See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

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

  1. #11
    Senior Member Gramazeka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    962


    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)

  2. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    There are many threads here which discuss the Tarzan count to some degree. Some even display strategy charts for individual hands. Just do a search for "Tarzan".

    As for the details of the system --- some here know, but none are authorized to tell you. Only Tarzan can do that.

    Hi Gronbog

    Thanks you very much for doing sims on both Tarzan count and my KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc.

    I wanted to find out about the Tarzan count for two reasons

    (1) How much stronger is it than the HO2 w ASC and how does it compare with the KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc.

    (2) Is the Tarzan count easy to use.

    I am attaching a three page PDF.

    The first page of this PDF I put your sim results for HO2 w ASC, Tarzan bets count and my best KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc.
    As you can see Tarzan betas KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc for play all but KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc beats Tarzan for back counting.

    The second page of this PDF I showed that if you switch out 5m7c with 45m79c the CC increase and so the resulting system will be stronger. So KO w 45m79c and AA89mTc would beat Tarzan for back counting by an even greater degree than KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc does and would come closer to the Tarzan count for play all (and maybe even tie or beat it). This is based on CC which have proven to be very reliable in predicting all of the sim results you did for me. But I am not expecting and I am not asking you to do any sims on KO w 45m79c and AA89mTc. I am just making a point based on CCs.

    The second page also shows an explanation of the Tarzan count with three buckets and a side count of Aces. I would never be able to do this. As I explained I do not like side counts of individual cards. They are APPROXIMATE as they require you to keep track of an ever increasing aces played for example, and then estimate decks played and then calculate Adef = 4*dp - Ap. Compare that to a balanced plus/minus side count which fluctuate around its mean of zero, do not involve and estimate of decks played and so are EXACT.

    The third page is the accuracy of the KO count around it pivot of a true count of 4 where maximum bets are made.

    The game I play has Lucky Ladies (which AA89mTc helps with) and Super 4 (which I use Am8c for). I use chips to keep these side counts. I update the KO in my head and the stack of AA89mTc chips as soon as the cards hit the table. I update Am8c after the cards are on the table. I can update all three counts faster than any dealer can deal and with chips I keep these counts accurately and can do this for hours on end without exhaustion. And I do my calculations easily and because of the pivot of a true count of 4, estimated decks to the nearest deck is more than adequate as I use my TCRC (Table of Critical Running Counts) to calculate "look up" the true count in my head instantly.

    So if no side bets were offered, I would use 5m7c instead of Am8c. Or I could easily submits 45m79c for 5m7c if I wanted to . I would use 45m79c instead of 5m7c before I would switch to adding a third side count. But with chips, I could keep a third side count. My main problem with a third side count is that I run out of real estate to place my three stacks of chips and they sometimes bump into each other so I keep it at two side counts and two stacks of chips.

    So again thanks for the sims and below it the three page PDF attached that I mentioned above.
    Tarzan v HO2 w 5m7c & AA89mTc.pdf
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-19-2020 at 08:23 PM.

  3. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Question for Gronbrog: I looked at you simulation for Hi-OPT II + ASC for 1-12 bet spread S17, DAS, 5/6. I don't understand how you get the SCORE for Hi-OPT II + ASC to be 44.19 when the canned sims in CVCX shows lower. Something like 41.05 for heads up play all and 42.67 for four players. How come CVCX shows lower?

  4. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The executive summary answer is that the canned sims in CVCX used only the I18 indices, where my sims used the full set of HiOpt II Indices.

    The Tarzan sims were the first time I published SCOREs which were generated using my software. In order to demonstrate that my results were not in left field, I also published HiOpt II+ASC SCOREs generated by CV for the same games alongside of my results. I did this by performing new sims myself using CVData+CVCX. The reason for that is that, as Norm just said in another thread, there are many many nuances and interactions which may not be obvious when configuring a sim and also when writing the software to perform the sim.

