See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 49

Thread: What is the Tarzan count that beats HO2 w ASC

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    What is the Tarzan count that beats HO2 w ASC

    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.

  2. #2


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    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.
    LMAO! Tarzan count is not the only count that beats HO2 w ASC. If you studied up more you would find more counts that could beats HO2 w ASC. Read "The Theory of Blackjack".
    Last edited by seriousplayer; 01-18-2020 at 10:54 PM.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    LMAO! Tarzan count is not the only count that beats HO2 w ASC. If you studied up more you would more counts that could beats HO2 w ASC. Read "The Theory of Blackjack".
    .

    You did not answer my question.

    I asked for details on the Tarzan count.

    Please provide me Tarzan count details if you have them.

    Thanks

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    .

    You did not answer my question.

    I asked for details on the Tarzan count.

    Please provide me Tarzan count details if you have them.

    Thanks
    LOL yeah I bet you are curious about that count. So ask Tarzan for his count?

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    .

    You did not answer my question.

    I asked for details on the Tarzan count.

    Please provide me Tarzan count details if you have them.

    Thanks
    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.

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    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?

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gramazeka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,438


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    https://www.blackjackreview.com/wp/e...m-comparisons/
    Lima PE 0.27 ? BRH 0 its EBJ 2- U ? ))
    "Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    From what I see the Tarzan count requires four levels of complexiity

    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.

  10. #10


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    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.

    1. Because you don't know your Blackjack and trying to be an expert at it when you are not.

    2. It doesn't take three or four secondary side count to beat Hi-OPT II w ASC, one secondary count is enough. Adding more secondary side count makes your count system harder.

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    1. Because you don't know your Blackjack and trying to be an expert at it when you are not.

    2. It doesn't take three or four secondary side count to beat Hi-OPT II w ASC, one secondary count is enough. Adding more secondary side count makes your count system harder.
    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.

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    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,
    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.

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21frogman View Post
    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.


    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.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Roulette/Tarzan
    By Bricklayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 08-01-2017, 09:34 AM
  2. Any news on the Tarzan count?
    By Goodboy in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2016, 06:58 AM
  3. KJ, T3, and Tarzan
    By Exoter175 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-09-2014, 02:05 PM

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.