See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 261

Thread: T count simulation

  1. #27


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by APGuru View Post
    And to clear up the matter, I dont use hi-lo, I use a level 3 count, but side counting 6-8 deck shoe games or using tarzan counts or gordon counts are plain useless. You will soon find out, unless there's some type of bias in there.
    It depends on the rules of the 6-8 deck game. If the rules are favorable enough and good penetration on a 6-8 game there is a gain for side counting. For example, say you play Six deck S17, DAS, LS, RSA with 83% penetration. For other rules I would not consider side counting a 6-8 games because the SCORE would be similar using the Zen Count when playing less favorable rules.

  2. #28


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Its zengrifter. You can change the name but not the style.
    Even your letters are somehow annoying

  3. #29


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    And you cant compare your wong halves to what tarzan does - its on a different plane,
    All counts are level 1 compared to his, but hell be the first to down play it

  4. #30


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Ustonzen View Post
    And you cant compare your wong halves to what tarzan does - its on a different plane,
    All counts are level 1 compared to his, but hell be the first to down play it
    The problem lies in the frequency distribution. Side counting every card and knowing which ones are in deficit/surplus or which 'groups of cards' in the case of tarzan are in deficit/surplus is irrelevant. There just won't be enough times in a 6-8 deck game where there will be a significant deficit or surplus to affect the EV. Just look at what side counting the best card(ace) does in a shoe game. NOTHING.

    Pitch game, different story.

  5. #31


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Its not irrelevant he can make playing decisions with a much higher degree of accuracy - always a plus

  6. #32


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Ustonzen View Post
    Its not irrelevant he can make playing decisions with a much higher degree of accuracy - always a plus
    Yea, in a pitch game.

  7. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by APGuru View Post
    Oh really, I play 75% shoe games? Go find that quote of when I said that. If you guys can't counter anything I say
    Quote Originally Posted by APGuru View Post
    I like how you just leave out how many deck you're playing against and just say 75%. 75% in what?
    Ustonzen never said he plays 75% pen shoe games. So either you put words in his mouth to create a straw man (a tactic of someone that can't argue the issue with facts). Or you play 75% pen shoe games. I gave you the benefit of doubt that you could actually argue your point with facts rather than making some emotionally driven false argument. Thank you for correcting me on that point.

  8. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by APGuru View Post
    I use a level 3 count, I already made that extra gain from a higher level count and it performs better than your Hi-Opt II count with aces for the games I play.
    Maybe traditional Hiopt2/ASC but not Hiopts/my ace side count.
    Quote Originally Posted by APGuru View Post
    Tarzan count won't do much after a level 3 on a shoe game just like HiOpt II with aces side counted doesnt do much on the shoe game compared to a level 3 with high BC.
    The value of custom counts isn't just EV. It is how cheap it is to look like a complete moron while winning more and more frequently in a shorter time. I think that is the most valuable part of custom counts. You probably aren't fooling anyone but they are fine with letting you play because they won't get in trouble for it. In fact at the smartest places they will get in trouble for acting against a "really bad counter".

  9. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by APGuru View Post
    The problem lies in the frequency distribution. Side counting every card and knowing which ones are in deficit/surplus or which 'groups of cards' in the case of tarzan are in deficit/surplus is irrelevant. There just won't be enough times in a 6-8 deck game where there will be a significant deficit or surplus to affect the EV. Just look at what side counting the best card(ace) does in a shoe game. NOTHING.

    Pitch game, different story.
    Just knowing side count adjustments will give you more accurate play without side counting. It is like you started side counting that round. Just make appropriate adjustments for the neutral cards and key cards showing on the table. As we all know, in the long run it will all even out to be a more accurate decision even if your adjustments are not what someone side counting the entire shoe would do. Half of the time you will be off equally in both directions which cancels to zero in the long run. Some side count adjustments are huge for some matchups. You will find close calls that are very much a strong decision one way and not close calls that should be have the opposite decision made. If you do composition dependent indices you will find the index changes by hand composition for the same matchup for strongly affected matchups even in 8 deck games. This is exactly what the side count adjustments would predict if you started side counting that round. The thing you have to be careful of is you should make a TC side count adjustment based on all cards not on the felt being unseen to the TC based on the playing counts RC and the total number of decks unseen.

  10. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by APGuru View Post
    Yea, in a pitch game.
    If you don't think playing decisions are important in shoe games then deviating at all from BS is a waste of time in shoe games. You act like Tarzan is side counting card groups. That is not the case. His main count takes into account all the cards played to make the most accurate decision. It doesn't do that in the weak way linear counts make decisions, reducing everything to a number on a number line. It spreads the possible deck compositions out into multiple dimensions and uses an exact decision barrier for a small and closely related set of deck compositions that fall in the same 3 or 4 dimensional bin as the current deck composition. The decision pool isn't polluted by a ridiculous amount of unrelated deck compositions. If you can't understand that you really don't understand what you are doing when you count to begin with.

