Worst bj

[Bobcat]

In a linear approach you add counts as in adding vectors. In my approach they aren't added. You are interested in when both TC exist simultaneously, not all the counts that add to the same sum. The overlap is what makes it so strong. You are tracking 3 card groups. Two card groups against each other for each count. So you have a relationship of group A and B tracked in one count and group B and C tracked in another count. You then have an implied relationship between group A and group C that exists each time you have the same TC pair. You need not worry about knowing anything about this relationship but that specific group A, B and C simultaneous relationship exists each time you have the same TC pair. The sim gathers the data by TC pairs so each time that same level of A, B and C exist the simulator dumps the result in the same TC pair bin. Think of it like an equalizer Where A represents the number of cards counted in card group A and B counts as the number of cards counted in card group B and C counts as the number of cards counted in card group C. When A is 5 and B is 6 and C is 9 the TC pair will always be -1,-3 if A is counted as +1, B counted as -1 in the first count and B is counted as +1 and C counted as -1 for the second count. A linear application as you put it with vectors would reduce everything to -4. Lots of combinations that are totally different for the equalizer will reduce to -4 when added. Every time the 2 counts reduce to TC -1,-3 the bars on the equalizer will be the same. This is the difference between defining a very general decks composition and a very specific one. A very general composition will have lots of totally unrelated things that he very different results lumped together to get an advantage estimate. The specific one will only consider a very small subset of all those in the general that are very closely related as to their deck composition in order to get an advantage estimate.

Look at it from a math standpoint. The linear application gets the TC -4 by the sum (A - B) + (b - C) = -4 to get a point on a number line (I use big "B" and small "b" because these are multilevel counts and B has a different magnitude in both counts. They can be summed for a slightly more accurate linear approach than the standard way of making ace adjustment from a BC perspective. You would add a multiple of count 2 to count 1 that optimizes BC). The 2d application solves simultaneous equations A-B=-1 and b-C=-3 to get a point on a plane. There is a line in this plane that all reduces to a point on the number line of -4. This is what is averaged to get an advantage estimate using the linear approach. A point on that line is what is averaged to get an advantage estimate using a 2d approach. The 2 counts can be used in either way. You can sum them to come up with a line in the plane or look at them simultaneously to come up with a point on that line. If the 2 counts had no overlap the point would not be anywhere near as specific. The overlap is what allows the 3 bars on the equalizer to be used. Otherwise you would have a better model for determining advantage but the set described would not be as specific. You would be counting 4 card groups and only know a relationship between 2 sets of 2 card groups instead of all 4 card groups. You want a very strong overlap between 2 counts in order to produce a very specific deck composition as defined by the 2 TC's.

Hopefully that is something some people can follow. I have been emerged in this a long long time and it took me quite a while to fully shake the linear counting theory we are all raised on and view this for what it is. I fully understand if people in error to apply linear theory to the use of data in 2 dimensions. It really helps to forget most of the linear way of thinking. It is kind of like teaching someone to play a carny game. The best and often hardest piece of advice to take to heart is, "it may look like BJ but it is not BJ. Forget all your BJ BS and strategy and learn the new strategy. When you run home to that BJ momma you will be making a mistake at the carny game." The same applies here. BC is not a metric or limit that can be applied. BC assumes you will use information gathered linearly, reducing it to a TC on a number line.

The point of any counting strategy is to estimate the relative probabilities of the ten distinct card values. If you employed a multi-parameter counting strategy so that you had complete knowledge of all the relative probabilities, then you would be able make the best possible decisions for how to bet and how to play. If the available information is just from two separate counts, then the best least-squares estimate for the relative probabilities is the result of the contribution from the first count plus the independent (orthogonal) contribution from the second count. It’s difficult to see how you can improve on that by comparing the nonlinear outputs of overlapping input vectors.

Linear models work very well in blackjack when the right linearization is used. I think what you are doing is interesting, but unlikely to work better than well-chosen linear models for two independent counts. For example, two count index vectors C1 and C2 can be combined with weighting coefficients a1 and a2 to give a combined index vector:

C = a1*C1 + a2*C2.

