ITS OFFICIAL PART 3
- Thread starter ZenKinG
- Start date
I just tried to show the value that can be used as opportunity for deck compositions that have near expected neutral cards. Your point has some validity. I never studied Hilo as I don't use it. Before making any decisions based on the new way of using information the CA would need to be used to consider all deck compositions at their appropriate weights. It would be dangerous to look at my example and think you could run with it. The point was to illustrate that this is an area that traditional use of information would prove useless for betting but non-traditional use of information could ferret out opportunities that can't be seen with traditional methods.
Well I am glad I have always been and continue to be blessed. Perhaps the difference is motive. I never try to say I am the best, I try to help others see better ways if they want to pursue them. Since I have done so much of my own research into largely unexplored avenues, often with the help of or in collaboration of others (thanks to these people that have proved so valuable in aiding me), I often speak of things nobody else knows about. Because I share or hint at what others don't and can't know people say I am trying to sound smarter than others.
The truth is, until I picked the right people to train I had nobody to talk to that could understand what I am talking about. Believe me I tried. But after my trainees had mastered new techniques and learned how to use them to do things others never even considered I now have people to talk to that can understand what I am talking about. The problem I have always had is every pro wants to go back to what they learned about life in one dimension and make things in multiple dimensions make sense in one dimension. I used to do the same thing and be contemplating something for days only to get the eureka moment that of course things have changed, because I am not diluting information the way traditional methods do. I am seeing and using details that don't exist in one dimension. Any attempt to understand them with traditional thought will end in failure. Once I stopped running home to the traditional linear count mother with my thought processes everything was much clearer and easier to understand. So just ignore my comments if you can't think outside the box. After so much training on how to think using traditional; ways to gather and use information it is really hard to let that go and try to think what happens outside of that box.
The truth is, until I picked the right people to train I had nobody to talk to that could understand what I am talking about. Believe me I tried. But after my trainees had mastered new techniques and learned how to use them to do things others never even considered I now have people to talk to that can understand what I am talking about. The problem I have always had is every pro wants to go back to what they learned about life in one dimension and make things in multiple dimensions make sense in one dimension. I used to do the same thing and be contemplating something for days only to get the eureka moment that of course things have changed, because I am not diluting information the way traditional methods do. I am seeing and using details that don't exist in one dimension. Any attempt to understand them with traditional thought will end in failure. Once I stopped running home to the traditional linear count mother with my thought processes everything was much clearer and easier to understand. So just ignore my comments if you can't think outside the box. After so much training on how to think using traditional; ways to gather and use information it is really hard to let that go and try to think what happens outside of that box.
The 8 has absolutely no betting value to the game whatsoever. And the fact that the 7 is slightly plus while the 9 is slightly minus is uninteresting, because Ralph Stricker's Silver Fox count is weaker than Hi-Lo and yet reckons both the 7 and the 9.
The problem with Three is that he says, fives times a day, that he has spoken on this subject for the last time, and then he writes about it ten more times. It would be quite wonderful if he simply STOPPED once and for all. If it isn't his intention to prove to us how smart he is, then the simplest way to do that is to be quiet.
Don
The problem with Three is that he says, fives times a day, that he has spoken on this subject for the last time, and then he writes about it ten more times. It would be quite wonderful if he simply STOPPED once and for all. If it isn't his intention to prove to us how smart he is, then the simplest way to do that is to be quiet.
Don
People see the sim results and want to understand how they are possible but they just make comments like the last few about looking at ranks individually instead of looking at how related deck compositions and rank interactions. The EoRs people are referencing are for a full deck. The EoR of many ranks vary quite a bit by deck composition. I have counters' EoRs that work off the concept that if you only play positive deck compositions the EoRs that matter are the EoRs when you have an advantage not neutral deck EoRs. Like you all are with me, I was skeptical even though the logic was sound. The researcher said it was quite a powerful way to construct counts for advantage play.
You keep bragging about knowing the deck composition. I already explained grouping 7 and 9 together is weak and will not give you a lot of gain. Plus in shoe games, extreme surplus or deficit of any rank just does not happen that frequently. What are you trying to achieve by posting so many lengthy posts? Why not just use your super duper system to make all the money? The name of Dummy makes it even less convincing.
