I've been practicing Zen Count and find it very difficult to pick up speed. Are there any tricks of the trade, mental tricks, tips, or short cuts that will help? The "cancel out" combinations are hard to see and the true edge calculation sometimes gets in the way of the count. I won't mind if you just say, "Practice more," but I'm hoping against hope there may be some techniques that will prove helpful. Sincerely.
Zen Masters, Have you any advice?
- Thread starter aslan
- Start date
Three thoughts -
1. You should practice with software drills.
2. If the TC adjustment is slowing you down too much you should switch to UB'd - UBZ-2, etc.
3. You mentioned "True Edge" - IF you are learning ZEN 'True Edge' , stop. TE is a 1/4D TC and is inferior for betting accuracy. You need 1D or 2D TC ZEN indices and method. zg
1. You should practice with software drills.
2. If the TC adjustment is slowing you down too much you should switch to UB'd - UBZ-2, etc.
3. You mentioned "True Edge" - IF you are learning ZEN 'True Edge' , stop. TE is a 1/4D TC and is inferior for betting accuracy. You need 1D or 2D TC ZEN indices and method. zg
Score charts?
I got the unbalanced zen 2 booklet (and BBiBJ for cross-reference). It seems like ubz2 was written in another language. Does George C. stand for Chan or what?
Anyway, it looks great. ZG, you always tout ubz, saying it has nearly identical performance to balanced zen in DD. I was wondering if anyone out there with CV could make up one of those SCORE by penetration charts seen often in this forum to compare the two (maybe with high-low thrown in?). Does the gap widen for S17 or H17 or with different spreads?
Care to show me what your software can do, QFIT? :grin: Thanks!
I got the unbalanced zen 2 booklet (and BBiBJ for cross-reference). It seems like ubz2 was written in another language. Does George C. stand for Chan or what?
Anyway, it looks great. ZG, you always tout ubz, saying it has nearly identical performance to balanced zen in DD. I was wondering if anyone out there with CV could make up one of those SCORE by penetration charts seen often in this forum to compare the two (maybe with high-low thrown in?). Does the gap widen for S17 or H17 or with different spreads?
Care to show me what your software can do, QFIT? :grin: Thanks!
No, betting accuracy - 1/4D TC reduces betting efficiency, apparently not considered by Snyder when he went in that direction.
Rounding the indices is one thing, but for TC calibration - for betting in mind - he should have gone in the other direction, like Renzey did with Bluebook/Mentor count - 2D TC calibration.
In other words, Renzey's 2D calibration has EIGHT TIMES THE GRANULARITY FOR BETTING ACCURACY that Snyder's 1/4D TE has. zg
Rounding the indices is one thing, but for TC calibration - for betting in mind - he should have gone in the other direction, like Renzey did with Bluebook/Mentor count - 2D TC calibration.
In other words, Renzey's 2D calibration has EIGHT TIMES THE GRANULARITY FOR BETTING ACCURACY that Snyder's 1/4D TE has. zg
I've never used zen, so I probably shouldn't disagree with you, but here goes anyway. Assuming you adjust your bets at non-integer "True Edges," the integer-granularity doesn't matter. I don't know how difficult this would be because the only true count I've used is a trued-up KO, but I woud think it would be easier than multiplying 16 by 4/7 in the example I gave above.
Another thing I was thinking about... anyone know of a good online fraction drill?
Another thing I was thinking about... anyone know of a good online fraction drill?
The point is this:
(same count/betting)
TE (1/4): +1+2+3
TC (1.0): +1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12
TC (2.0): +1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22+23 +24
A lot of betting strike points are missed. Like I say - for play indices nobody is a bigger advocate for rounding than I am - but betting is a different story.
So ZEN as currently published with its 1/4D TC scheme is flawed.
QFIT has a sim-chart to show this. zg
(same count/betting)
TE (1/4): +1+2+3
TC (1.0): +1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12
TC (2.0): +1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22+23 +24
A lot of betting strike points are missed. Like I say - for play indices nobody is a bigger advocate for rounding than I am - but betting is a different story.
