How to learn Zen Count?
- Thread starter Mark1234
- Start date
Yes, the ramp is too slow. Its confined by:
1. the way I interpreted his statement that he didn't want to bet more than $5 is negative or neutral counts,
2. trying to hit even $20 units,
3. not allowing the bet to more than double from one step to the next.
He did not state his bankroll, just that he wanted a max bet of 80-120.
A more reasonable spread would be:
1dTC 1/2dTC Bet Advantage
<0 <0 $5 <-0.5%
0 0 $10 about -0.5%
2 1 $15 about even
4 2 $30 about 0.5%
6 3 $60 about 1%
8 4 $90 about 1.5%
10 5 $120 about 2%
This is closer to optimal, but he would need to deal with fractions of his $20 unit at several levels. He would also be betting more than $5 in a neutral count.
Mark, keep an eye on this thread, Renzey will respond -
TC Question for Mentor-Fred
TC Question for Mentor-Fred
Sounds like the full deck divisions to compute TC in Zen are for the more aggressive or well financed card player. 1/2 deck the more conservative.
So it appears from both my mathematical understanding and experience on the trainer.
The full deck divisors resulted in some astonishing wins but also some really tanked numbers. 1/2 deck divisor shoe games stayed more constant with just a small rise. No major losses or wins.
So it appears from both my mathematical understanding and experience on the trainer.
The full deck divisors resulted in some astonishing wins but also some really tanked numbers. 1/2 deck divisor shoe games stayed more constant with just a small rise. No major losses or wins.
They are just two different methods of doing the same thing. One won't lead to significantly different performance than the other.
Mr. Renzey's response to zengrifter's question in the Mentor count thread points out that your indices become coarser as you lower the TC (by dividing by 2). So, if standing on 15 vs. 9 has a full deck index of 13, and we round to 7 for a half-deck index, we lose some accuracy on that index. So there is a cost to using the 1/2 deck TC. But its small, since this is basically the same thing as rounding/grouping your indices.
Conceptually, rounding your 1/2 deck indices to the nearest integer is the same as rounding your full deck indices to the nearest even integer.
One should keep this in mind if they choose to further group indices after having rounded them (I personally don't use any further grouping).
In Mr. Renzey's response in the other thread, he refers to a 1/4 deck TC. The indices for such a TC would be only as accurate as grouping the full deck indices at integers divisible by 4 (a little less accurate than grouping at even integers).
Comparatively, I would estimate that the practice of rounding to the nearest 4 probably gives up about the same amount of accuracy as rounding hi-lo indices to the nearest even integer (a practice that most would consider acceptable).
As I've stated before, my personal opinion is that the 1/2 deck TC is really only useful for people converting from hi-lo to zen because it keeps them from having to relearn all of the indices.
Aloha
All we care about is whic method produced the better EV, which was easier. Try the 2DTC. zg
Ps - You may not understand this topic.
see - TC Question for Mentor-Fred
Ps - You may not understand this topic.
see - TC Question for Mentor-Fred
Last edited:
Yes, but I still intuit that you may not thoroughly grasp the subject matter.
Discuss further here too -
TC Question for Mentor-Fred
Discuss further here too -
TC Question for Mentor-Fred
Yes, thats what he's suggesting. So your TC after the first hand from a 6 deck shoe would be RC/3. Your indices could be estimated by doubling the values linked to in the first message of this thread. If you get your 2-deck indices by multiplying the full-deck indices by 2, I'm not convinced you'll gain the accuracy you're looking for. The values were already rounded to integers for a full deck, and that rounding won't be undone by multiplying them by 2.
Yeah, this is a common misunderstanding. There is a difference between quarter-deck estimation and quarter-deck resolution. Most people assume they are the same thing but they are very different.
Quarter-deck resolution means that you divide your RC by the number of quarter-decks remaining instead of full decks. For example, with 2.5 decks remaining you would divide by 2.5 * 4 = 10 to get your TC. Some people use half-deck resolution instead, in which case you would divide by 2.5 * 2 = 5 to get your TC. People started using these methods because they found it easier to always divide by whole numbers instead of decimals. Let’s face it, dividing by 5 or 10 is more intuitive than dividing by 2.5. Unfortunately, as ZG mentioned, the results are not as accurate.
Quarter-deck estimation means that you still use full deck resolution but you estimate the discards to quarter-decks (or half-decks). So with 2.5 decks left you would divide by 2.5 to get your TC. This method is more accurate than quarter-deck resolution and you don’t need to convert the discards to quarter-deck increments. It may seem more difficult to divide by 2.5, but a quick shortcut is to multiply by 0.4 instead.
