A new count, designed for PE. Perhaps?

So, Ive been thinking again and was just wondering, if anybody knew, if they thought this new different kind of count, could break the .70 pe, barrier,(single parameter counts) regardless of the work and effort. It does work, but I dont know how crude or effective, it would be.

The count:

2,3,4,5=100's

6,7,8,9=10's

T,J,Q,K=1's

Example:

A)3,5=200

B)X,X=202

C)7,8=222(000)

In example C, with a little practice, the middle cards, would just cancel the small cards and facecards out.

Example2:RC/000

A)2,X,X=102

B)3,5,X=303

C)6,8=101

In example B, can you possibly see why 13v2, would be a good hit?
______________________________________________________________

I tried this with 1 deck of cards and ended on Zero on my first counting attempt. Also not 1 of my 3 subgroups(low,med,high) went above 5.

Does anyone think, that, with using this method its possible to attain a .80 or .90 PE?

Also could doubling H12 or H13 be identified, mathematically correct?

Any feedback is welcome!

This is not a new system. One website said that the BC = .86 and PE = .56. Don't know how accurate the numbers are, but here is the website. It is called DHM. http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/D.htm

Oldie but a goodie

What you describe (in breakdown at least) is nothing new. To group 2-5's - 6-9's - 10's and aces is what is known as the "DHM" system. This is the system I use that has been very effective and the best there is in my opinion. Your method of tracking is not the official, very easy way to do it but the basic concept is the same with these groupings of cards. One of the things you point out in knowing exactly how to go in the instance of a 13 against the dealer 2 for a deviation from basic stategy due to the count is just one of the HUGE advantages of this system. There are many others.

This is the counting method I started with. There are also things to add such as a side count of total 9's played (for the unique index plays involved with this count) versus penetration as far as a ratio of the 6-9's played, etc. but these are the fine details that come in later after mastering the basic counting method.

I am thinking this thread should be in the card counting section and not the general section but oh what the heck, I have posted things in an unappropriate section myself at times.

Well I thought CC, was mistaking this, for a different one at first. But it appears not.

Do you know which book, this count is published in?

Ya, those damn "9's" really screw up the BC, and with hands of 13, but that comes with the territory, I guess.

My method of tracking, doesnt seem that hard(to me), because anytime one of the sub-groups, are Zero and one of those cards are played, it just lowers the other two groups. Therefore, you would always have a Zero in your count, at all times.

I actually dropped the ace. Their not grouped with the X's. They could be SC, if desired. Is that what you do?

I also think, I understand the TC. Simply base your indexes, off 1 deck. For example, if 303 justified hitting 13v4 w/1 deck, then 606 w/2 decks remaining would be the same thing. Yes/no?

As far as betting goes; I suppose the aces would have to be SC, for any kind of strength.

Determining the indexes, with the information you have, seems like the tough part. I realize some of them would be easy, just by using common sense. But trying to determine if you should a 14v2 with a count of 0/4/3 w/ a deck and 1/2 remaining seems impossible.

Thanks for the lesson

DHM and TC conversion

I talked about my counting method in a post entitled "Rare opportunity" in which I talked about getting the opportunity to meet with Flash and discuss at length a variety of subjects and traded notes with him. He is a knowledgeable professional that knew all about my counting method, of it's origins and all the things that make this the most effective and powerful counting system.

You still have to understand all the parameters of a linear or number line sort of system for the conversion to TC but that comes quite easily. Each and every hand can be broken down to a very exact percentage of probability if you take the time to pick it all apart.

If I were to teach someone from scratch to learn to count, I would touch on the basic theory of hi-lo count as this is important for that TC conversion and then teach them my (modified to include percentages and index plays) DHM count. One thing is that if you are used to a certain type of count that is simple for you, it might be difficult to transit over I might think... I don't know. I don't know what your personal counting method is but to start over from scratch to learn an entirely new system could be a lot of work and perhaps harder on you than someone starting with this system that never utilized any other card counting system before. There are also lots of little details that get added in as you learn this method that make it maybe more difficult to master than any regular hi-lo system. Once you have it perfected you will never regret it and likely feel that it was worth the extra effort though.

Flash and I might write a book entitled "Beyond DHM" in which we totally screw up the entire world of blackjack for everyone since we will make casinos so damn paranoid that our book will produce people of uncanny ability able to almost magically know every card coming down the pike that they will play only 2 hands out of a shoe , making it to where the 3 minutes of actual playtime does not make up for the ordeal to shuffle the cards making nothing for the casino...ever... and no one in their right state of mind plays blackjack anyway and.... HMMM---Maybe we're not going to write that book after all!