I hesitate to say anything more, as we have been over all this. But....
It's not that Thr-ummy's math is wrong. It is that it just don't matter very much. It really doesn't. And this isn't a new argument. This same argument took place decades ago. It was about the time I was born, maybe before. All these different higher level counts. That's all Thr-ummy is doing....an extension of that old argument. It isn't new. It isn't some grand "thinking outside the box" BS. It really isn't.
And guess what? Back in the 70's and 80's it didn't mater and it doesn't today either. There is a reason why Uston never played his own advanced count. There is a reason why everyone doesn't play the Thorp Ultimate count, which has almost perfect betting correlation. Two words: Diminishing returns. It just isn't worth the effort and any gain that these math guys show on paper disappears in real life play with just a slightly higher error rate. I mean come on, look at some of these known players of the last couple decades, including various teams....the MIT team for god sakes. Generally some pretty smart folks go to MIT. Why did they decide to keep things relatively simple? Diminishing returns.
AND in this day and age of shoe games, those diminishing returns are even less significant than ever. This whole exercise by Thr-ummy is one of those things that looks good on paper (clinical) but has little or minimal value in real life play. These ideas are just not how you win at blackjack.
I am not advocating for any particular count. People should play whatever they decide is right for them. I just don't like (never have) these unreasonable, unrealistic, expectations that come with all this nonsense. It's just not fair. It is misleading....and I am being polite by not using harsher language.
It's not that Thr-ummy's math is wrong. It is that it just don't matter very much. It really doesn't. And this isn't a new argument. This same argument took place decades ago. It was about the time I was born, maybe before. All these different higher level counts. That's all Thr-ummy is doing....an extension of that old argument. It isn't new. It isn't some grand "thinking outside the box" BS. It really isn't.
And guess what? Back in the 70's and 80's it didn't mater and it doesn't today either. There is a reason why Uston never played his own advanced count. There is a reason why everyone doesn't play the Thorp Ultimate count, which has almost perfect betting correlation. Two words: Diminishing returns. It just isn't worth the effort and any gain that these math guys show on paper disappears in real life play with just a slightly higher error rate. I mean come on, look at some of these known players of the last couple decades, including various teams....the MIT team for god sakes. Generally some pretty smart folks go to MIT. Why did they decide to keep things relatively simple? Diminishing returns.
AND in this day and age of shoe games, those diminishing returns are even less significant than ever. This whole exercise by Thr-ummy is one of those things that looks good on paper (clinical) but has little or minimal value in real life play. These ideas are just not how you win at blackjack.
I am not advocating for any particular count. People should play whatever they decide is right for them. I just don't like (never have) these unreasonable, unrealistic, expectations that come with all this nonsense. It's just not fair. It is misleading....and I am being polite by not using harsher language.
Last edited:
KewlJ said:
I hesitate to say anything more, as we have been over all this. But....
It's not that Thr-ummy's math is wrong. It is that it just don't matter very much. It really doesn't. And this isn't a new argument. This same argument took place decades ago. It was about the time I was born, maybe before. All these different higher level counts. That's all Thr-ummy is doing....an extension of that old argument. It isn't new. It isn't some grand "thinking outside the box" BS. It really isn't.
And guess what? Back in the 70's and 80's it didn't mater and it doesn't today either. There is a reason why Uston never played his own advanced count. There is a reason why everyone doesn't play the Thorp Ultimate count, which has almost perfect betting correlation. Two words: Diminishing returns. It just isn't worth the effort and any gain that these math guys show on paper disappears in real life play with just a slightly higher error rate. I mean come on, look at some of these known players of the last couple decades, including various teams....the MIT team for god sakes. Generally some pretty smart folks go to MIT. Why did they decide to keep things relatively simple? Diminishing returns.
AND in this day and age of shoe games, those diminishing returns are even less significant than ever. This whole exercise by Thr-ummy is one of those things that looks good on paper (clinical) but has little or minimal value in real life play. These ideas are just not how you win at blackjack.
I am not advocating for any particular count. People should play whatever they decide is right for them. I just don't like (never have) these unreasonable, unrealistic, expectations that come with all this nonsense. It's just not fair. It is misleading....and I am being polite by not using harsher language.