    When you count you take the average of a bunch of dec compositions that fall into the same decision bin and assume that it is correct for all the deck compositions in the bin. You know this assumption is wrong but it is the best use of the information as you gather it. If you gather and use information differently the bin has eliminated the vast majority of deck compositions into other bins which allows a much more accurate decision. Obviously this is huge for the deck compositions that are not anywhere near the average for traditional counts. Instead of only making accurate decisions near the peak of the decision bell curve and inaccurate for most of the decision bell curve, you can make much more accurate decision for the entire data set by separating it into dozens of bins each populated by more closely related deck compositions. I don't expect you to understand that as you don't seem to understand much and are an I read it somewhere and follow a formula guy rather than I understand what I am doing guy.

  11. #37


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    If you don't think playing decisions are important in shoe games then deviating at all from BS is a waste of time in shoe games. You act like Tarzan is side counting card groups. That is not the case. His main count takes into account all the cards played to make the most accurate decision. It doesn't do that in the weak way linear counts make decisions, reducing everything to a number on a number line. It spreads the possible deck compositions out into multiple dimensions and uses an exact decision barrier for a small and closely related set of deck compositions that fall in the same 3 or 4 dimensional bin as the current deck composition. The decision pool isn't polluted by a ridiculous amount of unrelated deck compositions. If you can't understand that you really don't understand what you are doing when you count to begin with.

    When you count you take the average of a bunch of dec compositions that fall into the same decision bin and assume that it is correct for all the deck compositions in the bin. You know this assumption is wrong but it is the best use of the information as you gather it. If you gather and use information differently the bin has eliminated the vast majority of deck compositions into other bins which allows a much more accurate decision. Obviously this is huge for the deck compositions that are not anywhere near the average for traditional counts. Instead of only making accurate decisions near the peak of the decision bell curve and inaccurate for most of the decision bell curve, you can make much more accurate decision for the entire data set by separating it into dozens of bins each populated by more closely related deck compositions. I don't expect you to understand that as you don't seem to understand much and are an I read it somewhere and follow a formula guy rather than I understand what I am doing guy.
    What you are describing seem like an expansion and modification to the Sklansky Key Card Concept where you place importance of each individual cards that composes the deck. To identify the times when the proportion of one or two cards have far more importance on your playing decision than the count. Then a strategy is revealed for the special situation when certain types of cards in the deck are depleted or surplus. For example, a simple form of Sklansky Key Card Concept is if you just seen four sevens come out of the deck in a single deck game and you have 14 vs 10, then it would be a good idea to stay on the situation. In other words, you are responding to the crooked distribution in the remaining cards.
    Last edited by seriousplayer; 11-28-2017 at 06:37 AM.

  12. #38


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Its wong halves its zenking

  13. #39


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    If you don't think playing decisions are important in shoe games then deviating at all from BS is a waste of time in shoe games. You act like Tarzan is side counting card groups. That is not the case. His main count takes into account all the cards played to make the most accurate decision. It doesn't do that in the weak way linear counts make decisions, reducing everything to a number on a number line. It spreads the possible deck compositions out into multiple dimensions and uses an exact decision barrier for a small and closely related set of deck compositions that fall in the same 3 or 4 dimensional bin as the current deck composition. The decision pool isn't polluted by a ridiculous amount of unrelated deck compositions. If you can't understand that you really don't understand what you are doing when you count to begin with.

    When you count you take the average of a bunch of dec compositions that fall into the same decision bin and assume that it is correct for all the deck compositions in the bin. You know this assumption is wrong but it is the best use of the information as you gather it. If you gather and use information differently the bin has eliminated the vast majority of deck compositions into other bins which allows a much more accurate decision. Obviously this is huge for the deck compositions that are not anywhere near the average for traditional counts. Instead of only making accurate decisions near the peak of the decision bell curve and inaccurate for most of the decision bell curve, you can make much more accurate decision for the entire data set by separating it into dozens of bins each populated by more closely related deck compositions. I don't expect you to understand that as you don't seem to understand much and are an I read it somewhere and follow a formula guy rather than I understand what I am doing guy.
    You are so far up your own a$$ as well as your ego, which makes you think you can reinvent the wheel to add some crazy new edge. Face it, no matter how many cards you can side count in a shoe game, the shoe is simply too diluted with so many cards that there will never be a big enough surplus or deficit in a certain card denomination to make 'accurate' play decisions add any significance to your EV. Just look at what side counting the best card in the game does for a shoe game win rate. Side counting the ace doesn't do jack $hit. You guys try to reinvent the wheel to try and act smart, but you can't. If you find a deeply dealt pitch game, then that's a different story, but please dont try to spread misinformation to fake players on this forum and get them all worked up on side counting every single card before even setting foot in a casino. These new players don't know and understand the game and all you're doing is making them waste precious time and precious EV, by sitting at home learning something that will maybe add a couple of dollars to their win rate.

    Lastly you're saying maybe I dont understand what im doing with counting to begin with? This is coming from the same guy that says at negative counts he has an advantage when tens come out and that those are advantage rounds. Sure they're advantage rounds when you get a 10 as your first card, but in the long run you betting into a negative count before the round starts, you will see a lot more small cards as your first card thus putting you at a negative IBA. You're the fool here, so just stop the nonsense.

Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Could someone run a simulation for me please?
    By BigJer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-31-2013, 07:55 PM
  2. Two hands bet strategy simulation for REKO count in single deck.
    By seriousplayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-30-2012, 01:38 PM
  3. Two hands bet strategy simulation for REKO count in single deck.
    By seriousplayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-30-2012, 08:13 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.