Quick question on zen count
- Thread starter ycming
- Start date
HockeXpert
Well-Known Member
Flash:FLASH1296 said:
Care to elaborate? That's the first time I've heard that.
HockeXpert
What he meant is this: Since you need a Zen TC of +8 to have a +2% advantage, you'll reach a Zen TC value of +8 about the same number of times that you'd reach a HiLo TC of +4.HockeXpert said:
Essentially it makes no difference. If 2 players at a table are counting, 1 using Zen and 1 using HiLo, the HiLo player might get a TC of +3 at the same round that a Zen player gets a TC of +6.
So don't be fooled by the high TC numbers if you use Zen thinking you have a significantly higher advantage than a HiLo player!
Make sense?
+2% is a decent rule of thumb.ycming said:
Yet it truly depends on a lot of things, most significantly the penetration (which will change how frequently you get each TC) and the amount of -EV hands you play.
If you play many -EV hands, you need to get your max bet out earlier to compensate for the -EV, which will consequently give you a higher RoR.
If you only play +EV hands by wonging, then you can wait a bit longer to place your max bet, as you don't need to overcome -EV.
CVCX is excellent to play around with the different scenarios.
HockeXpert
Well-Known Member
Thanks assume_R.assume_R said:
My wife tells me all the time to read more carefully and she is right.:laugh: I mistook Flash's extreme TC comment for Zen vs. Hi-Lo as meaning more extreme dis/advantages.
I use both hi-lo and AOII and with AOII the TC's do get pretty extreme but I know they are generally twice the hi-lo TC for the same dis/advantage.
That makes complete sense.
HockeXpert
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
A quick pretty accurate rule of thumb for converting True Counts (for bet-sizing only)
from Hi-Lo to Zen is to use a coefficient of 1.33 and .67 going from Zen to Hi-Lo.
e.g. Hi-Lo +3 = Zen +4 , Zen +6 = Hi-Lo +4 , etc.
The most important issue is being ignored in this thread.
viz. the greater accuracy of ZEN in identifying the player's advantage for any true count.
That is due to the card's tags being more closely correlated to the E.O.R. (effect of removal) of the cards.
from Hi-Lo to Zen is to use a coefficient of 1.33 and .67 going from Zen to Hi-Lo.
e.g. Hi-Lo +3 = Zen +4 , Zen +6 = Hi-Lo +4 , etc.
The most important issue is being ignored in this thread.
viz. the greater accuracy of ZEN in identifying the player's advantage for any true count.
That is due to the card's tags being more closely correlated to the E.O.R. (effect of removal) of the cards.
Thanks for the great info, will no doubt carry on with hi-lo and learning Zen at the same till i am comfortable.
the game am playing is ENHC, 6 decks, with around 1 deck discard, HE 0.55.
With hi-lo, i normally have my max bet out at TC +4, so to keep the same better pattern i woukld have my max bet out at TC +6 with zen ?
But according to my calculations, hi-lo +4 gives 1.55% advantage where zen +6 only gives 0.95 % for the game i play?
Thanks
Ming
the game am playing is ENHC, 6 decks, with around 1 deck discard, HE 0.55.
With hi-lo, i normally have my max bet out at TC +4, so to keep the same better pattern i woukld have my max bet out at TC +6 with zen ?
But according to my calculations, hi-lo +4 gives 1.55% advantage where zen +6 only gives 0.95 % for the game i play?
Thanks
Ming
It'll probably be around 6, but you really need to run CVCX to know. The count at which you place your max bet will depend on many things including seemingly minor things such as your indices, and personal wong style.ycming said:Anyone help me here?
If i play a game with HE 0.55. And i have a max bet out of TC +4 with hi lo.
What TC do i need with Zen ? Is it TC+6 as Flash suggested?
Thanks
Ming
zengrifter
Banned
It depends what TC calibration you are using. Purchasers of Snyder's newer editions BBIBJ may be using a 1/4D TC calibration. Older users like Flash and moi are using 1D TC calib. If I wasn't already imprinted in 1DTC I would use Renzey's 2DTC scheme.ycming said:
Flash's .25 is based on 1D TC. Thats conservative, the real number, played accurately is closer to .30. zg
Last edited:
Yeah i will also use 1 deck estimations for TC. I found use 0.5 or 0.25 decks alot of erros happens when you are playing for a long time.
So with that in mind, flash 0.25 is correct for my case as well ?
Hence hi-lo +4 TC = zen +6 TC? (with the game i play with HE 0.55)
Thanks
Ming
So with that in mind, flash 0.25 is correct for my case as well ?
Hence hi-lo +4 TC = zen +6 TC? (with the game i play with HE 0.55)
Thanks
Ming
zengrifter
Banned
Deck estimation and calibration are DIFFERENT issues.ycming said:
There is typically a degree of confusion about this. zg
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
In general, you will want to be close to having a 2% advantage before betting your Max.
In this game, a crummy one with a H E of .55%
Using Hi-Lo you will need +5.
With ZEN you would need +10
In my earlier post I should have taken care to explain that those "equivalent" True Counts
are applicable to Basic Strategy Deviations. They do NOT apply to bet sizing.
In this game, a crummy one with a H E of .55%
Using Hi-Lo you will need +5.
With ZEN you would need +10
In my earlier post I should have taken care to explain that those "equivalent" True Counts
are applicable to Basic Strategy Deviations. They do NOT apply to bet sizing.
Last edited:
Depends on the version of Zen also. I used to use the original 1980 version of Zen which is a true count per deck strategy. I used to my Zen TC by 1.8 to convert to High-Low when communicating the count for friends. Now I just use High-Low and play an extra 5 minutes.FLASH1296 said:
christopher1
Member
i no this is probably ridiculously stupid but i saw the index play for 12v4 as +1, doesn't this go against basic strategy? can someone explain this to me http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm