Misnomer of equating to a single numberline
As a matter of course and in order to put this style of count into terms we can use to compare it to every other counting systems in the book is to apply "tags" and treat it exactly like any and every other counting system out there and equating everything into a single number line that goes up or down. This is why Tarzan count is sort of a "hybrid" of DHME and Gordon counts.
I don't see a single number line before me. I see something totally different in my mind and the easiest way to explain it is to picture what one of those graphic equalizers looks like on a stereo system system with it's various LED lights going up and down according to the frequency. What I am picturing in my mind is the exact number on each of these "frequencies" and their ratios to one another.
At any given point I know the exact number of all the groupings and formulate a sort of in color "numerical picture" in my mind that constantly changes and alters as new cards pop up, giving me exact ratios of card groupings to one another and exact numbers of cards played. The "graphic equalizer" explanation is the best way to put it. I have done it for a very long time and it comes to me very effortlessly and naturally from the repetition. I started off doing this from the beginning because I wanted to leave "lumping tag values applied to a single numberline" in the dust and go beyond it.
I am accurate enough at it that I can mow through whatever number of decks and not go off by a single card time after time. It's rare that my count goes off by even one card. Flash and a few others have seen me flip cards and do this but I often have a hard time explaining how exactly I visualize things in my mind with it to them and try to talk about it more in a numerical way rather than the visualization. They see the exactness and accuracy of the count so obviously understand the ramifications of it but I find it difficult to explain the actual visualization of it all in my mind to them and the perfect symmetry that falls into place with this visualization.
Then of course Flash breaks my balls about how I have "formulated my own language" with regard to Tarzan count and do not sufficiently follow the well-beaten paths of my predecessors (not that I don't look up to these great pioneers of blackjack that I initially learned things from and read about), although I have taken off in my own direction right from the beginning of my career while still adhering to the basic mathematical principles as established by blackjack pioneers that I have always had the utmost of respect for.
As a matter of course and in order to put this style of count into terms we can use to compare it to every other counting systems in the book is to apply "tags" and treat it exactly like any and every other counting system out there and equating everything into a single number line that goes up or down. This is why Tarzan count is sort of a "hybrid" of DHME and Gordon counts.
I don't see a single number line before me. I see something totally different in my mind and the easiest way to explain it is to picture what one of those graphic equalizers looks like on a stereo system system with it's various LED lights going up and down according to the frequency. What I am picturing in my mind is the exact number on each of these "frequencies" and their ratios to one another.
At any given point I know the exact number of all the groupings and formulate a sort of in color "numerical picture" in my mind that constantly changes and alters as new cards pop up, giving me exact ratios of card groupings to one another and exact numbers of cards played. The "graphic equalizer" explanation is the best way to put it. I have done it for a very long time and it comes to me very effortlessly and naturally from the repetition. I started off doing this from the beginning because I wanted to leave "lumping tag values applied to a single numberline" in the dust and go beyond it.
I am accurate enough at it that I can mow through whatever number of decks and not go off by a single card time after time. It's rare that my count goes off by even one card. Flash and a few others have seen me flip cards and do this but I often have a hard time explaining how exactly I visualize things in my mind with it to them and try to talk about it more in a numerical way rather than the visualization. They see the exactness and accuracy of the count so obviously understand the ramifications of it but I find it difficult to explain the actual visualization of it all in my mind to them and the perfect symmetry that falls into place with this visualization.
Then of course Flash breaks my balls about how I have "formulated my own language" with regard to Tarzan count and do not sufficiently follow the well-beaten paths of my predecessors (not that I don't look up to these great pioneers of blackjack that I initially learned things from and read about), although I have taken off in my own direction right from the beginning of my career while still adhering to the basic mathematical principles as established by blackjack pioneers that I have always had the utmost of respect for.
Last edited: