See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 44

Thread: Zen Count

  1. #14
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern U S A
    Posts
    6,830


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No


    ZEN (shoe game) 16 vs. 8 = +16

    They call me Zen Master

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    And correct me if I'm wrong but part of the reason some indices are not considered valuable (enough to care about) is because of the FREQUENCY at which they occur. But WHEN THEY DO APPEAR, knowing them is very valuable indeed (especially the high positive indices)
    Not only the frequency with which the (very high) true count occurs, but also the infrequency with which the hand itself may occur (soft double and splits, for example). It's your prerogative to learn 200 indices if you are so inclined. No one should talk you out of it. The I18 was designed to teach people that most of the other 180 or so just aren't worth very much.

    And saying that, when the occasion finally does arise, it can be worth a lot isn't a very good argument. If you get hit with a stray bullet, wearing a bullet-proof vest would be worth a great deal, but that doesn't mean you walk the streets wearing one every day of your life.

    Don

  3. #16
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern U S A
    Posts
    6,830


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    DSchles +1

    ***********************

    ps. I apologize for an earlier post where I had
    misunderstood the use of the term "truncated",
    an arithmetic, (not conversational) term. We
    often use the term when referencing True Count
    computations, so ...

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    And correct me if I'm wrong but part of the reason some indices are not considered valuable (enough to care about) is because of the FREQUENCY at which they occur. But WHEN THEY DO APPEAR, knowing them is very valuable indeed (especially the high positive indices)
    Don summed it up nicely, but here's a good YouTube video by Colin Jones that pretty much discusses the exact same topic. It's only about 5 min long. Give it a watch; it's very informative.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOEgqrwxVW0

  5. #18


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    Yes, that was the original question. For example, today I had a very big bet out and received a 16 v dealer 8. I stood and ended up losing and now I'm wondering whether this was the right play bc the "truncated list" didn't have that index even listed (zen true count was close to +20)

    Does CVCX have the ability to generate ALL indices for a particular count system and set of rules (I would imagine different rules would SLIGHTLY change some indices at least)?

    I'm sick and tired of everyone downplaying knowing indices ("I18 is 80% argument). If we are risking our hard earned money we ought to know what to do in every situation possible, right?

    You would want CVdata for index generatiom..And yes, it can generate any indexes for any card tags, rules, etc.. Note:The higher you set the the Pen level the higher the index it will spit out)..I believe with the demo "version" you can generate semi-accurate indexes...
    http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Nicely worded Don. For those that live in Dodge City with high heat in pitch games, splitting 10s and hitting 12v5,6 might warrant ducking some bullets. In your study, was 14vs10,2,3 and 13v4 considered anywhere close in terms of frequency? Any others?
    Yes, they were all valid candidates for making the I18 cut. That they didn't is a function of two different concepts. The first is that for 14 vs. 2 and 3 and 13 vs. 4, the counts need to be negative, and you always have a minimum bet out. So, for the index to make the cut, the frequency really has to be there (since the bet size isn't), and while plays like 0, -1, and -2 can survive, the greater negatives don't. (Note that I created the I18 mostly for the Hi-Lo, wide-spreading shoe player and NOT the low-spreading SD player. Your suggestions might have made the cut had the list been generated for SD (or for another count that reckons the seven -- see below).

    Finally, 14 vs. 10 doesn't make it because of something completely different. The seven is critical for hitting or standing, and Hi-Lo doesn't count the seven! So this play has a horrible playing correlation, using Hi-Lo, and there simply is no index for it.

    Don

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Don
    Are you possibly suggesting that 14 v 10 would gave made your I18 cut on halves?

    Further, are you (not suggesting) intimating, given unlimited computer and time resources, that the I18 or facsimile thereof, be different per count system?

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    Yes I already saw this video and understand Colin's points. However, he used a system (hi low) with horrible PE to generate the data showing the effects of index knowledge on results. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't knowing more indices for a system with a higher PE be more valuable than knowing the same amount of indices for a system with inferior PE? Full indices for zen must be more valuable than full indices for hi low?
    Yes and no.
    Looked at as a percentage increase from the system basic, no. However, the same virtual percentage increase, factored into a higher performing system, would obviously have a higher impact. Call it a compounding effect.