There is long history of using two counts with different weights for different playing decisions (e.g., C1=hiopt1, C2=excess-7 count).

It’s likewise possible to use different weights for the betting decision in different value ranges of the counts, e.g., (high C1, high C2), (high C1, low C2), etc. Take a look at the figure on p. 213 of Griffin’s TOB. The linear estimate gives a rough approximation to the actual advantage, but the figure suggests that a piece-wise linear estimate would give a better fit.

[apkevy]

In Atlantic City, "Wild Wild West" is open, weekends:

11 tables: 8 decks, H17, 6/5 on BJ's (1.8 decks cut off) $5 to $500.

House advantage is > 2% !

Has anyone ever seen anything worse than this ?

I saw these same conditions in Las Vegas, poolside at The Golden Nugget.

Montreal has 8D H17 6/5 BJ... Disgusting

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Bobcat,

Here is a shocker for you. You are new here. The count employed by TARZAN correlates
his over-the-table (single deck, double deck, 6 deck) hand-playing decisions with that of
a COMBINATORIAL ANALYSIS at almost 0.99%. He does not count every rank. His betting
correlation is a r.c.h. short of 1.00%

[biggg]

How much more does that approach actually make? There is no way I know to sim it with norms software but I'm sure some have. I could see it being profitable at some 80% pitch game but in shoes I feel like it's super rare to have any hands where playing decisions matter. Plus pitch games almost always suck...it's either tons of heat low limits pref shuffle and usually a combination of those...

[ZenMaster_Flash]

How much more does that approach actually make? There is no way I know to sim it with norms software but I'm sure some have. I could see it being profitable at some 80% pitch game but in shoes I feel like it's super rare to have any hands where playing decisions matter. Plus pitch games almost always suck...it's either tons of heat low limits pref shuffle and usually a combination of those...

How much more ? I will not throw around numbers. There have been some occasions over the years where I have seen

Tarzan have a bad losing day. It can happen to anyone. But what you are asking is - how much greater is his

advantage compared to you and I.

It is so great that he can play a really mediocre shoe game with lousy penetration and spread lightly and

endlessly beat the game. Or is it continuously ? L.O.L.

TARZAN has played for about a decade. His "home base" offers just mediocre shoe games. He plays 4 to 5 days a week.

None of the casinos ever take action against him ~ because his playing decisions (often enough) look to them as being

bizarrely wrong. He bets light black, and prospers with an enviably low volatility in his results.

He has been paid for private lessons, but he is finishing his book, which hopefully will be available by year's end.

The price may be steep. How many Card Counters are sufficiently motivated to spend the time and energy needed

to master a super-powerful system that (surprisingly) is like a Level One Count - although "count" is a misnomer.

NO Running Count or True Count (except for betting) is needed, as it concerns itself with the ratios of card that are

grouped; coupled with perfectly accurate metrics for playing ALL possible hand match-ups. I say "metrics", not indices

because, "one size fits all" does not apply. You will memorize extensive tables of how to play your hands at various deck

configurations. That is where the genius of the Tarzan Technique resides. What you fail to grasp is that you, me,

et al, play as if a True Count is a uniform entity; when in fact it is not ~ they are focused upon the density of TENS.

There is a wide array of possible deck compositions that can be ANY True Count, but as card counters we ignore that.

Of course, playing pitch games are amazing with the Tarzan Technique (I prefer that nomenclature to Tarzan Count).

When I introduce someone (like yourself) to TARZAN he'll be handed 2 decks of cards with the simple instruction

to shuffle them very well and hand them back. Tarzan will then count down the 2 decks and when he has completed

1.5 to 1.75 decks, he will announce what cards remain. You turn over the remaining 10 - 20 cards.

In all of these years I only once saw him make an error ~ he misidentified just 1 card. To err is human.

Imagine that you are playing a double deck game, heads-up, and it is deeply dealt . . .

and you know what cards are left . . . Imagine.

[KJ]

How much more ? I will not throw around numbers.