It's not that Thr-ummy's math is wrong. It is that it just don't matter very much. It really doesn't. And this isn't a new argument. This same argument took place decades ago. It was about the time I was born, maybe before. All these different higher level counts. That's all Thr-ummy is doing....an extension of that old argument. It isn't new. It isn't some grand "thinking outside the box" BS. It really isn't.
And guess what? Back in the 70's and 80's it didn't mater and it doesn't today either. There is a reason why Uston never played his own advanced count. There is a reason why everyone doesn't play the Thorp Ultimate count, which has almost perfect betting correlation. Two words: Diminishing returns. It just isn't worth the effort and any gain that these math guys show on paper disappears in real life play with just a slightly higher error rate. I mean come on, look at some of these known players of the last couple decades, including various teams....the MIT team for god sakes. Generally some pretty smart folks go to MIT. Why did they decide to keep things relatively simple? Diminishing returns.
AND in this day and age of shoe games, those diminishing returns are even less significant than ever. This whole exercise by Thr-ummy is one of those things that looks good on paper (clinical) but has little or minimal value in real life play. These ideas are just not how you win at blackjack.
I am not advocating for any particular count. People should play whatever they decide is right for them. I just don't like (never have) these unreasonable, unrealistic, expectations that come with all this nonsense. It's just not fair. It is misleading....and I am being polite by not using harsher language.
Literally the only flaw I have is that i dont trust casinos and still dont. People might have made more money than me but thats only because theyve played longer than me or bet higher stakes. No one can do what Ive done to build this bankroll and go through 600 hours to start their career breakeven and then build a bankroll move to vegas and go through the negative fluctuation I have and still keep going. Not to mention I built this bankroll playin unrated the whole time and never getting one comp LOL. Not to mention purely backcounting 95% of the time throughout my career while running like shit and still maintaining that discipline to stand behind tables after getting your ass beat for that long and still believing in the math. I've had some heads up occasions throughout my career which pretty much destroyed my bankroll and of which i did some of in vegas as well, but im officially done with it unless i backcount a shoe and people leave which leaves me alone with the dealer and im forced to play alone. But even then I'll cringe when that happens as I just cannot win heads up with 2 hands alone at the table, I just don't know why, but Im starting to think I dont have an edge heads up. This isn't selective memory.
Regardless, I pretty much proved everyone wrong already back home as well as people on these forums. Where's my haters and doubters at? Never doubt the king.
Alright, that's enough gloating. I sure do love me some me though.
Last edited:
Well, I don't know about the whole "karma" thing, but I question how ZK is playing to a 2.5% edge? To gain a 2.5% advantage, one must have a huge spread, and/or wong very aggressively. Zenking, you have posted publicly that you spread like $25 to 2x $200, if memory serves. That is nowhere close to a 2.5% edge.
Perhaps this is why your results are not meeting your expectations? Maybe your expectations are unrealistic.
Perhaps this is why your results are not meeting your expectations? Maybe your expectations are unrealistic.
Last edited:
How did you completely miss everything I said about me NOW only purely backcounting? In fact I've purely backcounted most of my career, but now that's all I do and refuse to play heads up for several reasons. For some odd reason, I just can't win heads up with 2 hands, I don't know why and I don't believe this is selective memory anymore. First off, I don't buy the argument that heads up provides a higher win rate than purely backcounting simply because you're getting more rounds per hour. Yeah, you might get SLIGHTLY more rounds, BUT only if their aren't any other tables open because a good backcounter can get the same rounds as someone who plays heads up if there's a lot of tables to bounce back and forth backcounting. Besides, the slightly more rounds you MIGHT get heads up are offset by all the negative expectation bets you're placing off the top waiting for +1 and higher. Not to mention heads up exposes you to these drone pit bosses since they have a 'checklist' to spot a counter and the main thing on that checklist is spread.
Also something not talked about enough on these forums is the REAL N-zero for a backcounter. You might have an N-zero of 13-15k rounds for a pure backcounter, BUT you're only playing about 16% of those rounds if you're only playing +2 and higher so in fact your N-zero is actually around 2k of actually PLAYING. For someone trying to build a bankroll, you now have greatly reduced your risk and your ability to grow your bankroll much more steadily. If you're playing +1 and higher, the N-zero is actually about 200 rounds less(better) and you'll be playing 25% of the rounds so still very beneficial to reducing risk. Additionally, the win rate and SCORE goes up slightly, but requires a slightly bigger spread, which I'm not a fan of anymore and is not worth the risk/reward for pennies gain in the metrics.
