ITS OFFICIAL PART 3
- Thread starter ZenKinG
- Start date
Yes. This is too advanced a concept for those that don't know what to do with the additional info gathered. Too many just use it to reduce things to a number on a number line. That doesn't work well in many cases. My mentioning what you criticize probably has the potential to harm as many people, if not more people, than it helps. Counting BJ is the science of using information gathered for both betting and playing decisions. There are many ways to use the information. Most limit themselves by making the linear assumption that reducing everything to a number on a number line. Almost nothing in BJ is linear but the linear assumption is usually a good approximation for most things. The information I am talking about using for betting does not have a linear effect on advantage. What I mean is the sum of the EoRs of cards removed does not properly indicate the change in the density of high cards, which determine the rate of BJ and success rate of doubles and splits.
Most simulators are not programmed to be able to sim the effect I am talking about, which would allow you to take advantage of the effect. You can use cross sections of a sim, like an MRI, but most aren't dedicated enough to put the time in to do that research. There are some APs that use neutral card information this way, but none of them will share this with others so you must be able to research how to use the additional information gathered in a different way yourself. If you attempt to do so, think about how to use the middle card info to help determine actual high card density within the TC rather than using it to adjust the TC.
You have to do the research. You can't fudge it.
Most simulators are not programmed to be able to sim the effect I am talking about, which would allow you to take advantage of the effect. You can use cross sections of a sim, like an MRI, but most aren't dedicated enough to put the time in to do that research. There are some APs that use neutral card information this way, but none of them will share this with others so you must be able to research how to use the additional information gathered in a different way yourself. If you attempt to do so, think about how to use the middle card info to help determine actual high card density within the TC rather than using it to adjust the TC.
You have to do the research. You can't fudge it.
This post finally 100% exposed you to everyone as Tthree from BJTF. Of course I already knew this, but for any doubters, i think it's now pretty easy to see it's you.
Regarding your linear garbage, ive countered those ridiculous claims before when I debated back and forth with you and Tarzan and the rest of the non linear super count deluded folks. What you guys simply dont understand is it all comes down to 'frequency distribution'. In a shoe game in the long run you wont have enough of a frequency of surplus or deficit in certain card denominations to use that information to your advantage. The only way to use that information would be in a dewply dealt pitch game.
Go ahead and tell me what happened whem Tarzan finally simmed his super duper count with multiple clump side counts? It barely edged Hi Opt II w/ace side count and if i remember correctly, depending on the pen it actually underperformed it. Exactly what I was saying all these years and this is because of the low frequency distribution to cause a surplus or deficit in any one card denomination in the long run for a shoe game.
Regarding your linear garbage, ive countered those ridiculous claims before when I debated back and forth with you and Tarzan and the rest of the non linear super count deluded folks. What you guys simply dont understand is it all comes down to 'frequency distribution'. In a shoe game in the long run you wont have enough of a frequency of surplus or deficit in certain card denominations to use that information to your advantage. The only way to use that information would be in a dewply dealt pitch game.
Go ahead and tell me what happened whem Tarzan finally simmed his super duper count with multiple clump side counts? It barely edged Hi Opt II w/ace side count and if i remember correctly, depending on the pen it actually underperformed it. Exactly what I was saying all these years and this is because of the low frequency distribution to cause a surplus or deficit in any one card denomination in the long run for a shoe game.
No. What you don't realize is there is value in knowing that the cards are at expectation, surplus, or deficit when it comes to betting or playing. You look at as the gain is from the decisions you make differently. But the EV gain is steeper as the index is exceeded so every decision gains EV. It is ploppy think to believe that EV gain is from making the right guess about what is the right decision. It is about the long run and the cumulative gain from all the decisions you make. If you gain more from every decision the EV difference adds up even if the decisions are made the same. The playing decisions are made with better information so gain builds up faster. The betting decisions when you try to use the neutral card density to learn more about the density of high cards rather than barely changing the RC for the surplus or deficit of neutral cards is quite valuable. This is not reducing the decision to a number line decision based on the TC. If you can ever understand these subtleties there is hope you will rise above the ploppy sort of thought that you are following.
Well let me put this in perspective. Tarzan Count is a level 1 count. Outperforming the best out of all levels of counts with a level 1 count is pretty impressive in my book. A level 1 count getting anywhere near Hiopt2/ASC would be impressive in my book. Your comment shows you totally undervalued the gain for a level one count from non-linear use of information. I for one was very impressed that a level 1 count could become the best count out there just by using information in a different way. I think that feat proves the point of the value of using information without assuming BJ is linear when we all know it isn't. The only thing linear in BJ is insurance. Accurate betting is extremely non-linear. Tarzan count reduces everything to a number on a number line when betting. The gains from Tarzan Count is almost all in more accurate play. I have been more focusing on more accurate betting here. I won't say more as I don't want to educate the casino employees here.