I fully understand that not everyone is willing to share results and information as some of us have done during our careers, but if you or Tarzan are not willing to give some sort of specific numbers, the rest of your long drawn out answer to the question "how much more", is rendered almost insignificant.

Spreading to light black, 4-5 days a week for a decade. What kind of results are we talking about here? A million dollars (that would be 100k per year), 2 million? 5 million?

I ask this not to be combative, but rather for sake of perspective. The "none of the casinos take action against him" is indeed an impressive observation and this is where amount of winnings and threat enters the equation.

If a player is taking certain thresholds of winnings from a small group of casinos over an extended period of time, as you claim Tarzan has, it doesn't matter if the casino understands what he is doing or not, they will not allow you to keep playing. I am interested in how Tarzan has avoided this and this is why knowing how much accumulated win he has taken is important.

[Orangechip2]

I guarantee that I can walk you into a casino and have you leave an hr. later with a small fortune.

However, in order to accomplish this masterfully, you need to bring with you a large fortune.

sounds like something I'd be interested in hearing more information about . Send me an email orangechip2@yahoo. Com

[KJ]

I guarantee that I can walk you into a casino and have you leave an hr. later with a small fortune.

However, in order to accomplish this masterfully, you need to bring with you a large fortune.

It's claims like this that make it increasingly difficult to take you seriously anymore. I don't care what super-duper count with all it's side counts, even the Tarzan count, you are employing, you cannot guarantee short-term results. Even playing with a larger advantage of something like HCing, you cannot guarantee such short term results.

Do you really want to stand by such a statement? You have never had a losing hour? Contradicts almost everything else you have written over the years.

[KJ]

It is a joke that went right over your heads. You leave with a small fortune because you came with a large fortune. Do the math, you lost a small fortune and left with a small fortune. You add the 2 and get the large fortune you came with. It going over your heads is funnier than the joke itself.

Ok fine....you got me or Flash got me.

Only thing I would say is that if the 'joke' is going over a number of people heads, then there is probably something wrong with the 'delivery'. I mean when a member that make all sorts of bombastic claims, makes such a statement, with no emoticons to show that he might be "being funny", it's no wonder a number of members don't "get it".

[Freightman]

U

It was really more of a conundrum or brain teaser...that became a joke.

Here is a joke:

Once there was this guy who lived in Boston. He had a great job, a beautiful wife, a house, and two adorable kids. Then one day he heard a Voice. The Voice said, “Quit your job, sell your property, and move to Las Vegas.” He thought to himself, “I must be going crazy.” But he kept hearing that Voice over and over in his head. It was driving him crazy! “Quit your job, sell all your property, and move to Las Vegas.” He finally decided to go for it; this must be destiny! So the next day he quit his job, sold his home, and moved to Las Vegas. When he got there, the Voice said, “Go to the nearest casino.” So he went there. Then the Voice said, “Go to the high rollers blackjack table. Put all your money down on the first hand.” So he did, without any hesitation. The dealer put the cards out, and was showing a 9. The man had a 12. The Voice said, “Take a hit.” He scratched the table, and picked up a ten for 22. The Voice said, “Aw, crap!”

Well, as long as we're at it.
Same guys "faith based" brother is playing blackjack, gets 17v dealer 6, and the lord says - hit. But lord, he says, I have 17. The lord says - HIT. So, this guy hits and pops a 3 for 20. The lord says- hit. But lord, he says, I have 20. The lord says - HIT. So the guy hits and pops an ace for 21. The lord says - holy shit.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I cannot discuss Tarzan's earnings. That is private,
but I urge him to review this thread and respond.
Most of the readers of these posts, and particularly
those who respond, are handcuffed by the rigidity
of their ideas re: BJ, and they simply "don't get it."

If you cannot imagine a Betting Correlation > 1.0
I heartily recommend "thinking outside of the box."

[KJ]

I cannot discuss Tarzan's earnings. That is private,
but I urge him to review this thread and respond.
Most of the readers of these posts, and particularly
those who respond, are handcuffed by the rigidity
of their ideas re: BJ, and they simply "don't get it."

If you cannot imagine a Betting Correlation > 1.0
I heartily recommend "thinking outside of the box."

