My warm welcome to BJ21.com

#21
Me Tarzan not Thunder you Jason

Billy... er... I mean Jason, I reposted the nifty little introductory blurb on here with no specific reason or intent. You asked why would I repost it on here as it was inconsequential, irrelevant and meaningless but I saw it as one of the greatest backjack-related posts I have ever written and perhaps worth getting it out there SOMEPLACE at least. Is there a proclamation cast in stone that if you post anything on a blackjack board it has to be bland, sterile and have about as much joviality to it as a proctology exam?

In all actuality, there were layers of imbedded thought process in the post that are essentially "the holy grail" of blackjack play in today's games if you are to be an AP but so few picked up any of the abstract conceptualizations of the humorous approach, much like taking a group of hillbillies from the Appalachia Mountains to Dennis Miller's stand-up routine and expecting them to understand it and laugh rather than look at each other completely dumbfounded. By reposting here, I merely sought to get the post out there among other blackjack players who may appreciate the 5 minutes of my time I devoted solely for their amusement, nothing else... and nothing against Stanford Wong or bj21.com or anything like that.

Hot tub and pool party at my place with tiki torches going and 3 Borgata waitresses and their 5 friends? I can already tell who among us would actually get laid and who wouldn't... Flash and I would get one each... and Creeping Panther would have at least two of them saying, "Take me to your teepee". 21for Me, you are a great guy and I like you but you would be too focused on talking about how Tiffany's tweetybird tattoo on her ass cheek makes no sense with purple panties, making her roll her eyes and excuse herself. Jason would call Julie another name and also be focused on "Why is this party here instead of at Wally Halpern's place down the street" and too distracted by that to enjoy the party, leaving the remaining 4 female guests virgins for the night for lack of anything better to do. Bland and humorless is fine when putting together a spreadsheet, reviewing statistical data or playing blackjack but if you are incapable of coming out of that mode of operation for any reason... it may be an issue. I don't say all this to be critical; I say this because I love you guys and you are like family to me (even if I have a few red-headed stepchildren in my family).

Marillion, I use what I have always called the "Tarzan count". It is something I began working on back in around 1980 or so that goes way beyond a typical "number line" counting system as I have always called them. I once thought I was the sole creator and innovator of this incredibly effective system but I found out in recent years that someone else also thought of the exact same count and called it "DHME". Dr. Mitchell wrote a book or two about it and you can easily google it or whatever to research it. A very broad generalization of it's description would be to envision an older type stereo system that has a graphic equalizer with all it's bars of LED lights going up and down according to frequency in comparison to one another. You are tracking ratios of specific groupings of cards played, which allows for unique insight beyond a "hi-lo" type count and some very advantageous index play in certain scenarios. You are counting separate groupings of 2-5's, 6-9's, 10-F's and Aces. The only remaining part of the equation is converting this data to obtain a TC as is used in an ordinary number line counting system for base bet purposes. A typical card-counting demonstration that I do is to flip through a few decks of cards, getting down to the last 10-15 cards and then tell people what those cards are, as in how many 2-5's, 6-9's, 10's/F's and Aces. I have been highly successful for many years using this method and avoided "spilling the beans" about it like D.H.Mitchell did, that dirty rat fink. There are far more simple counting methods easier to learn, so it's not like everyone is going to go the distance on learning it anyway... it's too difficult and too obscure to be "main stream".
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#22
You tarzan, me boob. :laugh: My apologies to both of you for the name mix up. Especially to thunder, who was the innocent bystander. :) I have replaced the innocent with the 'guilty'. :)
 
#23
You are something, Tarzan! :)

Anyway, who needs any count system at all when one-eyed Catalunian gypsy woman with twitching, ace predicting eye is near by, ha? :)
 

21forme

Well-Known Member
#24
kewljason said:
You tarzan, me boob. :laugh: My apologies to both of you for the name mix up. Especially to thunder, who was the innocent bystander. :) I have replaced the innocent with the 'guilty'. :)
Funny thing is I sometimes mix them up, too. Maybe I'm distracted by Tiffany's purple panties :) However, I can sort them out by recalling some fun meetings with Tarzan on the Boardwalk and I've never met Thunder.
 

HockeXpert

Well-Known Member
#25
Sharky said:
hadn't been to bj21.com in quite a while and after returning I quickly remembered why...that message board is hideous...F'ing bullet point style from Stanford? WTF?
A thread at bj21 was started over a year ago asking the users what they thought about switching to vBulletin. The majority of the users were up in arms and protested the switch.:confused: These are probably the same people who still have an IBM Selectric typewriter close at hand to keep in touch via snail mail.
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#26
I know Tarzan quite well and I have met up with 21forme and > 9 other posters as well.

The three tier BJ counting systems are ulber-powerful in pitch games; mostly because
you get to play your stiffs armed with information specific to those low e.v. hands.

These tripartite systems have been around for quite a while, but have never gained traction as they are very hard to learn and employ.
The expert consensus is that they are poor performers in shoe games, due to a very low betting correlation, but I am not totally convinced of that.
The DHM Expert System has been unavailable for decades. I wish that I could find a copy.

Two years ago, I had sent the following to a cohort, after observing Tarzan at his craft:

The Tarzan Count, as I dub it, has a betting correlation of just .88, but with the Side-Counted Aces employed, it is much higher, perhaps .90 to .94

In "pitch games" I would love to be able to employ The Tarzan Count with a wide matrix of Basic Strategy Departure indices. I suspect that it may be capable of approaching,
(or perhaps exceeding) what peter Griffin had to say about the practical limits of "playing efficiency" An impressive P.E. exceeding .70 is extremely powerful in any hand-held
game where three hands or more are dealt between shuffles.

As should be obvious, the playing efficiency of a card counting system is of diluted importance against New Jersey's shallow 8 deckers. Thus, these "6 of 8 dealt" monstrosities
provide precious few opportunities to employ the 'extra' information provided by the "middle cards" surplus/deficit metrics.

As an exercise Tarzan suggested "Take six decks of cards... take out 50% of all the 6-9's... then play heads up using standard basic strategy flat betting minimums and let me know
how you did! Put all those 6-9s back and then do the same thing.

I suggest a refinement.

Use just 2 decks (just for ease of use) and remove 16 of the 32 6's through 9's. Then "balance" the True Count by removing 2 Face Cards.
In terms of the "effects of removal" the 6 is just .05% less than a perfect balanced match to the 10. [+0.46% vs -0.51%] The overall effects
of removal dictate that this modified DD would be very close to a balanced "Zero" True Count "off the top"

Firstly, lets quickly look at the "betting correlation" The combined EoR "effect of removal" of an equal amounts of these small cards and Face Cards is as follows:

FACE CARDS:

[-.51 x 4] = -2.04 per 4 card "set" of Face Cards.

[Sum = -2.04%]

2. = +.38
3. = +.44
4. = +.55
5. = +.69

SMALL CARDS:

[Sum = +2.06%]

The difference of +0.0.2 for each quartet of high /low cards cannot be safely dismissed, as in this modified Double Deck there would be [for the Running Count]
8 times +0.02 = +0.16, and that is probably insignificant. Consider that the player's e.v. in a DD game with S17 and DAS is -.19% Thus a spot-on ZERO TrueCount
with this set of counting "tags" would make for a game where the e.v. is shaved slightly by -.03

Now lets take a look at the EoR for these "middle cards"

MIDDLE CARDS:

6 = +.46
7 = +.28
8 = 0.00
9 = -.18

[Sum = + .52 x 4 = + 2.08%

With 16 of these "middle cards" depleted it would improve the e.v. by > +2.08%
Note: as the DD has been reduced from 102 cards to 86 cards the True Count is proportionately higher.
Thus far we have the equivalent of a [Running Count] with:
6 fours and 2 threes (sum to EoR = +4.18) ~OR~
6 fives (sum to EoR = +4.14)
A Hi-Lo player would compute this as +6 / 1.75 = T.C. of 3.4
A Hi-Opt II player would see this as either 15 or 12 / 1.75 and would be "floored" to T.C. +6 or T.C. +8
Betting optimally the Hi-Lo player would assume an advantage of about 1.5%
The Hi-Opt II player would view this composition as affording himself 1.25% or 1.75%.
An Advanced Omega II player would be including the nines in his count and would have a more conservative view of his advantage.

Hi-Lo being a level one count that has three zero-valued cards will be somewhat inaccurate in revealing e.v.'s during the course of
play compared to a level two count with only two zero-valued cards, with low cards having strong and weak tags, and Ace adjusted
wagering re: general player's expectation:

We see that the removal of one half of these "middle cards" will result in a player's e.v. that is generally equivalent to a True Count of > +2.

We can eliminate this distorted expectation by judiciously REMOVING eight [8] Face Cards.
Thus the +4.16 will be balanced by -4.08
Note: this is the same 25% reduction of TENS that we see in a Spanish21 shoe
Note: the modified DD has finally settled at 80 cards.

