Blackjack Card Counting of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Will you stop with these lies? Anyone can look at my posting history and probably spor the 5-6 hour window I play most days. Although occasionally I post while I am out, usualyy on meal break. Administrators can confirm that as well.

 

off topic. see VCT thread.

 

Adm. Im in foul territory? Okay, I respect a Rule 7 vio.

I shouldve answered Dietz in another section. How long are you going into 4 corners on me?

I will be back when my posting rights are back to normal speed.

Great forum.

 

Did a bit of internet search. It appears Tarzan count is the equivalent of Thorp's Ten count, plus Ace Side Count, plus small-cards side count, plus mid-cards side count. Wow! I don't think I can handle that for more than 10 or 15 minutes, but I like the possibility that Tarzan count may facilitate the correct doubling down on 12. (I occasionally double down on 12 vs 5, but not vs 6, for camouflage.)
Lucky, you can still find single deck 3-to-2 blackjack. You should milk out the opportunities as much as you can before they disappear. I don't think I have seen 3-to-2 single deck anywhere west of Mississippi in the past 15 years.

 

CORRECTION: Meant to say "east of Mississippi", not "west of Mississippi".

 

Not exactly Moraine. Tarzan took a column count and came up with a way to covert to True Count. Surf around Tarzan at [removed]. There are some interesting posts for those who like to challenge their mind.

 

1. Read many posts. Think it is possible to use the difference between the numbers for each column to get the true count. Is it the way that it get done?

2. Tarzan count seems to go in the opposite direction of Moraine's AceMT. (Tarzan actually counts all 13 cards -- 3 cards more than Hi-Lo, while AceMT counts 5 cards less than Hi-Lo.) While AceMT finds its best niche in 6, 8-deck, or even beyond (when it comes to pass one day), Tarzan count becomes "humanly impossible" in 6 or 8 decks for most counters in my opinion.

3. Tarzan count may have more interesting applications in Spanish 21, since the EORs of the middle cards 8 and 9 may add up to that of a face card, and Ace is super powerful with no strings attached. Spanish 21, to my knowledge, has never been offered in 1 or 2 decks, however.

 

Not exactly Moraine. Tarzan took a column count and came up with a way to covert to True Count. Surf around Tarzan at BJTF. There are some interesting posts for those who like to challenge their mind.

1.) I dont employ a true count method. I think it was unique how Tarzan took columns and converted to true count. This provides the opportunity to bet into better deck compositions and avoid the bad ones.
2.) I doubt I could do it. But I met those who can.
3,) The EOR is a screwed up process. So HILO is doing more damage than good to counters. T3 was working on a theory of side counting Aces. It stands to reason you want a deck 10,A rich. To have the Aces even richer? Even better.

 

This is just completely false. I strongly object to these statements not because of any long running issues I have with you, but because they are completely untrue and can serve to be harmful to players who might read them and try to apply these concepts.

The things you believe are outdated. It is the thought process from the 1980 when there were better games, single deck, double deck dealt deeply, sometimes to the last card. Those days are long gone. And decent single deck is long gone everywhere but where you play in Reno and a few places, like El Cortez, that offer single deck at lousy penetration and almost no tolerance for any kind of bet spread.

In today's world, and for the last 20 years, the world of 6 and 8 deck games shoe games, these higher level counts, specialty counts, columns counts, add little value. It is an extreme case of diminishing returns, meaning the extra effort is not worth an minimal gain. And that before you even consider higher error rates for applying such counts.

In today's world with shoe games, it is all about bet spread and trying to escape some of the negative counts. The data that you choose to ignore and cherry pick along with the success of thousands of players at all levels from recreational to professional, prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. The things you are saying and are a proponent of are simply outdated. They are from the 1980's. And not true for 99.9% of players....anyone who doesn't live and play Reno.

 

And let me expand on the "diminishing returns" statement. That means a player does 2-3 times the effort, for a very minimal additional gain. And that before you allow for any additional errors from the additional mental effort.