    CVCX alone only gives you partial control over the sim parameters. By using CVData+CVCX, I was able to match the configurations of both CV and my own software as closely as possible. I also configured all of the sims to conform to the sim parameters of BJA3 Chapter 10, except for things like choice of indices used, since Don and I felt that it would not be fair to compare HiOpt II + ASC to Tarzan without full indices.

    I'm looking at my records and, for the 5/6 S17 DAS game, 1-12 spread from the Tarzan sims. I see my SCORE of 44.19 and the CV SCORE of 44.93 for HiOpt II + ASC. The canned sim SCORE is lower because it used only the I18 indices.

  5. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    The executive summary answer is that the canned sims in CVCX used only the I18 indices, where my sims used the full set of HiOpt II Indices.

    The Tarzan sims were the first time I published SCOREs which were generated using my software. In order to demonstrate that my results were not in left field, I also published HiOpt II+ASC SCOREs generated by CV for the same games alongside of my results. I did this by performing new sims myself using CVData+CVCX. The reason for that is that, as Norm just said in another thread, there are many many nuances and interactions which may not be obvious when configuring a sim and also when writing the software to perform the sim.

    CVCX alone only gives you partial control over the sim parameters. By using CVData+CVCX, I was able to match the configurations of both CV and my own software as closely as possible. I also configured all of the sims to conform to the sim parameters of BJA3 Chapter 10, except for things like choice of indices used, since Don and I felt that it would not be fair to compare HiOpt II + ASC to Tarzan without full indices.

    I'm looking at my records and, for the 5/6 S17 DAS game, 1-12 spread from the Tarzan sims. I see my SCORE of 44.19 and the CV SCORE of 44.93 for HiOpt II + ASC. The canned sim SCORE is lower because it used only the I18 indices.
    I did another simulation for HiOpt II + ASC with full indices and the results came out very close to the canned sim for HiOpt II + ASC. This was done through CVCX.

    Hi-OPT II Full Indice & ASC S17,DAS.jpg

    Canned Simulation for Hi-OPT II Full Indices ASC
    Hi-OPT II Full Indice & ASC.jpg

    The SCORE came out to be really close.
    Last edited by seriousplayer; 01-20-2020 at 10:41 AM.

  6. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    The executive summary answer is that the canned sims in CVCX used only the I18 indices, where my sims used the full set of HiOpt II Indices.
    No, the canned sims in my version give only full indices and don't even offer I18 for Hi-Opt II ASC. So the reason has to lie elsewhere for the discrepancy. And the SCORE above, as seriousplayer mentions, is for full indices.

    Don

  7. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    seriousplayer, I see a couple of things in your screen shots.

    In order to get a true SCORE, your bankroll must be 10,000 and you must be betting full Kelly optimal bets to the nearest 1. This will cause your risk of ruin to be ~13.53%. In addition to this, although it probably doesn't make much difference, I used the BJA3 chapter 10 convention of 3 basic strategy players to the right of the key player. To make sure this is exactly what was happening, I used the Multi-tracking sim in CVData to run the sim and then used CVCX to display the results.

    I found the archive of the sim that ran at the time. Here is a screen shot of the CVCX display:

    HiOptII+ASC-6D-Pen5-S17-DAS-PA.opt.1-12.jpg

  8. #18


    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 04:32 PM.

  9. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    seriousplayer, I see a couple of things in your screen shots.

    In order to get a true SCORE, your bankroll must be 10,000 and you must be betting full Kelly optimal bets to the nearest 1. This will cause your risk of ruin to be ~13.53%.
    Gronbog is right. And to truly compare apple to apple in the meaning way, we need to stick to the rules of $10,000 bankroll and bet full Kelly optimal bets. If you change the baselines, the end result can only be called c-Score, custom-Score, quasi-Score etc.

  10. #20


    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.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Roulette/Tarzan
    By Bricklayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 08-01-2017, 10:34 AM
  2. Any news on the Tarzan count?
    By Goodboy in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2016, 07:58 AM
  3. KJ, T3, and Tarzan
    By Exoter175 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-09-2014, 03:05 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.