different Zen count versions

[rukus]

how many different versions of the zen count are out there (obviously the tag values doont change) in terms of true count/edge adjustments? ive heard of "the '98 zen" and and the "complete zen" counts... which is the version that everyone has settled on? thanks

 

[jack.jackson]

how many different versions of the zen count are out there (obviously the tag values doont change) in terms of true count/edge adjustments? ive heard of "the '98 zen" and and the "complete zen" counts... which is the version that everyone has settled on? thanks

I think theres two or three versions. 1/4, 1/2, and full count adjustment. Which one are you using?

 

[zengrifter]

how many different versions of the zen count are out there (obviously the tag values doont change) in terms of true count/edge adjustments? ive heard of "the '98 zen" and and the "complete zen" counts... which is the version that everyone has settled on? thanks

The '83 version. zg

 

[rukus]

thanks for the reply JJ and ZG. i have always used 1 deck resolution to convert to true count, ie count per deck. ive been looking into using the zen count for shoe games since i currently use AOII and find i generally dont track the aces as precisely as i would like for such a long period of time, which itself was the subject of a heated argument on this board about a half year ago that im sure you guys remember. i've recently moved to an area lacking in pitch games, so the thought to change/add counts to my repertoire crossed my mind now that id basically be playing shoes 90% of the time these days. zen is a pretty easy transition coming from AOII...

ZG - the 83 version is 1D true count, right? i think from the other Zen thread i can find the indices for this 1D version on Snyder's site. But i think for pitch games i would still use AOII and was also wondering how interchangeable the indices are between the two counts? If i've already got a significant number of AOII indices memorized, can i use those for zen, or would you not recommend this? i guess i could run a sim to check but figured id ask if you guys knew the answer already. last question - are the 1D indices posted on BJ forum online risk averse or no? i ask because i did a quick, coarse RA index generation and the results differed a bit from those posted by Snyder.

thanks for the help as always. rukus.

 

[zengrifter]

thanks for the reply JJ and ZG. i have always used 1 deck resolution to convert to true count, ie count per deck. ive been looking into using the zen count for shoe games since i currently use AOII and find i generally dont track the aces as precisely as i would like for such a long period of time, which itself was the subject of a heated argument on this board about a half year ago that im sure you guys remember. i've recently moved to an area lacking in pitch games, so the thought to change/add counts to my repertoire crossed my mind now that id basically be playing shoes 90% of the time these days. zen is a pretty easy transition coming from AOII...

ZG - the 83 version is 1D true count, right? i think from the other Zen thread i can find the indices for this 1D version on Snyder's site. But i think for pitch games i would still use AOII and was also wondering how interchangeable the indices are between the two counts? If i've already got a significant number of AOII indices memorized, can i use those for zen, or would you not recommend this? i guess i could run a sim to check but figured id ask if you guys knew the answer already. last question - are the 1D indices posted on BJ forum online risk averse or no? i ask because i did a quick, coarse RA index generation and the results differed a bit from those posted by Snyder.

thanks for the help as always. rukus.

You can keep your current AO2 indices and simply use ZEN tags with no loss of power in shoes. Entirely interchangeable with shoes. zg

 

[rukus]

thanks for the quick reply

 

[Gregory14]

You can keep your current AO2 indices and simply use ZEN tags with no loss of power in shoes. Entirely interchangeable with shoes. zg

What about in pitch games. Can one use the AO2 indices with Zen for 1 and 2 deck?

 

[zengrifter]

What about in pitch games. Can one use the AO2 indices with Zen for 1 and 2 deck?

Absolutely. zg

 

[Renzey]

thanks for the reply JJ and ZG. i have always used 1 deck resolution to convert to true count, ie count per deck. rukus.

For shoe games particularly, I always encourage truing up to the "count-per-2-decks", done in half deck increments. The primary reason is that as you get 4 decks in, the RC equals the TC with no necessary conversion at that crucial time.

i.e: 3.5 decks in, the TC equals .8 of the RC.
4 decks in, the TC equals the RC.
4.5 decks in, the TC equals 1.5 times the RC.
If a critical situation arises late, where it looks like there might be more than 4 decks in the tray, but less than 4.5, it's easy to fudge your multiplier to around 1.25. Might be just me, but I've always found that more straightforward.

As an aside, the count-per-two-decks also gives you more accurate index numbers (if that actually matters). For example, using a level one system, the index for doubling 9 vs. 7 is, according to some sources +3 and with others, it's +4. But if you generate your own indices with software using the count-per-two-decks, it'll likely spit out an index number of +7 (mine did).

 

[FLASH1296]

Zen

I have used the 1983 version of the ZEN Count professionally for 18 years.

The only change recommended is that you should adjust your indices to either those that were separately published by Arnold Snyder, (to address the hue and cry of the outraged multitudes), after he published the 1998 version of BBBJ, or those created by recent versions of Norm W.'s fine software.

The Index Table provided by Snyder, and my own indices are available on my web page.

The former provides "e.v. maximizing indices". Mine are "Risk Averse"

 

[rukus]

For shoe games particularly, I always encourage truing up to the "count-per-2-decks", done in half deck increments. The primary reason is that as you get 4 decks in, the RC equals the TC with no necessary conversion at that crucial time.

i.e: 3.5 decks in, the TC equals .8 of the RC.
4 decks in, the TC equals the RC.
4.5 decks in, the TC equals 1.5 times the RC.
If a critical situation arises late, where it looks like there might be more than 4 decks in the tray, but less than 4.5, it's easy to fudge your multiplier to around 1.25. Might be just me, but I've always found that more straightforward.

As an aside, the count-per-two-decks also gives you more accurate index numbers (if that actually matters). For example, using a level one system, the index for doubling 9 vs. 7 is, according to some sources +3 and with others, it's +4. But if you generate your own indices with software using the count-per-two-decks, it'll likely spit out an index number of +7 (mine did).

wow this is an old thread...

had i not learned 1D conversion back when i started with AOII years ago (before switching permanently to zen when forced to play more shoe games on east coast), i would have done a 2d conversion had i ever read about it back then.

i actually generated and posted indices for zen with a 2d tc conversion a while back, maybe a year or so ago... forget how it performed against the standard 1D version though because there was no way i was switching.

 

[Gregory14]

Am having trouble wrapping my head round this and am very curious. I would think that precision indices would be especially important for pitch games, and since the counts are somewhat different (the Ace and the 9) AND the index numbers are significantly different in places, I'm not sure how they're interchangeable. Please could you enlighten me?

Absolutely. zg