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.
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...kenspiel/page4
Read ZMFs post, at least that's the best information I could find about the Tarzan count... Seems like a very interesting concept!
The SCORE of Tarzan count is in the following thread:
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...r-thread<br />
See post #23 for the distinctions among three levels of Tarzan count.
In short, basic version of Tarzan count is three columns (2-5, 6-9, 10's) with ASC. The top level version of Tarzan Count divides 2-5 column into 2 mini columns (2,3 and 4,5) and also divide 6-9 column into 2 mini columns (6,7 and 8,9).
Last edited by BJGenius007; 01-19-2020 at 10:35 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.
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 07:23 PM.
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?
Bookmarks