Zen Again

[jimmtech]

Switched from AOII to Zen and have been using this for indices:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm

(I just got SBA and am looking at generating more index plays)

Some of the plays here I do not understand:

Snyder------- Per SBA 6D H17 DAS (Risk Averse)
77/8 P4 ------ P12
44/3 P12 -----Never split
44/4 P4 ------ P10
22/8 P12 ---- Never split

I guess this shows Risk Averse = wait till the count is higher before you split or don't split at all?

Also:

Snyder -----Per SBA 6D H17 DAS (Risk Averse)
13/A Hit ----S20
14/A Hit --- S13
A3/4 D -----D8
A3/3 Hit ----D16

Are these kinds of differences all due to the fact of being Risk Averse?

Did Synder exclude some soft doubling just because the margin is too small? It just seems strange that RA indices would at some times have you putting MORE money out where in general Snyder's (non)RA index plays have you putting more $ out sooner...

Are there many of you who use RA indices and therefore bet more money?

 

[FLASH1296]

Basically these all look correct to me, as a long time Zen Master who prefers Risk Averse indices.

For a good explanation of Risk Averse Indices see the the "Catch-22" Chapter in Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition.

Risk Averse indices balance risk vs. gain.

Look at it this way:

You have a total of 10 and the dealer shows a face card.

Your True Count is (ZEN) +8 and you know that the Profit Maximizing Index has easily been surpassed.

However, the Risk Averse Index has not yet been reached. It is MUCH higher.

You hesitate. You have your MAX bet out and now you realize that you may be about to lose DOUBLE that.

This is because while you now make (somewhat) more money by doubling, you are (radically) increasing your RISK by doubling the money that is at jeopardy.

Risk Aversion is a means to reduce your fluctuations; thus lowering your R.O.R. and consequently your bankroll requirements.

 

[SuperTrump]

While we're on the subject of Zen indices...

Am I correct in saying that one should be using the SD indices and NOT the MD indices for shoe games? This was mentioned by ZG in one of his postings on Zen.

Also, what is SO BAD about the 1/4 deck conversion to Kelly% and the existing indices featured in Snyder's BBIBJ?? How much LESS accurate are they compared to the TC method?

 

[FLASH1296]

Why on Earth would you want to use SD indices in a shoe game?

Whatever gave you such a notion?

You should generate a matrix of Risk-Averse indices specific to the
number of decks and rules using appropriate software, e.g. S.B.A.

 

[SuperTrump]

Why on Earth would you want to use SD indices in a shoe game?

Whatever gave you such a notion?

You should generate a matrix of Risk-Averse indices specific to the number of decks and rules using appropriate software, e.g. S.B.A.[/FONT]

Sorry... My mistake!... Confused the 1DTC conversion with SD indices....

In a previous posting ZG stated:

"Use the decisions designated in ZGI. Someone please provide the link to ZEN'83 multideck. You will use the old multideck indices generated for 1DTC... or alternately we have a 2DTC version in the forum somewhere.

Do NOT use the 1/4DTC version as published in the current BBIBJ. zg"

So the correct indices are the Snyder TC multi-deck indices?

 

[QFIT]

Risk Aversion is a means to reduce your fluctuations; thus lowering your R.O.R. and consequently your bankroll requirements.

The way we look at it, you can increase your unit size with RA indexes keeping the same risk and your resultant win/hour will increase.

 

[FLASH1296]

Zen indices

This link will get you the ZEN True Count based INDICES.
They are profit-maximizing indices, not Risk-Averse indices.

They were published by Arnold Snyder after he jettisoned
True Counts in favor of his "True Edge" methodology.

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm#comprehensivebs

 

[QFIT]

This link will get you the ZEN True Count based INDICES.
They are profit-maximizing indices, not Risk-Averse indices.

They were published by Arnold Snyder after he jettisoned
True Counts in favor of his "True Edge" methodology.

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm#comprehensivebs

EV-Maximizing. RA indexes are profit-maximizing, given equivalent risk.

 

[SuperTrump]

I note that most players on here recommend SBA > CVData for TC index generation?

Any specific reason for this or is it just down to personal preferance?

 

[iCountNTrack]

The way we look at it, you can increase your unit size with RA indexes keeping the same risk and your resultant win/hour will increase.

The way we look at it: very nicely put haha.

 

[iCountNTrack]

This link will get you the ZEN True Count based INDICES.
They are profit-maximizing indices, not Risk-Averse indices.

They were published by Arnold Snyder after he jettisoned
True Counts in favor of his "True Edge" methodology.

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm#comprehensivebs

Flash can you please stop posting misinformation

 

[QFIT]

I note that most players on here recommend SBA > CVData for TC index generation?

Any specific reason for this or is it just down to personal preferance?

Well, not everyone.. In the latest version of Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack Chapter 10, the SBA indexes were replaced by CVData indexes. For unique features of the CVData generator, see http://www.qfit.com/cvdatav2a.htm

 

[SuperTrump]

Well, not everyone.. In the latest version of Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack Chapter 10, the SBA indexes were replaced by CVData indexes. For unique features of the CVData generator, see http://www.qfit.com/cvdatav2a.htm

Thanks Norm... Will probably run with CVDATA... Features, support and upgrades seem much better than SBA!

 

[rukus]

Thanks Norm... Will probably run with CVDATA... Features, support and upgrades seem much better than SBA!

+1 for CVData, i use it on my 1DTC zen indices (RA) and used it for the 2DTC indices you can find on these boards if you search.

 

[zengrifter]

While we're on the subject of Zen indices...

Am I correct in saying that one should be using the SD indices and NOT the MD indices for shoe games? This was mentioned by ZG in one of his postings on Zen.

Also, what is SO BAD about the 1/4 deck conversion to Kelly% and the existing indices featured in Snyder's BBIBJ?? How much LESS accurate are they compared to the TC method?

Just the opposite - use the multideck#s EVEN for 1D.

The 1/4D TE was Snyders biggest (only?) folley - 1/4DTC suffers from lost granularity for betting. Its contra-intuitive, but 1D and 2D TC have greater betting (NECESSARY) granularity. zg

 

[FLASH1296]

granularity |ˌgranyəˈlaritē|
noun
1 the quality or condition of being granular.
2 technical the scale or level of detail present in a set of data or other phenomenon : the granularity of this war is not the sand that covers most of the country, but these details that have proved so elusive.

 

[zengrifter]

granularity |ˌgranyəˈlaritē|
noun
1 the quality or condition of being granular.
2 technical the scale or level of detail present in a set of data or other phenomenon : the granularity of this war is not the sand that covers most of the country, but these details that have proved so elusive.

Yes, a 2DTC allows much finer count-betting precision than 1/4DTC.
QFIT's sims prove it. zg