Zen Count

[moneytrain]

I am trying to find a good book that teaches the zen count with indices. i currently use the hi-lo sys but want to expand my horrizons.

 

[BJgenius007]

I am trying to find a good book that teaches the zen count with indices. i currently use the hi-lo sys but want to expand my horrizons.

In my opinion, Omega II is better than Zen. The only difference is that Zen assigns -1 to Ace while Omega II assign -1 to Nine. The weight of all other cards are the same:

K, Q, J, 10: -2
7. 2. 3: +1
4, 5, 6: +2

I like Omega II better because its playing efficiency is better as nine acts more like ten to bust the dealer's hand while ace can act like two. To increase better betting efficiency, you could keep ace side count using chips. Using Omega II, you can have the best of the two worlds. Play using pure true count. Bet using true count + ace side count adjustment.

Omega II book with full indexes is "Blackjack For Blood" by Bryce Carlson.
Zen book is "Play Blackjack Like the Pros" by Kevin Blackwood. But this book has rounded the indexes to multiple of 5. So the indexes are not as useful as it could be.

 

[ArcticInferno]

I’ve read much about single parameter vs multi-parameter systems.
The general consensus is that the Ace acts like a big card for betting, but small for playing.
The lion share of the yield comes from proper bet variation, not from strategy deviation.
How is the extra work necessary for the multi-parameter system justified?

 

[blackjack avenger]

When Did Weak Become Strong?

How is the extra work necessary for the multi-parameter system justified?

How is the error rate due to weak "effect of removal" justified for the lower level counts? Higher level counts reflect EOR better and hence have a lower error rate.

:joker::whip:

good cards

 

[BJgenius007]

I’ve read much about single parameter vs multi-parameter systems.
The general consensus is that the Ace acts like a big card for betting, but small for playing.
The lion share of the yield comes from proper bet variation, not from strategy deviation.

It really depends on what game you play. I played most 6D or 8D so strategy deviation is more important to me. The reason for that is

To beat a typical AC H17 multiple deck with 75% penetration and win one unit per hour without wonging, you have to bet:

TC Bet size
negative 1
0 1
+1 2 or 3
+2 or above 8

Players begin to have advantage (0.2%) when TC reaches +1. Most common mistake by novice counters are that they increase their bet size too late. Playing multiple deck, players have to jump to the max bet when TC reaches +2 because players have advantage only in 15% of the time! (This assumes it is only safe to spread 8 to 1. If you can have a higher spread ratio, you can have your max bet at higher TC. But again, TC +3 or higher comes rare in multiple deck. You have to make most of your killing at TC +2.)

And of course, if you play most DD, your statement is absolutely right. The lion share of yield does come most from bet variation. On the other hand, there are only 8 aces in double deck, the player can easily track aces using fingers. So even I switch to DD, I still choose to use Omega II.

 

[zengrifter]

I am trying to find a good book that teaches the zen count with indices. i currently use the hi-lo sys but want to expand my horrizons.

1. You would acquire Blackbelt by Snyder.
2. You would NOT use the 1/4D TC and indices in the book, you would obtain alternate 1D TC and indices.
3. Skip the above and get Renzey's Mentor in BJ Bluebook.
4. Disregard BJgenious's "advice and opinion".

 

[zengrifter]

It really depends on what game you play. I played most 6D or 8D so strategy deviation is more important to me. The reason for that is.

To beat a typical AC H17 multiple deck with 75% penetration and win one unit per hour without wonging, you have to bet:

TC Bet size
negative 1
0 1
+1 2 or 3
+2 or above 8

So even I switch to DD, I still choose to use Omega II.

Stop it Genius, you're killing me! z:laugh:g

 

[ArcticInferno]

How is the error rate due to weak "effect of removal" justified for the lower level counts? Higher level counts reflect EOR better and hence have a lower error rate.

:joker::whip:

good cards

Blackjack Avenger, I think you're confusing parameter vs level.
Multi-parameter means that you keep a side count of Aces. You have two numbers in your head.
Multi-level means that the count tag can be more than just -1, 0 & 1.
Only one number in your head, however, different cards have different weight.

 

[ArcticInferno]

It really depends on what game you play. I played most 6D or 8D so strategy deviation is more important to me. The reason for that is

To beat a typical AC H17 multiple deck with 75% penetration and win one unit per hour without wonging, you have to bet:

TC Bet size
negative 1
0 1
+1 2 or 3
+2 or above 8

Players begin to have advantage (0.2%) when TC reaches +1. Most common mistake by novice counters are that they increase their bet size too late. Playing multiple deck, players have to jump to the max bet when TC reaches +2 because players have advantage only in 15% of the time! (This assumes it is only safe to spread 8 to 1. If you can have a higher spread ratio, you can have your max bet at higher TC. But again, TC +3 or higher comes rare in multiple deck. You have to make most of your killing at TC +2.)

And of course, if you play most DD, your statement is absolutely right. The lion share of yield does come most from bet variation. On the other hand, there are only 8 aces in double deck, the player can easily track aces using fingers. So even I switch to DD, I still choose to use Omega II.

BJgenius007, I will agree with you that most of the gain comes from TC 2, because TC 2 arises far more frequently that TC 3 or higher.

