elaboration to speak of.

I have read parts of his book "Sklansky Talks Blackjack". In his book he did mention on how to hit specific hands verse different key cards like 14 vs 10. In there he explains that getting a seven for the hand 14 vs 10 is good for the player. On the other hand if there are absence of 7s remaining in the deck it is less alluring and you should deviating from hitting. The main ideas of his theory was based on the concept that there are times when proportion of key card denominations have far more importance on your playing decision than your count but he didn't develop a system in further details for the concept.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Sklansky Talks Blackjack"

"S. T. B." is little more than a quick guide to Basic Strategy.

I am thinking that the citation should be for either ...

"Gambling for a Living"
.............~or ~
"Getting the Best of It."

[seriousplayer]

"S. T. B." is little more than a quick guide to Basic Strategy.

I am thinking that the citation should be for either ...

"Gambling for a Living"
.............~or ~
"Getting the Best of It."

I am just saying I seem the concept of key cards in the book. I didn't say it is a must read book for APs nor I am endorsing it.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"I didn't say it is a must readbook for APs nor I am endorsing it."

You drew an unwarranted inference. I was correcting you.

How are you qualified to endorse anything to do with BJ?

[seriousplayer]

You drew an unwarranted inference. I was correcting you.

How are you qualified to endorse anything to do with BJ?

I am not qualified to endorse anything with BJ and I don't have a problem admitting that. Because it seem like you are trying to tell me that I am someone dishonest or something. First,I will need to achieve my trustworthiness, reliability, dependability, and integrity in Blackjack to even endorse anything. I don't know why it is an unwarranted inference is in information in the book wrong, invalid and voodoo? If is it not than I can use it as a reference and source. The information doesn't have to earth shattering to be warranted.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I don't know why it is an unwarranted inference

You inferred something that was not implied.
I was not criticizing you or implying anything.

[moses]

Tarzan. Here is how a column realignment will elimate the need for all the various side counts. 2-4s, 5-7s, 89s, tens, Aces.

The EoRs for the 2-4s and 5-7s combined are nearly exact. Plus you've eliminated the need to side count the 6 and split the 23s and 45s.

The primary reason for splitting the 69s column is to gain more on 14. Half the cards will improve your position and half will break your hand. You've still accomplished this because your rotation will still reflect the 2-7s vs 8-10s. Except now you don't have to split the column in half. Plus you have the 5-7s in a nifty little package that will take your 14 to 19,20, or 21.

The 8 and 9 EoRs are similar and the combined total is exactly half the number of the 10s. Now you don't have to side count the 9.

So your brain is actually doing less without the side counts, now only the Ace side count. The strength in BC will still come from your Ace side count because you can give it any tag value without effecting the balance to the other columns. For me, I'm counting all the cards and columnizing them into a what's played and what's left basis. So it's 5th grade math in terms of the relation to how each column is compared to another.

For you, reducing each column to zero will be more of an issue. But it can still be done because each column is still divisible by 4 and 2.

The reason Hi Opt II reamains close from a sim standpoint is because it's PE power comes from the tags assigned to the 2-7s. Also,the Ace side count which you are already doing. Now the Tarzan count is also considering the 89's while Hi Opt II only can do it from a deck estimation standpoint.

Your middle column for the pesky matchup on 13 will now be 5-9s vs 10s. For equal balance, I do 5-9s vs 10-As. On 12, you have a nice package of 89s to get to 20,21.

So you are still only side counting the Ace and getting max value out of your columns with less work on the brain.