The decision of when to leave the table (or start backcounting another) will depend on the penetration and how many other tables are available. This concept is covered in Schlesinger’s Blackjack Attack. As a rule of thumb, if the count is still negative after 2 decks in a 6D game you should think about moving on.
-Sonny-
Quarter-deck resolution means that you divide your RC by the number of quarter-decks remaining instead of full decks. For example, with 2.5 decks remaining you would divide by 2.5 * 4 = 10 to get your TC. Some people use half-deck resolution instead, in which case you would divide by 2.5 * 2 = 5 to get your TC. People started using these methods because they found it easier to always divide by whole numbers instead of decimals. Let’s face it, dividing by 5 or 10 is more intuitive than dividing by 2.5. Unfortunately, as ZG mentioned, the results are not as accurate.
Quarter-deck estimation means that you still use full deck resolution but you estimate the discards to quarter-decks (or half-decks). So with 2.5 decks left you would divide by 2.5 to get your TC. This method is more accurate than quarter-deck resolution and you don’t need to convert the discards to quarter-deck increments. It may seem more difficult to divide by 2.5, but a quick shortcut is to multiply by 0.4 instead.
The decision of when to leave the table (or start backcounting another) will depend on the penetration and how many other tables are available. This concept is covered in Schlesinger’s Blackjack Attack. As a rule of thumb, if the count is still negative after 2 decks in a 6D game you should think about moving on.
-Sonny-
Zen Advice
I used Zen for over 20 years.
I use Hi-OPT II now, but for shoe games Zen is a better choice.
Just find a used copy of the FIRST edition (1983) of "Blackbelt in Blackjack" That edition gives you an ordinary True Count with Indices method of playing BJ. I hate the other versions.
Try http://www.half.ebay.com/ for cheap used gambling books.
I used Zen for over 20 years.
I use Hi-OPT II now, but for shoe games Zen is a better choice.
Just find a used copy of the FIRST edition (1983) of "Blackbelt in Blackjack" That edition gives you an ordinary True Count with Indices method of playing BJ. I hate the other versions.
Try http://www.half.ebay.com/ for cheap used gambling books.
Mark - That version is here and lends itself to the extreme-rounding that I recommend in the ZG Interview -
Complete Indices for the Zen Card Counting System for the True Count Method (That is, Count Per Deck, Rather Than The True Edge Method)
Did you understand Sonny's response to your confusion? zg
Complete Indices for the Zen Card Counting System for the True Count Method (That is, Count Per Deck, Rather Than The True Edge Method)
Did you understand Sonny's response to your confusion? zg
Hi.
I appologise for late answer, but I don't have constant access to the internet.
Yeah, I learned these indeces (I rounded them).
I think that I understood. Thanks
One more thing: do I lost a lot of my adventaga if I round down to one deck through whole shoe insteed of using this:
"3-8Ds round down to full decks.
1-3Ds round down to half decks
1/4-1D round down to quarter decks"?
I appologise for late answer, but I don't have constant access to the internet.
Yeah, I learned these indeces (I rounded them).
I think that I understood. Thanks
One more thing: do I lost a lot of my adventaga if I round down to one deck through whole shoe insteed of using this:
"3-8Ds round down to full decks.
1-3Ds round down to half decks
1/4-1D round down to quarter decks"?
I have not read all the replies on this post yet but one thing I find disturbing right off the bat is that if you follow the chart in Arnold Synders Zen count for soft doubling the chart will not advise you to double A4 and A5 against a dealers 3. Soft doubling has always been a joy to me and it only calls for a +4 count per page 113 of Ustons MD Blackjack which is the main reference in my studies.
On other calls they go so far as extending into the teens for play indices.
Am I missing something here?
On other calls they go so far as extending into the teens for play indices.
Am I missing something here?
Mark1234 said:
Hi.
I appologise for late answer, but I don't have constant access to the internet.
Yeah, I learned these indeces (I rounded them).
I think that I understood. Thanks
One more thing: do I lost a lot of my adventaga if I round down to one deck through whole shoe insteed of using this:
"3-8Ds round down to full decks.
1-3Ds round down to half decks
1/4-1D round down to quarter decks"?
I appologise for late answer, but I don't have constant access to the internet.
Yeah, I learned these indeces (I rounded them).
I think that I understood. Thanks
One more thing: do I lost a lot of my adventaga if I round down to one deck through whole shoe insteed of using this:
"3-8Ds round down to full decks.
1-3Ds round down to half decks
1/4-1D round down to quarter decks"?