All of this sounds WAY too complicated. I'll still with Hi-Lo.

Quite an ingenious system you've got there! Here are a couple of things I can add to it.

First problem you're going to have is that in shoe games the digits are sometimes going to exceed 9, so that neat 3-digit format you have is going to be trashed.

And the way you are going to express the running counts can be different for each type of play. Let's call the three digits A,B,C for the 100,10,1 places.

The RC you're going to use for insurance is A+B-2C.

For betting: A-C (plus B-4xAces if you are sidecounting aces)

The rest are off the top of my head-
16 vs. 10: A-C

12 vs. 3: B-C

A5 vs. 3: A-B

And this is what will give you the added playing efficiency, being able to mix and match your parameters to generate different RC's for different plays. A day or so spent with the playing EoR tables in Griffin's Theory of Blackjack will allow you to determine the right equations to generate the right RC for every play.

thats kewl; if u you figure it out and it actually breaks the .7 PE barrier i would for sure use it with a depth charging betting system :-D sounds fun don't it

Kc, has a cool program, that shows you the EoR, on any hand you have. For example, if you remove 1 Eight, from a "single deck" it automaticaly calculates the EV for any hand. Using his program, I could at least figure out the I18. TCs would still have to be made. DoD, w/2decks, is more than likely the same thing as BoB(lol), w/1deck remaining. Indicating hit, 13v2.

Hmmm....Not crazy about the letters. I think, I could handle the double-digits, since there will only be 2 single digits at all times..ie(8/4/0) Two more face-cards, and Voila, it drops to (6/2/0).=3/1/0 w/2dremaining.
I dont think, it will roll past 10 often enough, to justify replacing the numbers with letters Maybe I could use letters to replace numbers on 10-20?

No no I didn't mean using letters to replace the numbers, those letters were just to identify the columns and to describe the algebra you'll need to do to get powerful playing information from the count data.

Count is 3/1/0: A=3, B=1, C=0

By all means use numbers.

There were books that were sold though some gaming website. I cannot remember the name (I can get the name though). However, now the site is endorsed by Casnio's in Vegas and cannot sell the system any more. There are 2 systems. DHM, and DHM expert. DHM is terrible, it is like HiLo using only 2-5 and all 10s. THere is tons of info on the web about this system. However the better one is DHM expert. The system was created by D. Howard Mitchell (DHM) a.k.a. Edward Gordon. This count has been proven to do wonders with someone else keeping a different count like ZEN or Mentor (especiallially in SD and DD) especially with stiffs, but Gordan could not figure out a way to make the count worth while independently.

It kinda makes me wonder, if he just was'nt sidecounting the 6,7,8&9's as one sub-group, (instead of each card individually), then compensating, for the shortages or surplus of these cards for, 4=1/4deck, hence multi-params.

Thats probably what Tarzan was talking about, about it beiing easier.

Actually, I think that might have been the way he was doing it. I am not sure though. Finding information on this system is tough.

DHME or "Tarzan Count" as I call it

I find it to be the ultimate in coming up with appropriate index plays. Using this system has been VERY VERY good to me. With rounding you can determine a nearly exact percentage of pulling a card in the groupings!

I want to avoid boring you if that's at all possible but allow me to go into this just a bit. Where does it get weird? Strange!? When is a hi-lo count less effective? What about those "illustrious 18" and the difficult call of 12,13 against the dealer's 2, 3 upcard? DHM adds considerably more to the index play scenario and gives an edge that makes it worth the effort to me.

Should anyone like a more detailed layout of exactly how it works and "how to", I will post it.

I would appreciate any information you could give. It sounds very interesting to me.

Make that two of us! I Bet 12 and 16's are the most effective.

make that three or us :-D

please, do tell

Tarzan's DHME count

Let's go into the basics of the "Tarzan Count" in a broad brush sort of way. As was mentioned before the cards are broken down into groupings. To give you an idea of how this works, take a deck of cards and remove the 4 aces. Now split the cards up into 3 groups as follows:

2-5's

6-9's

10's

You will notice that these are 3 equal piles, essentially 1/3 or 33% of the deck each, 16 cards in each pile. This ratio of these groupings of course remains constant regardless of the number of decks.Your count is on these 3 groupings of cards and aces. What is the advantage of knowing (when the TC is nearly neutral) that 15 more 2-5,s have been played than 6-9's and 13 more 10's have been played than 6-9's? The answer is obvious. The most prevalent cards coming are likely 6-9's!

