Did he answer your question? If he did you weren't asking what I thought you were asking and what my reply was responding to. I thought your question was more specifically about T Count. You might notice he didn't say anything about T Count, as he shouldn't without Tarzan's prior approval.Originally Posted by moses
I was speaking to Gronbog's courtesy.
Buy Tarzan's book you bunch of blackjack playing retards. If you don't know my system by now. SCREW YOU. I opened this thread. But please no questions about my work. Just focus on the results. It's on par with Wong Halves...but the good news is it's 10 times more difficult. Get it! GOT IT? Good!
Last edited by moses; 12-17-2017 at 11:59 AM.
Not necessarily! There are counts that doesn't perform as well with surrender and resplit aces even though it is a level 2 or 3 count system. But can outperform in rules like S17 DAS and H17 DAS. This has been proved with the simulation for T-count vs Hi-OPT II /ASC
I asked Don Schlesinger quite some time back if he would be willing to review the mechanics of the system and make an objective analysis of it, with any and all data subject to his review not long after I printed something that didn't look like a 3 ft. tall stack of loose papers (much of it handwritten) and folders with little "post-it" notes stuck all over the place and the simulation project was beginning... I wanted him to see this thing because I felt it was worthy of seeing and wanted his valued opinion of it. He's been in the loop on coming up with the simulation program.
Moses, I've talked about some of the details of the system in the card counting section and in other posts, enough to give an idea of how it all works. In this thread(s), I would rather stick to simply throwing these initial sim results out there. Besides, it's not like I'm going to read a paragraph of your advice or thoughts and say, "Stop the presses! This makes total sense! If only I'd read this 30 years ago... Well, no choice now, throw away the whole thing, throw away the program it's taken over a year to come up with and start over! Hallelujah!" I just doubt this is going to happen, so why debate the "whatifism" of it, or why Billy from Beaver Brook, Wisconsin hates Isle of Capri so bad but he's a dickhead anyway, etc. Can't we just have a normal thread that doesn't trail off into oblivion?
Last edited by Tarzan; 12-14-2017 at 08:57 PM.
Tarzan responded about Don's interest and involvement in an earlier post. From my point of view Don's role has been as an interested advisor. I believe that he has an interest in the Tarzan system with respect to where it would land within the spectrum of the SCOREs of counting systems from simple, to more complex, to perfect play. He has been instrumental in vetting early results, spotting things that didn't look quite right and advising us as the project has proceeded.
I had approached Tarzan about simulating his system independently. As I see it, Don and I have both been working for Tarzan. I see the results of the project as belonging to him -- to keep or to publish as he sees fit. Having said that, I was a bit surprised that he posted results as quickly as he did, given that simulations are still underway on different games and conditions. I had thought that the results would all be published at once as part of a more comprehensive article. I believe that this is what Don was hoping for as well, both with respect to the Tarzan work and your perfect play project.
I can say that within my software, there is an API for implementing counting systems. There is general code for the raw counting of cards. There is general code for performing common mechanics like deck estimations and true count conversions. There is semi-object-oriented representation of a counting system (the code is written in C, not C++) which contains methods which must be implemented for each system. There are default methods and "objects" which are sufficient to implement traditional systems for which only the tags vary. The blackjack engine simply calls the methods for the counting systems that have been registered with it.
For more complex systems, like T count, the implementation is custom written C code for each of the required methods. All the heavy lifting is done there. I have implemented several custom systems using this framework and have not yet come across something that I could not implement.
Once simulations are completed, a more complete report would be in order to include any data from the perfect play project, which Don could perhaps use in BJA3, 4th edition if he wants. I now have sufficient data to finalize aspects of my manuscript that I had questions on, and will add the completed simulation data to the manuscript.
Last edited by Tarzan; 12-14-2017 at 09:26 PM.
This forum is a simulation in where the OP enters a set of parameteres and the members here act as other players table play maxed out at "imperfect"
At the risk of asking a question steeped in the vulgarity of real world action:
What is the difference in dollars between playing a session with hi opt 2 asc and t count expert kc - the only comparison that truly matters to people who would be considering moving up from their simpleton hi lo.
There is work involved in both and considerably more so for the most advanced form of t count with its buckets and ratios and charts and three dimensional true count and the only real consideration for people that dont have a different pocket protector for every day of the week is how much actual money seperates one from the other.
I would think tarzan could charge for a master training course and train trainers personally - who could then hold training camps in their part of the country kicking back a percentage to tarzan all under non disclosure agreements. That way the information stays in house for at least as long as tarzan can still swing from a vine and the method isnt lost to time like turning lead to gold or not having the last two drops find their way to the front of your underwear
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
[/QUOTE]
Bookmarks