A new count, designed for PE. Perhaps?
- Thread starter jack.jackson
- Start date
TC conversion is absolutely neccessary
The Tarzan DHME count provides strategy for specific index plays. You still need a TC for betting purposes and determining your bet spread! The TC is simple enough to instantly ascertain though. For instance, in the example I noted in which the TC was 4, there were 8 more 2-5's played ahead of tens and there were 2 decks remaining. TC conversion is exactly the same as with a number line system with no. in running count divided by the number of decks remaining. You are using the 2-5's grouping on one end of the scale and the 10's grouping on the other, hence 8 cards ahead with 2 decks remaining....8 divided by 2 is 4. This rounded style of TC conversion is effective, simplistic and is such that you are able to do it instantaneously.
You have to have a TC to keep your betting spread on track. You have to always watch the discard rack and determine how many decks have been played into just like a number line type system. "Round Down" is what Stanford Wong and other pros say, so with regard to partial decks.
I hope I explained this simplistically enough because it's not difficult at all to do if you set your mind to it. It's merely doing very very simple math, addition and subtraction very rapidly, which practiced a little becomes ridiculously easy.
If you are serious about learning this method, I would suggest either buying the books and literature on it or have someone that uses the system work with you on it. If you use another counting method, I would think this may be difficult for you as you would have to retain the concepts of the hi-lo system but then sort of forget everything about the parameters of the count itself and start over from scratch! I started off using this system, so fell right into it quite easily and proceeded to seriously analyze it over the years.
I think Arnold Snyder wrote something along the lines of "Using the counting system that is easiest and most convenient for you" as in a comfort factor, I guess. One in which you can do "down pat" with no problems or errors. To learn this (DHME)? You would have to stop playing blackjack for 6 months or so and completely retrain yourself! Is it worth it to do this? (Of course, Arnold Snyder was way too cool to answer my couple of emails to him over the years asking him a few questions about my findings on research into index plays using Tarzan (DHME) count but I hold no grudge and will still quote some of his words of wisdom that I have read along the way). Bottom line is that you will not learn this system overnight but it is still simple enough that given time anyone could master it.
The Tarzan DHME count provides strategy for specific index plays. You still need a TC for betting purposes and determining your bet spread! The TC is simple enough to instantly ascertain though. For instance, in the example I noted in which the TC was 4, there were 8 more 2-5's played ahead of tens and there were 2 decks remaining. TC conversion is exactly the same as with a number line system with no. in running count divided by the number of decks remaining. You are using the 2-5's grouping on one end of the scale and the 10's grouping on the other, hence 8 cards ahead with 2 decks remaining....8 divided by 2 is 4. This rounded style of TC conversion is effective, simplistic and is such that you are able to do it instantaneously.
You have to have a TC to keep your betting spread on track. You have to always watch the discard rack and determine how many decks have been played into just like a number line type system. "Round Down" is what Stanford Wong and other pros say, so with regard to partial decks.
I hope I explained this simplistically enough because it's not difficult at all to do if you set your mind to it. It's merely doing very very simple math, addition and subtraction very rapidly, which practiced a little becomes ridiculously easy.
If you are serious about learning this method, I would suggest either buying the books and literature on it or have someone that uses the system work with you on it. If you use another counting method, I would think this may be difficult for you as you would have to retain the concepts of the hi-lo system but then sort of forget everything about the parameters of the count itself and start over from scratch! I started off using this system, so fell right into it quite easily and proceeded to seriously analyze it over the years.
I think Arnold Snyder wrote something along the lines of "Using the counting system that is easiest and most convenient for you" as in a comfort factor, I guess. One in which you can do "down pat" with no problems or errors. To learn this (DHME)? You would have to stop playing blackjack for 6 months or so and completely retrain yourself! Is it worth it to do this? (Of course, Arnold Snyder was way too cool to answer my couple of emails to him over the years asking him a few questions about my findings on research into index plays using Tarzan (DHME) count but I hold no grudge and will still quote some of his words of wisdom that I have read along the way). Bottom line is that you will not learn this system overnight but it is still simple enough that given time anyone could master it.
Last edited:
you explained it just fine. ya, i understand it, but im just getting started counting with a linear system sooooo the whole retraining thing probably wouldn't go so well.
yes, i agree; the best system is the one that works for you. They are all designed to do pretty much the same things, and they all work; so pick one you like and stick with it :-D
yes, i agree; the best system is the one that works for you. They are all designed to do pretty much the same things, and they all work; so pick one you like and stick with it :-D
jack said:
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!
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!
jack said:
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!
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!
2,3,4,+100 5+200
678+10 9+20
10,j,q,k,a+1
i try some 1 months ago but i stop becouse countis (0 ,110 ,14 )whot a you think about this?
thanks that here not bad is describing my strategy.
But here is a lot of mistakes and lacks:
1) 100,10,1 beter jast 1,1,1
2) no count A. my count is 2,3,4+1 5+2 678+1, 9+2 ,10jqkA+1
3) no idex i have it this
i start talk about it 1 months ago
this strategy lock same like my
i think that somebody just copy my strategy
in this count is
sumples you just
600,20 ,5 count 625 my is 6,2,5 625 it is same
i dont like it.
dont use another brain if you dont have your own .
there i first start discuse about my strategy .
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=11867&page=2
if somebody can show me similar strategy like my and where it discused before me-
than sorry about this one!!!
But here is a lot of mistakes and lacks:
1) 100,10,1 beter jast 1,1,1
2) no count A. my count is 2,3,4+1 5+2 678+1, 9+2 ,10jqkA+1
3) no idex i have it this
i start talk about it 1 months ago
this strategy lock same like my
i think that somebody just copy my strategy
in this count is
sumples you just
600,20 ,5 count 625 my is 6,2,5 625 it is same
i dont like it.
dont use another brain if you dont have your own .
there i first start discuse about my strategy .
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=11867&page=2
if somebody can show me similar strategy like my and where it discused before me-
than sorry about this one!!!
KOLAN,
You have a lot to learn.
If, playing a shoe game, you spread your wagers optimally and your
computations of the True Count are precise, you will do much BETTER than
someone who uses 200 indices to depart from Basic Strategy but does not
wager optimally.
With that said, note that I primarily play shoe games and I use a Level Two count with a very complete matrix of B. S. Departure Indices; because there is no reason not to if I can.
You have a lot to learn.
If, playing a shoe game, you spread your wagers optimally and your
computations of the True Count are precise, you will do much BETTER than
someone who uses 200 indices to depart from Basic Strategy but does not
wager optimally.
With that said, note that I primarily play shoe games and I use a Level Two count with a very complete matrix of B. S. Departure Indices; because there is no reason not to if I can.