By backcounting, if they don't see you jump in or get suspicious about your standing, all they see is a 1-3 or 1-4 spread depending how you bet when you wong in and they'll immediately think I just got lucky and don't have a winning game. Add in Halves and Full Indices(well close to full) as well as deep pen and you have around a 2.7% edge if you're only playing +2 or higher. With average pen and playing only +2 and higher and you have around a 2.2% edge.
Combine backcounting with short sessions, unrated play, and ratholing and it's pretty much impossible for the casino to ever get you as long as you're not betting crazy amounts and stay within casino thresholds such as 2x250 max for the big properties and 2x150 for the smaller properties.
Also something not talked about enough on these forums is the REAL N-zero for a backcounter. You might have an N-zero of 13-15k rounds for a pure backcounter, BUT you're only playing about 16% of those rounds if you're only playing +2 and higher so in fact your N-zero is actually around 2k of actually PLAYING. For someone trying to build a bankroll, you now have greatly reduced your risk and your ability to grow your bankroll much more steadily. If you're playing +1 and higher, the N-zero is actually about 200 rounds less(better) and you'll be playing 25% of the rounds so still very beneficial to reducing risk. Additionally, the win rate and SCORE goes up slightly, but requires a slightly bigger spread, which I'm not a fan of anymore and is not worth the risk/reward for pennies gain in the metrics.
By backcounting, if they don't see you jump in or get suspicious about your standing, all they see is a 1-3 or 1-4 spread depending how you bet when you wong in and they'll immediately think I just got lucky and don't have a winning game. Add in Halves and Full Indices(well close to full) as well as deep pen and you have around a 2.7% edge if you're only playing +2 or higher. With average pen and playing only +2 and higher and you have around a 2.2% edge.
Combine backcounting with short sessions, unrated play, and ratholing and it's pretty much impossible for the casino to ever get you as long as you're not betting crazy amounts and stay within casino thresholds such as 2x250 max for the big properties and 2x150 for the smaller properties.
Last edited:
First, I track 8s and 9s together. This is like Tarzan's count. Just the third group is presented in side count form. Because you count every rank, the variance is reduced and the P/E is greatly improved. The only drawback is when you buy insurance using AccuZen (short for Accurate Zen), even if you are right, the dealer downcard can be an ace. But Zen put face card double weight the ace, so the problem is not severe. I invent this counting system and divide it into five levels. Level 1 is the standard Zen. The differences among level 3, level 4 and level 5 are the numbers of the included indexes. Level 3 has the most important indexes. With penetration 84% (1D cut off 6D), PA rule set, Level 3 AccuZen has SCORE of $53.50.
Good luck convincing any of them of that. They deny any value of gathering and using info differently. If you account for all the cards you should use the info differently than they do to get the most out of it. I know you are a researcher, combine the way Moses and Tarzan used their column counts and adapt it to your information gathered. The information will still be more powerful if you think creatively. As a researcher I assume you think creatively. Non-researchers only need to be a disciplined sponge that socks up other peoples research in order to use it. It does get the money and they can have a subset of knowledge that works well for them. But they won't understand what people like Tarzan or Moses do or where it generates its power from. Hell, Tarzan took a level one count and made it more powerful than any of the published multi-level counts just by using information differently for playing decisions. He mostly missed the opportunity to use it for betting but did some minor tweaking. But I am sure he did a lot of fine tuning with Gronbog that since we traded information about our systems. Everyone before Gronbog said it could be simmed but none would actually make a simulator that could sim it. Then the blamed Tarzan for not having the stat to back up his claims. That is like saying I know how you can fly to the next star system but never helping you to do it and then blaming you for not having done what nobody has invented the means to do. Well I guess Tarzan got the last laugh when the sims came out by being able to transform a level 1 count into the strongest count. I always said the biggest advantage of his system was in longevity but some people only see value in numbers. Now they have to eat crow. Just think if Tarzan used the information in a multilevel way rather than a level 1 count.