Forum readers mentioned a count by Tarzan that beats HO2 w ASC.
If anyone knows Tarzan's count, please post it. I am very curious about this count.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 01-18-2020 at 10:54 PM.
I did answer your question. The Theory of Blackjack talks about the development of the foundation for the Tarzan Count. It doesn't say Tarzan Count on there specifically. Don't go searching for the word Tarzan Count in the The Theory of Blackjack, you are not going to find it.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 01-18-2020 at 10:53 PM.
You said earlier there are many counts that beat the HO2 w ASC.
The question is are those counts practical to be used by a counter? If you kept separate side counts of every card as it come out of the shoe of course you would beat the HO2 w ASC but we are talking about practical counts that can be actually used by a counter.
TOB has a chart called "Incorporation of Zero Valued Cards into Einstein System" and also has a chart with Gordon Count and Einstein count with Auxiliary Groups of cards and the associated playing efficiencies. But there are no specifics and there is no mention of the counts beating HO2 w ASC. And we know if a side count of 8's or 9's are added to HO2 w ASC you could improve the HO2 w ASC. But that is not what I am asking.
In a threat to a previous post a reader gave me the link below listing the published counts.
https://www.blackjackreview.com/wp/e...m-comparisons/
As far as I know, HO2 w ASC beats each of these counts. So where are the many counts that beat HO2 w ASC you are talking about?
In my previous posts, readers mentioned many times the Tarzan count beating the HO2 w ASC. There was no mention of any other count that beat the HO2 w ASC, so again, where are your many counts that beat the HO2 w ASC?
So it is the Tarzan count I am interested in since it is the count that was mentioned by many readers of this forum as a great count that beats that HO2 w ASC.
And your reply is for me to ask Tarzan? I have no idea who Tarzan is so I am putting up this post so if anyone knows the Tarzan count to please post it.
So if you or anyone else knows the Tarzan count, please post it
I would like to see this nebulous unknown great Tarzan count that beats HO2 w ASC and that is not in the list of published counts which link I gave you above.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-19-2020 at 04:54 AM.
This tells me you don't know your Blackjack. It is laughable and unrealistic that someone who don't know their Blackjack is trying to invent a supersystem to beat the HO2 w ASC. You have lot to learn kid. Yes, the counts that beats HO2 w ASC is practical to be used by a counter. You don't have to kept separate side counts of every card either. One system that beats HO2 w ASC is the BRH II using a secondary count to give BRH 1 for betting.
Oh yeah!!! Below is the list of counts that beat HO2 w ASC:
Tarzan Count
Gordon Count with side counts
BRH II combined with a secondary count to get BRH I for betting.
USTON APC w ASC.
VICTOR APC w ASC
Many more other proprietary card counting systems.
You are too stupid to apply those four counts anyway and you don't know your Blackjack. You wasted too much of mine and other people's time. I even simulated a level 3 count system that could beat HO2 w ASC but I am not sharing that information with you.
You have to figure out the Tarzan Count yourself. Nobody is going to spoon feed you that information.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 01-19-2020 at 01:48 PM.
Tarzan's count system uses three columns of cards and an Ace side count. Thus there are four levels of complexity with the Tarzan count. With KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc there are only two side counts and the primary count so three levels of complexity.
Forum readers were complaining about how complicated KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc is to use.
So my question is why did forum readers give me such a hard time on the KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc being so difficult when they had absoutely no complaints about the complexity of Tarzan's count?
Finally I showed in a previous post Gronbog's sims of KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc compared to Tarzan's best count and that for the back counted game, KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc beats the best Tarzan count.
If a third side count were added to KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc, to make it four levels of complexity like Tarzan's count, my system would absoutely beat Tarzan's best system and if 45m79c were used instead of 5m7c the improvement would be even greater.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-20-2020 at 03:32 PM.
You did not answer my questions. My question was not about beating HO2 w ASC.