My understanding is that playing efficiency has a greater role in DD and SD, which is why depth charging was so effective in the “old” SD games.
In 6 or 8 deck games, I thought that playing efficiency has little value.
We seem to have read different books or studies different simulations.
The most important strategy deviation from I-18 is the insurance and standing on 16 vs 10.
However, the strategy deviation still has far lesser value than the bet variation, especially for multi-deck games.
Can you site some references to prove otherwise?
According to the simulations (CVData), multi-parameter systems don’t “outshine” single parameter system.
However, multi-level systems are more effective than single-level systems.
Omega II is a multi-level system, and I suspect that its power comes from being a multi-level, rather than being a multi-parameter.

 

[Southpaw]

I'm not going to engage in this conversation of multi-parameter vs. single parameter, as I'm sick of arguing about this. Zg will point out every thing that I would.

On another note, I read Kevin Blackwood's book, and if I'm not mistaken, he did not present the Zen Count. He mentioned it, but if I recall, he only present HO1, H02 and Hi-Lo.

SP

 

[MountainMan]

Forget all the books. Spend a little more to purchase Qfit's CVdata & CVIndex. Then create your own index numbers and customize your system to each game you play.

Start with Complete Zen. Run the simulations. Play DD if available. Run more sims. Play more DD........ Repeat.....

 

[ArcticInferno]

It really depends on what game you play. I played most 6D or 8D so strategy deviation is more important to me. The reason for that is

To beat a typical AC H17 multiple deck with 75% penetration and win one unit per hour without wonging, you have to bet:

TC Bet size
negative 1
0 1
+1 2 or 3
+2 or above 8

Players begin to have advantage (0.2%) when TC reaches +1. Most common mistake by novice counters are that they increase their bet size too late. Playing multiple deck, players have to jump to the max bet when TC reaches +2 because players have advantage only in 15% of the time! (This assumes it is only safe to spread 8 to 1. If you can have a higher spread ratio, you can have your max bet at higher TC. But again, TC +3 or higher comes rare in multiple deck. You have to make most of your killing at TC +2.)

And of course, if you play most DD, your statement is absolutely right. The lion share of yield does come most from bet variation. On the other hand, there are only 8 aces in double deck, the player can easily track aces using fingers. So even I switch to DD, I still choose to use Omega II.

You bet the same amount for TC of zero and negative TC?
According to the simulations, you should bet less for negative TC.
For example, if you bet 2 units for TC of zero, then bet 1 unit for negative TC.
The solution is to bet $50 at TC:0 at a $25 table.

 

[ArcticInferno]

I'm not going to engage in this conversation of multi-parameter vs. single parameter, as I'm sick of arguing about this. Zg will point out every thing that I would.

On another note, I read Kevin Blackwood's book, and if I'm not mistaken, he did not present the Zen Count. He mentioned it, but if I recall, he only present HO1, H02 and Hi-Lo.

SP

The thing that will shut everyone up is the all mighty simulation.
Plain and simple!
Run the simulations, and you'll see that parameters have very little value.
The level does.
Omega II, Hi-Op II, etc. are multi-parameter and multi-level.
Their power comes from being a multi-level system, not multi-parameter.
Which is why single-parameter multi-level system performs just as well.

 

[Southpaw]

The thing that will shut everyone up is the all mighty simulation.

Arctic Inferno,

Please do not be rude. If anyone wants to waste their time comparing multi-parameter systems to single-parameter systems, well I've already done a lot of the work for you (wasting my time doing so):

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=20339&highlight=Southpaw

This should get you started and all you'd need to do is compare the single-parameter system to the figures I provided.

Best,

SP

 

[ArcticInferno]

Arctic Inferno,

Please do not be rude. If anyone wants to waste their time comparing multi-parameter systems to single-parameter systems, well I've already done a lot of the work for you (wasting my time doing so):

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=20339&highlight=Southpaw

This should get you started and all you'd need to do is compare the single-parameter system to the figures I provided.

Best,

SP

Sorry if you misunderstood the tone of my post.
I meant no disrespect.

 

[BJgenius007]

I'm not going to engage in this conversation of multi-parameter vs. single parameter, as I'm sick of arguing about this. Zg will point out every thing that I would.

On another note, I read Kevin Blackwood's book, and if I'm not mistaken, he did not present the Zen Count. He mentioned it, but if I recall, he only present HO1, H02 and Hi-Lo.

SP

My bad. You are absolutely right. Blackwood book is about Hi Opt II. I got confused since I choose Omega II as my level 2 counting system. So other systems are the same to me.

 

[BJgenius007]

You bet the same amount for TC of zero and negative TC?
According to the simulations, you should bet less for negative TC.
For example, if you bet 2 units for TC of zero, then bet 1 unit for negative TC.
The solution is to bet $50 at TC:0 at a $25 table.

You are losing money when TC is negative and zero. I will bet one unit in either case.

 

[ArcticInferno]

You are losing money when TC is negative and zero. I will bet one unit in either case.

You will lose more money when the TC is more negative.
By betting less at more negative counts, you lose less.
No?

 

[zengrifter]

Zg will point out every thing that I would.

I think I'll just let ArcticFreeze and the BJgenius slug it out. zg

 

[moneytrain]

zengriffer,
i ordered blackbelt and bluebook, but they will not arrive for a week. can you tell me the new conversions from hi-lo so i can go ahead and start pratcing? a,j,k,q,10 - 1 (in hi lo)
789 (0)
2-6 (+1)