    System A earns $100 before indices, and $120 after
    System B earns $110 before indices, and $132 after.

    Ergo, a 10% differential.

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Thanks Don. That is what I was seeing in the Sims for SD by switching the tags on 2 and 7.

    Sorry, one more perhaps dumb question. Im not seeing value on 16 vs 9. Perhaps because frequency on SD is less than multiple decks? Only two hands 10,6 and 9,7 vs 9 fits. In single at least one of the four 9s is already gone. Could this be a more frequent play in double or 6 decks?
    No, there is practically no difference at all between the frequencies of two-card 16s vs. 9 in SD compared to multi-deck, nor of multi-card 16s vs. 9. You get the initial two-card holdings just a shade less than once per 200 hands and you get any 16 vs. 9 (multi-card permitted) just a shade less than every 100 hands.

    Don

  10. #23
    Member lessj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Texas / Oklahoma
    Posts
    37


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    This is the "Snyder's Folly" version of Zen Count. It was a miserable failure and the low point in Snyder's career. Use the other version. What happens is you lose the ability to fine tune. All data is compressed in 1/4 the space making the same accuracy require division to 2 extra decimal places. If you want your index to be 1.28 instead of 5 then go for it. If anything, you want to stretch out the data so without using decimals you can get better accuracy. CVCX will tell you your advantages. You don't need to calculate them at the table for each hand. It is faster to memorize a ramp based on advantage info and variance than use more complicated math to guess at a bet based solely of advantage.
    Thank you for clarifying. Has Snyder re-published this information in print?

  11. #24
    Senior Member Gramazeka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,438


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I'm surprised that my post was not noticed. People do not monetize the global difference in the power of the two systems- Double Halves and Zen.
    "Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)

  12. #25
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,570


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    Halves has a lower PE than zen. Would it still be much stronger than zen in DD?
    Run the Sims. Review the SCORE.

    It may well come down to the rules of your game and pen. If it's close, do what is easiest for you. There are some variations on tag values of 2-7s on Wong Halves the may improve SCORE and become easier. You could have the option of dropping and moving the Ace to improve IC and PE considerably. You could side count others to improve IC improve to near perfection. All can performed with everything to gain - nothing to lose format.

    It comes down to what's "in" you. Only you can anwer that question.
    Last edited by moses; 03-26-2018 at 04:08 AM.

  13. #26


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by lessj View Post
    With Zen, you'll be dividing by 4*(Decks Remaining) for TC conversion. In SD/DD games where Zen gives you a huge power increase compared to hi-lo, quarter-deck estimation is important for power, and TC conversion. Let me explain.

    Because you obtain TC by dividing by 4*(Decks Remaining), you'll want to estimate number of decks remaining in quarter-decks. Think in terms of fourths. If 3/4 of a deck have been dealt in a DD game, 5/4 of a deck remains. So, the denominator in your TC conversion will be ( ( 5 / 4 ) * 4 ) = 5. So, just divide RC / 5 to obtain your TC in that scenario. Simply put, divide your RC by number of quarter decks remaining to obtain TC.

    Also, those indices indeed look to be for whole deck division, not quarter deck.
    I don't like whole deck conversion, neither quarter deck conversion. I like half deck conversion. The first benefit is, under half deck conversion, this version of Zen has roughly the same indexes as Hi-Lo.

    The second benefit is to calculate TC easily when playing double decks. For 50% penetration DD game, you go through four stages of obtaining TC: multiply RC by 0.25, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5. If penetration is better than 50%, then in the near end of the show, you multiply RC by 0.6 or 0.7 (very deep penetration) to get TC.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-24-2016, 06:23 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-07-2014, 01:23 PM
  3. Converting KO Running Count to TKO True Count
    By MercySakesAlive in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-15-2014, 06:33 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.