These three groupings are counted with relevance to each other and aces are only counted as a 4th grouping only as a finite number of aces played with no correlation relative to the three groupings. Once you achieve perfection there is more if you wish to add it, tracking number of 9's played of the ratio of the 6-9 grouping but let's not worry about or go into that just yet or here as I wish to keep this simplistic.

This number of cards played in a given grouping is also easily broken down to a PERCENTAGE of likelihood relative to penetration of a shoe game. For instance:

33% 33% 33% (qty. played)

2-5's 6-9's 10's X

These are the percentages at the beginning of the shoe. Let's say you are playing against 6 decks and want to know an accurate percentage of the relevance of each burned/used card that has been played. In a 6 deck shoe:

Decks Remaining / Impact on percentage of each card (rounded)

5 / .41% per card per grouping, round to .4%

4 / .52% per card per grouping, round to .5%

3 / .69% per card per grouping, round to .7%

2 / 1.04% per card per grouping, round to 1%

This is essentially the basis along with sims to provide applicable index plays. This is not something that you need to memorize over and above the count but you will find yourself calculating these percentages as you go after using this system long enough, hence the rounding factor.

Let's put this into an example---

You are playing a six deck shoe and upon looking over at the discard rack, you see that you have spent 4 decks; There are 2 decks remaining. The count is "8-4-0-(12)" . This is to say that 8 more 2-5's have been played than 10's, 4 more 6-9's have been played than 10's, and 12 total aces have been played out of 24 total.

Now let's evaluate this. TC conversion is TC4. There are 12 total aces remaining in the two remaining decks (this is obviously a good count warranting a higher bet with a few extra aces in there to be had as icing on the cake!). Let's predict the percentage of likelihood of what the very next card will be (we are rounding this as they might get upset about you bringing your calculator to the blackjack table). Our chart shows that this far into the shoe each card has a whopping 1.04% effect! We round this to 1% and we know that for the very next card:

Grouping Percentage

2-5,s 25% (There is a 25% chance the next card is a 2-5)

6-9's 29% (There is a 29% chance the next card is a 6-9)

10's 45% (There is a 45% chance the next card is a 10)

Aces............................There are 4 aces beyond the norm, 12 remaining in 2 decks, meaning "aces rich"

You don't actually need to know these percentages. You merely need to understand their concept for deriving the index plays involved and know and understand those.

Let's go back to the count itself for a moment. How do you very very rapidly count these three groupings? It's EASY!! Pathetically easy. You know how you break a fraction down to it's simplest terms? For instance, 4/8 breaks down to 1/2? You are doing the same thing! You have a set of 3 numbers that all correlate to each other (The aces are simply a finite count by themselves)---- If you have a count of "12-4-5-X" this breaks down lowest terms by deducting from each! "12-4-5-X" becomes "8-0-1-X". There is always a ZERO in the group and you have subtracted 4 from each group. To go on and on without breaking it down to simplest terms is not feasible if not impossible. You merely need to know how many of a given grouping have been played OVER AND ABOVE the other groupings and not the totals. If you practice this simple mathematical breakdown to simplest terms it becomes very easy to you and you are able to do the breakdown as you go and as you are counting.

Let's do a common sense application of all this. Let's say the count is -------> "15-0-15-X" and you have 3 decks remaining of the 6 deck shoe. You are heads up and "play all" in a nomidshoe. Obviously you would have a minimum bet out there at this point but....do you hit a 13 against the dealer's 2? This is the added advantage of this type of count in a nutshell, this particular example.

There is more to add after the count becomes second nature (if you want to go further), which is a side count of 9's with regard to the ratio of 6-9 grouping played which also comes to play on what I call the amazingly illustriously luminous 50 or so index plays that go with "the whole enchilada".

There are books and references available on "DHM EXPERT", I think. This is the system I have used for over 20 years, having never even tried or done anything else. I like it, I trust it.

I hope I slapped all this down accurately as it was off the top of my head but I'm sure if I made any mistakes, my fellow blackjack pros will provide additional critique!!

looks good tarzan

just to double check, there isn't any need for a TC conversion? is that correct?

I'm no expert or professional, but the only problem i could see is that you're keeping three counts (4 if you include an ace SC) opposed to one count with a typical counting method. Though the numbers will always be positive and will not swing (potentially) as high or low as a typical running count it might be difficult to keep (essentially) three separate counts.

HOWEVER, if you can manage that, and the fraction reduction, this does look like a VERY effective means of improving PE :-D

nice job