I hope Tarzan WILL respond, even though he may not be keen on the idea of sharing his earnings type information. It just isn't fair for you to come on, whether you are speaking for him or not, making the claims that you do, give out partial information, like his betting spread and amount of play without finishing off with some sort of indication of his results for a true comparison of what he is making and just how much time he is spending making it.

A 10 year window of playing almost everyday is no small sample size and a good indicator of things. But if you or he is unwilling to share the final results, it makes all the rest of your claims meaningless and unfair.

It's pretty much the same spot we were in back in early July with T3. Share some real live play, real money won results to back up these claims that are made here. It just goes to a question of credibility. Without sharing results, you really have no credibility, just some fantastic claims. And no one is asking for any kind of proof of said results. We are all friends here (to some extent). I'll take your (or Tarzan's or even T3's word for it). Just share ALL the info, don't give us half the picture.

[KJ]

KJ; Do you believe your bottom-line wouldn't have improved with a "stronger" count? I'm not talking about the way out their stuff of T3, Tarzan, or something a little close to earth like Hi Opt II. But something easier to learn like RPC, Mentor, or Wong Halves? How about volatility? My question leads me to wonder why or who goes to all the trouble if it doesn't increase $$$$ and/or decrease pain significantly? Was it just to sell a book?

Moses, I did learn and play RPC for an 18 month period earlier in my career, before reverting back to hi-lo. I am certainly not going to suggest that such a short-term period as 18 months has any significant for comparison purposes, it doesn't. But at the end of that period, I just felt, not even specifically based on numbers, that any gain was negligible and not worth the effort on my part. I don't think it is any coincidence that the majority of professional players that I know and talk to as well as most that I have read about, have reached the same conclusion.

Keep in mind, my thoughts and conclusions might not apply to yourself, because you play single deck games of the quality that most players only remember from 20 years ago, if they were lucky enough to play even then. In the 18 month period that I referenced, I was playing multideck Atlantic City games. My own conclusion is that for the 6 and 8 deck games that most people have available and even the mediocre 60% penetration double deck games that some are able to play, the benefit from what you call a "stronger count" is far less than it was 20 years ago with better games and conditions. So much so that it's just not worth the effort. (Most) Players would be far better off finding and concentrating on something that does matter and makes a real difference.

In my own case, I have concentrated on something that increases my performance and results somewhere between 50-75% over traditional hi-lo play, tracking multiple tables. This enables me to play nearly twice as many higher end counts within the same number of rounds played. I think of it as changing the true count frequencies dramatically in my favor. If the normal +3 TC frequency for a specific game is in the 4% range, I am able to play 6 or 7%, playing the same amount of rounds. The reason I give a 50-75% gain rather than 100% (double), is because some situations I am unable to track multiple tables and some situations the count will go strong on both tables during the same time and as of yet, I haven't figured out a way to clone myself and play both tables simultaneously, so I miss out on some of the 'good' counts at the second table.

I am not going to continue to debate your question of whether a 'standard' higher level count (not Tarzan or T3's approach), but along the lines of Hi-opt2, Mentor, RPC, Halves improves performance. Simulations will show they can normally in the 5% -10% range, closer to the low end for most of todays conditions. I actually believe in the real world plays those numbers shrink, in part due to a higher error rate that proponents refuse to admit exists, when scientific evidence proves otherwise. But anyway the question isn't what you posed "is there some small improvement?", but rather is it worth it for the majority of players or should they concentrate on some specific to their own situation that does really make a significant difference. Again, these thoughts are not specific to the extreme advanced counting methods of Tarzan, but rather the more standard argument of the type of counts you mentioned.

Your final question appears to be asking me the motivation behind what players like Tarzan or even T3 are doing. I can't answer that. I think (and hope) it is more than about selling a book, but you will have to ask them. My guess is that these are what I call 'math heavy' type people that enjoy the challenge of squeezing every last cent out using advanced mathematical approaches. That's fine, if that's their thing. It's just not really the optimal way to beat today's game and conditions. Generally the purpose of advancement is to enable people to achieve the same goal by working easier, not working harder.