Well let me put this in perspective. Tarzan Count is a level 1 count. Outperforming the best out of all levels of counts with a level 1 count is pretty impressive in my book. A level 1 count getting anywhere near Hiopt2/ASC would be impressive in my book. Your comment shows you totally undervalued the gain for a level one count from non-linear use of information. I for one was very impressed that a level 1 count could become the best count out there just by using information in a different way. I think that feat proves the point of the value of using information without assuming BJ is linear when we all know it isn't. The only thing linear in BJ is insurance. Accurate betting is extremely non-linear. Tarzan count reduces everything to a number on a number line when betting. The gains from Tarzan Count is almost all in more accurate play. I have been more focusing on more accurate betting here. I won't say more as I don't want to educate the casino employees here.
Look at how you try to be so vague to confuse everyone else by saying Tarzan uses a level 1 count, but then you subtly tell everyone that it's from non-linear use of information. Nonetheless you're so off it that I just cant help you anymore. You don't even play regular blackjack, you play Spanish which is completely different due to the separate bonuses that one can get and where added information can help you more. With regular blackjack, all that super duper non linear 20 side count garbage won't ever help you in the long run due to ONCE AGAIN the lack of frequency distribution of surplus and deficit card denominations that occur in a shoe game. You just won't get a huge deficit or surplus enough to make any significant impact on your hourly and in fact will only cause your swings to be even more drastic and NOT lower variance as you so claim.
If you're going to be stubborn, at least know what you're talking about. Speaking with conviction doesn't make you right. You might be able to fool the newcomers with your writing style, but you can't fool the ones who actually make money from this game and know the ins and outs of it all. With that being said, I do feel there might be a better way to play blackjack that results in a bigger edge and I'm not talking about hole card play or sequencing, and maybe some know already about it and it just hasn't been publicly written about yet, but that's just my gut feeling. I feel like straight 'counting was just the tip of the iceberg.
If you're going to be stubborn, at least know what you're talking about. Speaking with conviction doesn't make you right. You might be able to fool the newcomers with your writing style, but you can't fool the ones who actually make money from this game and know the ins and outs of it all. With that being said, I do feel there might be a better way to play blackjack that results in a bigger edge and I'm not talking about hole card play or sequencing, and maybe some know already about it and it just hasn't been publicly written about yet, but that's just my gut feeling. I feel like straight 'counting was just the tip of the iceberg.
Last edited:
As ZK was alluding to, it might be a level 1 count, but I think learning a column count (which is what Tarzan`s count is; although I can`t remember whether it`s 4 or 5 columns) would be WAY harder than learning any level 3 count. Without a good year`s worth of practice or more, I`m honestly not sure how many counters could actually pull such a complicated count off without making more mistakes than the EV that it`s going to give you over another count system. Props to him for being able to pull it off, but unless you have a ton of time to devote to it (which means you have a lot of money), I just don`t see how it would be worth it for most people.
You have never met me and don't have a clue what I play and don't play. You just go by what others say who are equally in the dark on that matter. Just the same way that you comment on the efficacy of systems you know nothing about. That is a great way to undermine what little credibility you have left. People respect those who talk about what they know and quickly dismiss those that talk about what they have no way of knowing like it is fact.
I will try this one more time. Poppy's think the difference between results is about how that round worked out. That is what this comment makes it sound like you believe. The gain from a play is the difference between the two Evs for the decision based on the information you have gathered. If that information is better correlated to the play every decision has an increase in EV whether there is a surplus, deficit or expected number of cards for the additional information. That is how EV accumulates for AP's. It isn't that you make different decisions with one set of information over the other. It is like betting with the ace/5 count and betting with Hilo, or Hilo compared to Halves. One gathers more information and bases its bets on a better correlation to advantage. That makes the gain from betting more and optical bets higher for the same RoR. betting less than the TC average would have you bet because neutral cards are in surplus which dilutes the high card density will reduce swings. I never said anything about variance. Variance is a long term statistic. Swings are a short term phenomena. I also said that betting more than the TC average because of a higher density of high cards than the average is based on will increase swings. But I tried to never use the term variance because that is not what I was talking about.
The follow a formula types are successful but clueless. Those that research and use that research to gain a bigger advantage than most have while extending longevity probably know exactly what I am talking about. Being a successful counter does not mean you understand advanced concepts. It means someone gave you a formula and you have the discipline to follow it and BR and the ability to withstand the swings. They often show their ignorance by trying to speak about what they know nothing about. They have some comfort talking about the narrow view of counting they specialize in.
I will try this one more time. Poppy's think the difference between results is about how that round worked out. That is what this comment makes it sound like you believe. The gain from a play is the difference between the two Evs for the decision based on the information you have gathered. If that information is better correlated to the play every decision has an increase in EV whether there is a surplus, deficit or expected number of cards for the additional information. That is how EV accumulates for AP's. It isn't that you make different decisions with one set of information over the other. It is like betting with the ace/5 count and betting with Hilo, or Hilo compared to Halves. One gathers more information and bases its bets on a better correlation to advantage. That makes the gain from betting more and optical bets higher for the same RoR. betting less than the TC average would have you bet because neutral cards are in surplus which dilutes the high card density will reduce swings. I never said anything about variance. Variance is a long term statistic. Swings are a short term phenomena. I also said that betting more than the TC average because of a higher density of high cards than the average is based on will increase swings. But I tried to never use the term variance because that is not what I was talking about.
The follow a formula types are successful but clueless. Those that research and use that research to gain a bigger advantage than most have while extending longevity probably know exactly what I am talking about. Being a successful counter does not mean you understand advanced concepts. It means someone gave you a formula and you have the discipline to follow it and BR and the ability to withstand the swings. They often show their ignorance by trying to speak about what they know nothing about. They have some comfort talking about the narrow view of counting they specialize in.
You are right but ZK was not alluding to that at all. He said that the different way of using information that the Tarzan Count does showed little improvement over other counts. I agree Tarzan Count is beyond most people. But using additional information your count can gather in a different way is not. I was alluding to using the neutral card information gathered for betting decisions in addition to playing decisions. The main betting count makes bet recommendations largely by trying to predict the density of high cards. But the neutral cards can either increase or decrease that high card density for that TC depending on the deck composition. Their EoR's have little effect on a reducing everything to a number line. But using that information to divide the TC into different sub groupings will allow more accurate betting than the number line approach. Studies have shown there is a very wide array of advantages for the deck compositions that populate each TC bin. Neutral card density is one of the factors that can allow you to accurately divide the bin into more than one bet size. You can base your bets on each subgroup's stats. If you play around with deck compositions using a CDA you will see those neutral cards are not so neutral. When you account for all cards seen that neutral card information can be used much more effectively.
No. I do research for myself. I will point others in the right direction for worthwhile research, but I share my research with a precious few. If you don't want to do your own research, then ignore my posts. I will collaborate with those that want to do their own research. Independent research can corroborate my research or find things I missed. People that just want to suck off others people's research without contributing their own efforts don't interest me. They usually don't get the finer points anyway.
You mostly do "research" to impress new players and inflate your ego. None of the experienced people around here believe a word of it. You've been publicly making these fanciful claims for *years*, without one shred of evidence to support them. Without any evidence at all, your claims deserve to be challenged, and you deserve to be roundly ridiculed for your nonsense.
Put up or shut up already.
Put up or shut up already.
So be it. I know some are actual researchers and not just parasites living of of the research of others. I will help them. The beggars wanting a formula to follow without any real understanding can keep doing what they do. It works and there is nothing wrong with that. The idea that being able to sort deck compositions into more similar groups has no value just shows that some don't have any understanding of how to make results better behaved. How you use information gathered can make the groupings you base bets on populated by more similar deck compositions. Reducing everything to a number on a number line for forming deck composition groups to base bets on makes this impossible. Surprisingly the big gain in getting well behaved results is the bets you decrease from the TC bin it populates with a TC, number line use of information. It always cost some EV because they are almost always over bet positive situations. Sometimes they are disadvantage situations but that is rare.
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/showthread.php?16620-Advantage-at-tc-1/page2
Now when most people look at the graphs in the OP for the above link they see some pretty cool info but it doesn't really tell them much that is worth investigating. When I look at the advantage range with the red dot added as the average I see opportunity. The placement of the red dot shows the bell curve for each line must be severely right skewed. In other words far more deck compositions are over bet to a lesser degree than the much longer ranging positive side of the average. I see that the advantage for the next two smaller betting bins fit these high frequency over bet situations much better than the TC they are in. I know reducing everything to a umber on a number line will just shuffle things around and end up with about the same distribution, promoting some bet and denoting others fro their TC in the graph. But if you get away from reducing everything to a number on a number line, and identify certain families of related deck compositions and separating them within the TC for their own betting group based on their specific stats rather than moving them to another betting bin and averaging them with very dissimilar deck compositions, they are bet appropriately.