So understand I am not saying that there is no mathematical gain, simulations will show that there is. But the additional effort isn't worth the very minimal gain (before higher error rate).

If a player really wants to improve results there are a number of more advanced things he can get into and they all work better with a simplier count. With today's games, it is all about keeping it simple, identifying most advantageous situations and getting the money out, while keeping error rate minimal. That is exactly what Hi-lo or any other simple level 1 count does. And why so many players have succeeded playing them.

 

Kew can you bring examples on what count you rise your stakes how many and so on

 

I use different spreads and ramp for different games, situations and what I feel is the tolerance level of each casino. And I generally don't like to reveal my exact bet spreads.

But generally, I hit my top wager at True count of +4 (TC +4) That is roughly a 2% advantage. At exactly TC+4 it is a little less than 2%, but for the whole +4 bucket meaning range between +4 and +5, it is 2%. so let's use a random example of max bet $400

So that is my max bet and you work backwards from there. At TC +3 which is 1-1.5% for the bucket, I am at half max bet amount. This enables me to increase to max bet just from chips wagered and any winning chips which is a very natural way to increase. So that would be $200 in our ranom example.

@ +2. I would bet $100. Again this allows me to go to the next level with just chips wagered on any winning bet.

Now at +1, there really is no reason to increase. At exacly +1, for most shoe games (6 deck) a player is still slightly -EV. For the whole +1 bucket (all counts between +1 and +2), slightly positive EV, but not really enough to warrent a larger bet.

BUT if my minimum wager is say $25, then I will increase to $50 at +1, just so I don't have that large jump from $25 to $100 at +2. That is less about increasing because of an advantage and more about smoothing out the betting ramp, so as not to show a big jump in wager.

Hope this helps. If there is anything I haven't made clear, feel free to ask.

 

thanks for the clarity. I can only play 8 deck where they change the box middle of it, so im not sure it can work there.

 

I am not familiar with the term "change the box"? Do you mean they shuffle the cards half way through the 8 decks?

If so, that would be only 50% penetration and practically unplayable. Technically you could use a much, much larger spread and still win some, but, would require a large bankroll, have humungous swings in both directions and be pretty easily detecatable as to what you were doing. So, let's just stick with "unplayable".

 

yeah, the entire new 8 decks will be replaced. Many casinos do that trick. Perhaps doing 5 step martingale on certain spots are only way with them. One win and thats it

 

My opinion with no hard math to back it up: If your focus is on Playing Efficiency (which I think is important for single deck with very limited bet spread), EOR may not mean much. But EOR means a lot for Betting Correlation in shoe games. Case in point: Ace has high EOR, and when a deck is Ace rich, counters can bet more, but the presence of some extra Aces seldom affects any playing decisions (unless, Hah, the counter happens to use AceMT with Ace Side Count when it comes to the decision of insuring or not).

 

I still maintain that the KO style is best to buck up against the shoes game on offer at most joints these day, hey hey.

 

Run your Sims. Assigining the 2 and 5 the same value is ludicrous.

I realize your incapable of anything beyond level 1. But drop the 2 and count the 5 as 2 instead of 1.

KJ is incapable. But something with half a brain should take an objective look.

 

Must you continue your attacks and name calling in a thread that isn't your thread and isn't my thread. It is a thread asking for opinions on a card counting topic. You are certainly allowed to express your opinion, just as I have, but continuing this vendetta in this thread, is just not the proper place for it.

And by the way people HAVe taken an objective look. When Don Schlesinger a guy who played a level 2 count his whole life for like 50 years made the statement that if he was starting out today, knowing what he now knows, and with todays conditions, he would play a level one count like hi-lo. Why do you not understand what he is saying with that statement? I don't know how he can be any clearer.

 

Good Luck with Ya! You "still maintain", but since when? Have you tried any new system other than "KNOCK oneself OUT" lately?