Which Count To Use

[Norm]

Different strokes for different folks. And, vive la différence.

[Tarzan]

level 100 super non-linear tarzan count playing an 8 deck 60% pen game

One of the prerequisites for learning T Count in terms of aptitude means being smart enough not to play an 8D, 60% pen game. Who in their right mind would play that regardless of what count you may be using?

[Tarzan]

OMG, I have to chime in.

Lonewolf, Tarzan plays damn near perfect every single hand. Think about it--if you knew the dealer's hand and you knew the next card out, you'd play perfect, too. He doesn't even have to raise his bet a lot; he just wins a disproportionate number of hands.

Now think about longevity. We're raising our bets with the count, and that's a big tell. Tarzan isn't. Or, he's raising when we're lowering, further marking him as a ploppy.

Finally, think about comps. Because his count is also his cover, he can play rated. To the casino, he plays like the lucky ploppy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

RCJH has seen me do a few counting demonstrations and has even played alongside me. I can see when the deck is less positive than other counts think it is, when the deck is more positive than what other counts think it is. I can see a deck composition, heavily skewed in one direction or another and predict the most likely next card or grouping, the most likely dealer hole card, etc. This is what is being referred to. RCJH has seen the actual application of key card and key sub-grouping knowledge applied in real time at the tables beyond just a simple counting demonstration, seeing the empirical substantiate the theory behind it.

[LoneWoLF]

How do you even respond to some of this stuff? When I see, "Yep, I use Hi-Lo (or whatever) and screw those silly side counts and I know in my heart of hearts that it's just every bit as good as the guy that thinks in terms of groupings, sub groupings, and key cards, that has perfect insurance betting correlation, that knows specific impacts of (A), key cards and other aspects of composition dependent play on individual hands, and knows the exact computer generated perfect play for every hand", I have to question it. There might be a little bit of difference between the two... just a little.

I've been playing blackjack for more years than many people on this forum have been alive. When I am not seeking spiritual guidance from large-breasted Swedish massage girls I am playing, training, or studying blackjack, to the tune of 8 or more hours a day, for many many years now... it's what I do... it's all I do even. Other people take a vacation to go to casinos, I take a vacation to get away from casinos! With this being the case, perhaps it's a little easier for me to recognize when someone is talking about a topic that they truly don't know enough about to be so vocal and opinionated on.

People need to think about what suits their needs, the environments they are playing in, the hours they intend to put in, what their personal aptitude and ability will allow them to do and so on, rather than pay attention to crude generalizations and rhetoric that don't stand up to mathematical scrutiny. There is a gain in more advanced methods, period, end of story.

Yet you can't prove what you do through mathematical fact of a simulation? I challenge anyone with a case study. Get a control group of 5 people all playing perfectly for 10 years playing only SHOE games with the same rules, same penetration, same hours, same everything, one with a level 1, another with a level 2, another with TThrees super non linear count, one with tarzans count, and one with a level 3 count. At the end of it, I bet you its all roughly the same gain at the end of the 10 years. But of course no one will do that case study, but you also wont show us a sim of what you do. Tthree wont show what he does either, cause sims arent advanced enough for his ability. LOL. So that's where we're at.

But the big catch here, is the Level 1 player will be able to do a lot more such as backcounting two tables or maybe sequencing or shuffle tracking, which will bring him to the top at the end.

[LoneWoLF]

There is that word empirical again. Card from a group? I will buy that. Exact card? Perhaps what the range in a group can or cannot do for you.

For instance, suppose you know the deck is rich in 67s. You have 12 vs 5. Hitting seems like a prudent choice. So you get a 7 for 19. Dealer has 15 and pulls a 6. You'd been better off standing. The difference is Tarzan knows he lost to dumb luck. The average players would stand and win, thinking damn I'm good.

Now when it reverses to bad variance like losing on 20 when deck is rich in 2- 5s, people start seeing the colored lights on a machine to confirm the elaborate plan to screw them. Tarzan never felt safe with that 20.

What you illustrate is exactly the point im making. The frequency distribution in 6-8 deck games over time wont allow for many of those moves that have a surplus or deficit in a certain card denomination. And when these rare occurrences do actually happen, he can lose to luck so it will never pay off much if at all. Pitch games different story

[RCJH]

Lonewolf, let's assume you're correct. (FTR, I disagree, but to make a point). If IETS were to watch your play vs Tarzan or Tthree, they would notice you raised your bet according to the count. Tarzan doesn't. Sometimes he bets bigger than I would with my level 2 count, because he knows how to handle the specific deck composition at that time. Most of the time he just flat bets, occasionally raising or lowering a chip. He is also able to play rated and collect the comps.

Also, we have to realize the variance with his system is less, as is his risk of ruin. He doesn't have the big swings. It's just a profitable grind. I've won big and lost big at high counts, this rarely happens with him.

Finally, it was an eye opener to see me push out a big bet, only to see him play table minimum. Then there were times I'd bet minimum, and he'd raise his ever so slightly. I had a very good session, but we won about the same amount. When he plays, to all appearances, he looks like the luckiest guy in the world. (Double a soft 13 vs 7? Look at that crazy bastard! What the hell, he WON? Lucky idiot....) Our cover plays cost us money; his play IS his cover.

No disrespect to HiLo. I used it for a minute, and it worked. But to disregard another system just because what you use "works" may be shortsighted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RCJH]

To be clear, *I* did not double it. That was Tarzan. I was busy losing at that time...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Tarzan]

Bjarg is correct. I experience mind-boggling swings just as much as everyone else but they are maybe less pronounced is all. The particular playing session with RCJH, well, the count never really went anywhere. There were a few brief moments of higher counts and pushing some higher bets out there but for the most part, it was riding out neutral counts.

There is a ceiling, a finite, maximum possible gain from perfect play or something close to perfect play. You're only going to get so much out of it and it becomes a question of the considerable training and study involved being worth what you get out of it.

[Frank Galvin]

So tossing a bone to LoneWolf here, Tarzan sees as many Hard 13s - 16s as the rest of us mortals when his system guides him to put big bets out. That's just the nature of the game!!!

But his system guides him in knowing when the count is actually pretty neutral, while other linear counting systems would suggest to a player that the TC is either falsely positive or negative. He has that "edge" since he also tracks the 6, 7, 8 and 9 cards, as well as considers surplus/deficit Aces.

Nonetheless, he is still a mere mortal, albeit Lord of the APes.

[ZeeBabar]

But Tthree has argued that utilizing his count means less variance, fewer swings and a more manageable roller coaster ride.

[Frank Galvin]

I believe Tthree, and believe that Tarzan sees lesser swings as well, which does indeed decrease variance.

They bet less/more, more accurately when their counting systems dictate that action, while a [insert linear counting system name here] player, would believe TC warrants +/- territory bet, and sustain more losses, or suffer fewer $ winnings.

[Tarzan]

Yet you can't prove what you do through mathematical fact of a simulation? I challenge anyone with a case study. Get a control group of 5 people all playing perfectly for 10 years playing only SHOE games with the same rules, same penetration, same hours, same everything, one with a level 1, another with a level 2, another with TThrees super non linear count, one with tarzans count, and one with a level 3 count. At the end of it, I bet you its all roughly the same gain at the end of the 10 years. But of course no one will do that case study, but you also wont show us a sim of what you do. Tthree wont show what he does either, cause sims arent advanced enough for his ability. LOL. So that's where we're at.

I can mathematically prove out every single little detail of what I do. What you are talking about is in terms of SCORE values though, which there is no simulation as of yet. I don't think a sim makes any difference one way or the other for you if you are sold enough on the idea that your manner of thinking or what you do is the only way to think or the only thing to do. Your speculations as to gains over a period of time are based on thin air, whatever it is you dreamed up, and not the actual math of it.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Tarzan chose to bypass Sims and attack the game with his mind. You certainly have to respect him for that."

Sim' jockeys earn considerable respect from me.
TARZAN earns my respect AND my admiration.
I have played alongside him for years and he needs no sim's.
Nobody (?) plays more serious BJ than he does, and his skills
pay his bill.. and then some.
Which would I prefer ? Some sim result that are certainly useful,
or a non-linear system that cannot (yet) be simulated but clearly
is stronger than the counts that (most of us) use. Can you say ...
crème de la crème ?