My question was
Tarzan's count system uses three columns of cards and an Ace side count. Thus there are four levels of complexity with the Tarzan count. With KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc there are only two side counts and the primary count so three levels of complexity.
So why did forum readers complain about how complex KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc was with three levels of complexity but everyone is fine and no complaints about Tarzan's count with four levels of complexity, especially when KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc beats Tarzans best for the back counted game as shown by Gronbog's sims.
Please answer the questions that I asked and do not get side tracked on other topics I did not ask.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-20-2020 at 05:45 PM.
Bjanalyst, since you've asked the question twice and not received an answer, I'll try. The reason is that Tarzan hasn't tried to get others to use his system. Also, I doubt that very many people on this forum knew the intricacies of Tarzan's system prior to Gronbog's work.
Last edited by 21frogman; 01-21-2020 at 02:07 PM.
Thanks for your comments and I also want to thank Gronbog for his comment where he said that Tarzan never got criticized because he never said that his Tarzan count was simple and tried to get other players to use it.
I have absolutely no problem in keeping the KO with two side counts using chips. I update KO in my head and AA89mTc stack of chips as soon as the cards hit the table and update 5m7c (or Am8c if Super 4 offered) after all cards are on the table. I can update all these counts quicker than any dealer can deal and can do it for hours on end without mistakes and I get bored because I still have time left over after updating all of these counts. And since I use KO with a pivot at a true count of 4 I use TCRC (Table of Critical Running Counts) to instantly "look up" the true count.
The casino I go to offers $5 blackjack with six decks, 5 decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS, Lucky Ladies with full payout and Super 4. Since Super 4 is offered I keep Am8c instead of 5m7c. My maximum bet is two hands of $40 or three hands of $30. When count goes bad I ask the dealer to put markers on my spots and I leave, cash in chips I have in my pockets, come back and buy in for more chips at the next shoe so it looks like I am losing.
I have been doing this 3 or 4 times a week for over 6 months now. I have hit QHQH around 6 times (once with dealer blackjack for 1000 to 1 payout) and sometimes I am betting LL when tc(KO) = 0, 1 or 2 if AA89mTc is large enough because remember my Lucky Ladies count = Ten Count = KO + AA89mTc. So I look like an ordinary gambler.
Also I have three opportunities to bet so the vast majority of my sessions are wins and when I do lose my losses are small.
So I do not understand why forum readers say my system is too complicated for them.
But considering every counter I meet uses the HL and refuses to switch to even the KO I have basically given up on trying to convince others that it is not that difficult to do. They are very stubborn, do not want to switch and do not want to learn TCRC. They will not switch to the KO and certainly will never switch to a level 2 count.
That is why I was trying to analyze side counts for the HL. Since all the counters I meet want to keep the HL the only way I could help them is to add side counts to the HL.
I want to thank Gronbog for his help with the sims for HL w 7m9c. My other suggested side count for the HL player is Am6c.
An alternative to the Am6s with the HL is the ASC. I had already given posts on both of these in posts on HL w 7m9c sim results.
I personally do not like ASC because I find them difficult to keep and they are approximate. ASC requires keeping track of an ever increasing value of Aces played and estimating decks played to calculated Adef = deficiency of Aces left in the shoe = Ap - 4*dp where dp = decks played. I like plus/minus side counts which are EXACT and fluctuate around their mean of zero.
My friend HL counter who I email and talk to ove the phone and in person said he would like to keep an ASC with the HL. Appartenly he finds that easy to do. So whom I am to say? I do not like ASC but he does.
So I calculated indices for this count. If no side bets are offered, HL w Am6c and HL w ASC are approximately equal. However, if LL and/or Super 4 are offered, ASC is a better side count to keep with HL than Am6c is. I had posted this information in posts on my posts on HL w 7m9c sim results that Gronbog did. If interested refer to that post.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-21-2020 at 09:20 PM.
Bookmarks