It is the moving them to another very large group of unrelated deck compositions that cause the same issues you had before, a wide range of deck compositions and a wide range of advantages that are severely right skewed. When you can bet based on groups of strongly related deck compositions rather than a random cross section of deck compositions you have a tool for shaping short term results. The tool can either greatly increase or decrease swings. It will cost you EV to decrease swings. Maximizing EV will increase swings. That makes sense because swings are largely defined by your bet sizes and how much you risk to generate more EV. The point is to get any significant change you just change the way you use the information. The key is trying to figure out how to divide TCs into subgroups that are populated by more similar situations. A multi-level count sort of does this but it still reduces the information to a number on a number line, which makes the final bin populated by many dissimilar deck compositions.
The idea I am trying to explain is you want bins populated with lower frequencies that are more similar deck compositions. You figure how to do that and you have a tool to shape results. I have been saying that using the neutral card density to predict the actual high card density is one way that accomplishes this. TC is used to predict the density of high cards for betting but it doesn't see the very large range of high card density within each TC caused by the density of neutral cards. There are many other causes of the range of advantage but finding one of the easy to track ones and using that information to bet using smaller groups of similar deck compositions rather than large groups of dissimilar deck compositions gives you opportunities to use the information that the traditional number line TC approach doesn't. If all you do with smaller bins is get a random subset of dissimilar deck compositions within the TC you are wasting your time. The opportunity is caused by smaller groupings with similar deck compositions. What is similar with the deck compositions here is the density of high cards within the TC. You will be sorting some of the TC into another sub-bin populated by that TCs lowest density of high cards.
If you don't understand the opportunities that come with more accurate assessment of high card density for betting within each TC bin without some form of proof you really don't understand what you are trying to do with counting at all.
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/showthread.php?16620-Advantage-at-tc-1/page2
Now when most people look at the graphs in the OP for the above link they see some pretty cool info but it doesn't really tell them much that is worth investigating. When I look at the advantage range with the red dot added as the average I see opportunity. The placement of the red dot shows the bell curve for each line must be severely right skewed. In other words far more deck compositions are over bet to a lesser degree than the much longer ranging positive side of the average. I see that the advantage for the next two smaller betting bins fit these high frequency over bet situations much better than the TC they are in. I know reducing everything to a umber on a number line will just shuffle things around and end up with about the same distribution, promoting some bet and denoting others fro their TC in the graph. But if you get away from reducing everything to a number on a number line, and identify certain families of related deck compositions and separating them within the TC for their own betting group based on their specific stats rather than moving them to another betting bin and averaging them with very dissimilar deck compositions, they are bet appropriately.
It is the moving them to another very large group of unrelated deck compositions that cause the same issues you had before, a wide range of deck compositions and a wide range of advantages that are severely right skewed. When you can bet based on groups of strongly related deck compositions rather than a random cross section of deck compositions you have a tool for shaping short term results. The tool can either greatly increase or decrease swings. It will cost you EV to decrease swings. Maximizing EV will increase swings. That makes sense because swings are largely defined by your bet sizes and how much you risk to generate more EV. The point is to get any significant change you just change the way you use the information. The key is trying to figure out how to divide TCs into subgroups that are populated by more similar situations. A multi-level count sort of does this but it still reduces the information to a number on a number line, which makes the final bin populated by many dissimilar deck compositions.
The idea I am trying to explain is you want bins populated with lower frequencies that are more similar deck compositions. You figure how to do that and you have a tool to shape results. I have been saying that using the neutral card density to predict the actual high card density is one way that accomplishes this. TC is used to predict the density of high cards for betting but it doesn't see the very large range of high card density within each TC caused by the density of neutral cards. There are many other causes of the range of advantage but finding one of the easy to track ones and using that information to bet using smaller groups of similar deck compositions rather than large groups of dissimilar deck compositions gives you opportunities to use the information that the traditional number line TC approach doesn't. If all you do with smaller bins is get a random subset of dissimilar deck compositions within the TC you are wasting your time. The opportunity is caused by smaller groupings with similar deck compositions. What is similar with the deck compositions here is the density of high cards within the TC. You will be sorting some of the TC into another sub-bin populated by that TCs lowest density of high cards.
If you don't understand the opportunities that come with more accurate assessment of high card density for betting within each TC bin without some form of proof you really don't understand what you are trying to do with counting at all.