Absolute Best Counting Method for Double Deck?
- Thread starter WABJ11
- Start date
- Status
Raising my hand all the way in the back row
I haven't posted or added anything to this thread because I just didn't want to look like a pompous ass just so full of myself that it's ridiculous but oh what the heck...
You missed one... the ultimate one, the "Tarzan" count, which is nothing more than the DHME system/Gordon style count modified to suit my own evil needs. I will not bother explaining it or talking of it too much as it is futile, since DHME is such an obscure count that is more difficult to master than any other. It's effectiveness, particularly in a two deck game, knows no equal.
I haven't posted or added anything to this thread because I just didn't want to look like a pompous ass just so full of myself that it's ridiculous but oh what the heck...
You missed one... the ultimate one, the "Tarzan" count, which is nothing more than the DHME system/Gordon style count modified to suit my own evil needs. I will not bother explaining it or talking of it too much as it is futile, since DHME is such an obscure count that is more difficult to master than any other. It's effectiveness, particularly in a two deck game, knows no equal.
iCountNTrack said:
I am not sure how you came up with your numbers but did Norman also mess up his graph
In order to make it a meaningful comparison in a surrender game, you have to generate surrender index numbers for Zen. The version that comes with CVData doesn't have them.
The super-SCORE is a weighted (based on the frequency of each rule combination) SCORE of all possible rule combinations.
As far as your sim there must be something wrong because there is absolutely no way Zen would beat Hi-Opt II with ASC for betting with any rules or any bet spread or at any penetration for a double deck game.
This whole argument started with ZG's rushed statement "Ace-neutral counts are obsolete" good ace-neutral counts such are Hi-Opt II are far from being obsolete for pitch games with a small bet spread, their performance decreases for shoe games and Zen easily wins over, but they are still pretty good and Hi-Opt II would still beat a good level I such as Hi-Lo as shown in the following.
As far as your sim there must be something wrong because there is absolutely no way Zen would beat Hi-Opt II with ASC for betting with any rules or any bet spread or at any penetration for a double deck game.
This whole argument started with ZG's rushed statement "Ace-neutral counts are obsolete" good ace-neutral counts such are Hi-Opt II are far from being obsolete for pitch games with a small bet spread, their performance decreases for shoe games and Zen easily wins over, but they are still pretty good and Hi-Opt II would still beat a good level I such as Hi-Lo as shown in the following.
ZG i would never post tricks, i am posting results using a universally know reliable simulator (CVCX). In any case the sim was a response to your unjustified biased point of view towards ace neutral counts. I was very clear when i said that good ace neutral such as Hi-Opt II could beat Zen in pitch games under some conditions, but Zen is almost universally better for shoe games.
That is another point that i would like to clarify as far as adding an ace side count for betting, the 1/4D normal ace density DOES cut the mustard as this is the method used in the simulation. There us no need to use any secondary count. The 1/4 normal density method is far from being impossible for pitch games since there are only a few number of aces to side-count and it is much simpler to estimate the deck with a quarter deck density.
The bottom line is Zen is the perhaps the best overall count that would work all the time, but it is not the best count for DD games. I hope we have reached a resolution.
That is another point that i would like to clarify as far as adding an ace side count for betting, the 1/4D normal ace density DOES cut the mustard as this is the method used in the simulation. There us no need to use any secondary count. The 1/4 normal density method is far from being impossible for pitch games since there are only a few number of aces to side-count and it is much simpler to estimate the deck with a quarter deck density.
The bottom line is Zen is the perhaps the best overall count that would work all the time, but it is not the best count for DD games. I hope we have reached a resolution.
Before we move on - ANYONE else wish to challenge the 2D sims that show ZEN beat out by H02 WITHOUT ASC?
My "unjustified bias" towards Ace-neutral counts derives partially from Arnold Snyder and Ken Uston -
In fact I was quoting Uston: "Ace-neutral counts like HO2 and UAPC are obsolete." - Uston on BJ / 1986 Carroll Publishing
The problem with 1/4D A-density approximation reflected by sims is that the sims do it far better than humans do it.
A typical human practitioner will only yield a result about equal to what an Ace-compromised (Zen, Mentor) will do,
thus the average ASC 1/4D practitioner will work harder for essentially the same result.
Now with regard to 1-2D games, since the ZEN user is not counting Aces, he should be free to count-7s and
employ a simple bivaluate adjustment for certain stiffs - so the ZEN player side-counting 7s will SCORE higher
than HO2 side-counting As.
But I digress - The 2D sim that shows HO2-WOASC beats ZEN (and presumably Mentor as well).
If this is correct, I've been wrong about this issue for a long time. zg
My "unjustified bias" towards Ace-neutral counts derives partially from Arnold Snyder and Ken Uston -
In fact I was quoting Uston: "Ace-neutral counts like HO2 and UAPC are obsolete." - Uston on BJ / 1986 Carroll Publishing
The problem with 1/4D A-density approximation reflected by sims is that the sims do it far better than humans do it.
A typical human practitioner will only yield a result about equal to what an Ace-compromised (Zen, Mentor) will do,
thus the average ASC 1/4D practitioner will work harder for essentially the same result.
Now with regard to 1-2D games, since the ZEN user is not counting Aces, he should be free to count-7s and
employ a simple bivaluate adjustment for certain stiffs - so the ZEN player side-counting 7s will SCORE higher
than HO2 side-counting As.
But I digress - The 2D sim that shows HO2-WOASC beats ZEN (and presumably Mentor as well).
If this is correct, I've been wrong about this issue for a long time. zg
Last edited:
Okay - use 2D h17 LS DAS 63% pene 1-8 spread
System A: HO2 full indices - no ace side count (how many indices?)
System B: ZEN full indices (how many indices?)
Is there anything else... how do you standardize the betting strategy for each?
I think something was off with the prior JJ sim - maybe the betting? zg
System A: HO2 full indices - no ace side count (how many indices?)
System B: ZEN full indices (how many indices?)
Is there anything else... how do you standardize the betting strategy for each?
I think something was off with the prior JJ sim - maybe the betting? zg
Last edited:
We should leave out Late Sr. since Zen has no indices for them.
Optimal Betting is taken right out of, CVCX. Once rules and condition, are input, CVCX, THEN, calculates the optimal speads. This changes, even at different pen levels.-----This doesnt necessarily mean, its optimized for max WRl.
Note: Complete zen, has no Ls, indices and only splittin tens, in splitting pairs stategy.
Your call? I will start new thread, later on.
Cvdata, also has the I18 option???????
I think this option, is an ideal one
Optimal Betting is taken right out of, CVCX. Once rules and condition, are input, CVCX, THEN, calculates the optimal speads. This changes, even at different pen levels.-----This doesnt necessarily mean, its optimized for max WRl.
Note: Complete zen, has no Ls, indices and only splittin tens, in splitting pairs stategy.
Your call? I will start new thread, later on.
Cvdata, also has the I18 option???????
I think this option, is an ideal one
Last edited:
- Status