Following Tarzan's seminal suggestion of "hand-simulating" BJ with this modified pack of cards;
I would go further and suggest the following procedure:
Play BJ with this modified distribution and tabulate the result until, at bare minimum, 1,000 hands are played.
After every 100 hands SWITCH to an alternative pack of cards.
That pack will have been created in the opposite fashion of the first.
Where 1/2 of the "middle cards"; were removed, this alternate pack will ADD an extra eight [8] "middle cards" and ADDING eight [8] Face Cards"

After the net result of 2,000 hands played are tabulated, it should be clear what the effects of surplus and deficit "middle cars" are.

The one thing that I did not do though is to see whether or not the modifications that I made to the packs of cards are disproportional
to normal densities of each of the card groupings.

Being anything but a mathematician I am prone to the errors that sloppy proofing can generate; but I am certain that there
are peeps here who are astute at ferreting out errors and will follow up this post.

In summary, what leaps off the page for me is THE FACT that the two 4 card sets of Small Cards and Middle Cards are virtually EQUAL in their effect upon removal.
 

21forme

Well-Known Member
#27
HockeXpert said:
A thread at bj21 was started over a year ago asking the users what they thought about switching to vBulletin. The majority of the users were up in arms and protested the switch.:confused: These are probably the same people who still have an IBM Selectric typewriter close at hand to keep in touch via snail mail.
After that, Stanford had decided to convert to vBulletin, despite protests. The problem was his IT guy could not find a utility to convert the archives over, so we're stuck with the status quo.
 

HockeXpert

Well-Known Member
#28
21forme said:
After that, Stanford had decided to convert to vBulletin, despite protests. The problem was his IT guy could not find a utility to convert the archives over, so we're stuck with the status quo.
I recall that now that you mention it. Good for SW!!! But, I also recall a member posted a solution that his IT guy could have used but it went nowhere. Perhaps the poster with the solution was full of crap.

I guess we'll be suffering through that bullet point format into the next decade.:cry:
 
A

Al Rogers

Guest
#31
BJ21.com Green Chip comped membership offer for BJInfo.com readers

Though we have some nonsense posts once in a while, we generally discourage them. You will find Green Chip discussions to usually be more knowledgeable than our free page postings. To truly allow a "warm welcome" as the original poster sarcastically (we will take it as friendly sarcasm) wrote, we would like to offer a comped 90-day Green Chip membership to BJInfo.com readers, which can be obtained through this link:

Click https://secure.bj21.com/docs/landing/

There is no cost or obligation whatsoever. This offer is for anyone who has not previously had a comped Green Chip membership, and is not presently a member. Please type BJInfo in the Comments box.

Al Rogers
http://www.BJ21.com
[email protected]
 

NightStalker

Well-Known Member
#32
wow

Al Rogers said:
Though we have some nonsense posts once in a while, we generally discourage them. You will find Green Chip discussions to usually be more knowledgeable than our free page postings. To truly allow a "warm welcome" as the original poster sarcastically (we will take it as friendly sarcasm) wrote, we would like to offer a comped 90-day Green Chip membership to BJInfo.com readers, which can be obtained through this link:

Click https://secure.bj21.com/docs/landing/

There is no cost or obligation whatsoever. This offer is for anyone who has not previously had a comped Green Chip membership, and is not presently a member. Please type BJInfo in the Comments box.

Al Rogers
http://www.BJ21.com
[email protected]
What's the expiration date for the offer?
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#35
Al Rogers said:
we would like to offer a comped 90-day Green Chip membership to BJInfo.com readers, which can be obtained through this link:

Click https://secure.bj21.com/docs/landing/

Al Rogers
http://www.BJ21.com
[email protected]
Nice to see someone in Vegas is still comping! The casino's sure as hell aren't offering much. :laugh:

Very nice gesture AL, but doesn't such a widespread offer actually diminish the quality of Green Chip temporarily? Basically the buffer from the free page is gone for the next 90 days? :(:eek::confused:
 

The Chaperone

Well-Known Member
#36
NightStalker said:
What's the expiration date for the offer?
Not sure if you overlooked this part of Al's post:

This offer is for anyone who has not previously had a comped Green Chip membership, and is not presently a member.
 

NightStalker

Well-Known Member
#37
I don't assume random things like

The Chaperone said:
Not sure if you overlooked this part of Al's post:

This offer is for anyone who has not previously had a comped Green Chip membership, and is not presently a member.
smartass chaps.. It'll be highly -EV for you to waste your precious time on this forum..
 
#38
Night-Chap

NightStalker said:
smartass chaps.. It'll be highly -EV for you to waste your precious time on this forum..
I would like to say that I for one am very happy Chaps has decided to spend some time here as he was recently instrumental in revealing to me one of the most important pieces of information I have ever gotten off a BJ web site.

Thanks Chaps.:cool::):1st:

Friend,
CP
 
Top