So ZEN as currently published with its 1/4D TC scheme is flawed.
QFIT has a sim-chart to show this. zg
Last edited:
I can't, and I won't... But I can't and won't instantly recall the greatest integer less than or equal to 16 x 4/7 while storing the RC and talking to the PC either... ever.
Do you think that "TE Zen" is stronger than Hi-lo or Red 7? Maybe the book should be titled brownbelt in blackjack... oh well... Fact is that's his audience now... (aslan and I)
Who'll make more: a brownbelt with $100k or a blackbelt with $10k?
Do you think that "TE Zen" is stronger than Hi-lo or Red 7? Maybe the book should be titled brownbelt in blackjack... oh well... Fact is that's his audience now... (aslan and I)
Who'll make more: a brownbelt with $100k or a blackbelt with $10k?
No one plugs BBIBJ more than I.
BUT you just answered the question. Just learn indices for ZEN as originally published - ie, 1D TC - and all will be well.
Would you like those indices? One way to go is to simply multiply the TE indices x4: Voila! Instant rounded 1DTC indices. Or, someone can post the 1983 ZEN indices. zg
BUT you just answered the question. Just learn indices for ZEN as originally published - ie, 1D TC - and all will be well.
Would you like those indices? One way to go is to simply multiply the TE indices x4: Voila! Instant rounded 1DTC indices. Or, someone can post the 1983 ZEN indices. zg
Huh?
Huh? Are you saying to just do 1 deck estimation and 1 deck TC resolution? Or to do quarter deck estimation with 1 deck TC resolution (which seems impossible to me)?
The former would certainly be easier than either the latter or "True Edge," but this would only be good enough in a shoe game, right? Or is calling 1.5 decks 2 decks in a pitch game good enough with zen?
Huh? Are you saying to just do 1 deck estimation and 1 deck TC resolution? Or to do quarter deck estimation with 1 deck TC resolution (which seems impossible to me)?
The former would certainly be easier than either the latter or "True Edge," but this would only be good enough in a shoe game, right? Or is calling 1.5 decks 2 decks in a pitch game good enough with zen?
1/4D estimation w/ 1D TC calibration is the norm for 30+ years as Norm points out below.
Regarding 1D TC deck-estimation, here's how I do it:
8D-4D remaining = Estimation to nearest 1D
4D-1.5D remaining = Estimation to nearest 1/2D
1.25-1/4D remaining = Estimation to nearest 1/4D
Regarding 1D TC deck-estimation, here's how I do it:
8D-4D remaining = Estimation to nearest 1D
4D-1.5D remaining = Estimation to nearest 1/2D
1.25-1/4D remaining = Estimation to nearest 1/4D
Norman Wattenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't see the problem with one deck divisor and quarter deck resolution at single deck. People have been doing this for 35 years. Although most people multiply by the inverse instead of divide at single deck. The problem with [ZEN] TE is that few people actually use the method in the book. I've been talking to players since BiB2e came out as people have asked me how to set up TE for CV. I ask then how they use it and invariably they say they simply true count and assign bets to integer TCs. I talked to Arnold about this just after he came out with TE. The other problem is the .5% per deck rule seriously underbets. Particularly in today's games where you have to get the money out whenever you can.
Yeah, I would agree that he doesn't sufficiently disclaim that you should vary your bet in between a TE of 1 and a TE of 2.
This got me thinking about the insurance index of TE=1. Is that problematic too? The high low insurance index is +3 cards per deck or a TE of 1.5. Since zen half-neutralizes the ace, the insurance correlation is higher, so I guess the index could be lower, but is it that much lower? I'm all for rounding the playing indices as well, but not the insurance index! Couldn't this throw that better insuance correlation out the window?
This got me thinking about the insurance index of TE=1. Is that problematic too? The high low insurance index is +3 cards per deck or a TE of 1.5. Since zen half-neutralizes the ace, the insurance correlation is higher, so I guess the index could be lower, but is it that much lower? I'm all for rounding the playing indices as well, but not the insurance index! Couldn't this throw that better insuance correlation out the window?
Last edited:
