Moses. How do you keep your count?
I understand that you base your decisions of percentages from each column. Do you use three or four columns?
It seems like we all need to open up a few stats books and take a programming course. There's lots of stuff out there that we either haven't simed or haven't figured out how to sim.
You can probably find some of Tarzan's charts around somewhere on here if you think you could benefit from it.
Over 2 or more decks, recognizing percentage of the whole for each of 10's- 8,9's, - 6,7,8,9's - 2,3,4,5's plus an ace side count would be dynamite. What would be very interesting is the interaction of the group proportions to your betting ramps. In it's simplet form, you are still comparing high to low cards enhancing your playing efficiency by comparing the ratios of intermediates. Most count systems can't recognize this. I'm definitely conscious of this factor, and can recognize the issue in general terms, but not to specific terms, as it relates it to me. T3, Tarzan, I think, essenrptially do the same thing, though in different ways.
Here's where I see the difference for you. I believe you've said it takes you about 3 hands, heads up, in a Single deck for your column count to start working its magic. So, you need 6 or 7 rounds to make this pay. All things being equal, I think your proportion of hands played to recognize the same advantage in a double deck would be less, therefore, your profit potential per hand played should increase. Expanding to 6 deck shoes opens up whole new markets for you.
Curious as to your thoughts.
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
I'm not sure if you would be that much better off in 6D w/ moses' count. From what I understand, it's design is focused on PE and you would probably lose a lot of that power in the typical depth you would have an edge. I don't know how moses's BC holds up though but that's another consideration. At the end of the day looking into this might just devolve into one of the perennial debates here on counts.
Moses obviously has better insight on the specs of his count so he can comment.
I'd think that the move to DD wouldn't be so bad and would give him more games to play.
moses,
I agree that you could learn a lot from Tarzan.
Counting by columns can make you a powerful
player if done correctly, which you are not.
The numbers never rise very high at all.
Almost always single digits in a SIX deck game.
That is because when properly played, you are
rendering RATIOS. As such, after every round
your numbers are reduced by the smallest of
the main three columns. i.e.
You have played a couple of hands and have
seen 3 baby cards, 4 middle cards and 2 Face card.
[For simplicity, I shall not reference the side-counted
Aces, that are the most critical part of ANY BJ count.]
So now you are visualizing 3 - 4 - 2
Reducing this automatically it is accurately reconfigured
by subtracting 2 (smallest number) from each column
making the smallest number always zero.
Now 3 - 4 - 2 becomes 1 - 2 - 0
The Tarzan Count gives the ratios accurately
altering Basic Strategy plays.
The power of the count is strong, but the BEST
feature of the procedure is that it provides you
with ACCURATE, but weird looking plays, that
work VERY well to baffle pit critters, leaving
them scratching their heads as you double on
a f'ugly hard 12 or hit a 13 vs 3 at a positive T.C.
The Hi-Lo infested pit critter and EITS see these
as suicidal plays.
How far you can go is computer perfect play using CA analysis every card drawn. Which is, funny to say, what the Ape-Man has been trying to accomplish.
Deck estimation is just that: an estimation. You don't need to know HOW many cards have been drawn, just that you have one less 2-5 cards, two less 6-9 cards, or three extra 10's.
The beauty is in the simplicity of the "count". (I feel I can quote "count" here Flash, since it is not a counting system)
To ZenMaster_Flash:
Would you agree that moses would benefit from the Tarzan System? A simple system than that of which moses is currently using?
I detect a minor pissing contest. Strange, never saw one before
Here's a philosophical point. The purists will tell you that there can only be one correct play for any given situation. Given absolutely exact circumstances between 2 players - such as bankroll count system, Kelly ratio etc etc - yeah, I would agree.The comment as a generality is hogwash.
One uses risk averse indexes while the other uses EV maximizing indexes. Reason for the difference could be aversion to risk as well as size if bankroll, taking ror issues into consideration. Always pass on 16, or do whatever the index says - obviously preference with heat issues taken into consideration. Some if us will research a solution to a oriblemproblem, others expect tsk be spoon fed. So all kinds if different issues as well as styles of play. Dozens of examp,es.
Live and let live.
Bookmarks