Zen Again

J

jimmtech

Well-Known Member
Switched from AOII to Zen and have been using this for indices:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm

(I just got SBA and am looking at generating more index plays)

Some of the plays here I do not understand:

Snyder------- Per SBA 6D H17 DAS (Risk Averse)
77/8 P4 ------ P12
44/3 P12 -----Never split
44/4 P4 ------ P10
22/8 P12 ---- Never split

I guess this shows Risk Averse = wait till the count is higher before you split or don't split at all?

Also:

Snyder -----Per SBA 6D H17 DAS (Risk Averse)
13/A Hit ----S20
14/A Hit --- S13
A3/4 D -----D8
A3/3 Hit ----D16

Are these kinds of differences all due to the fact of being Risk Averse?

Did Synder exclude some soft doubling just because the margin is too small? It just seems strange that RA indices would at some times have you putting MORE money out where in general Snyder's (non)RA index plays have you putting more $ out sooner...

Are there many of you who use RA indices and therefore bet more money?
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
Basically these all look correct to me, as a long time Zen Master who prefers Risk Averse indices.

For a good explanation of Risk Averse Indices see the the "Catch-22" Chapter in Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition.

Risk Averse indices balance risk vs. gain.

Look at it this way:

You have a total of 10 and the dealer shows a face card.

Your True Count is (ZEN) +8 and you know that the Profit Maximizing Index has easily been surpassed.

However, the Risk Averse Index has not yet been reached. It is MUCH higher.

You hesitate. You have your MAX bet out and now you realize that you may be about to lose DOUBLE that.

This is because while you now make (somewhat) more money by doubling, you are (radically) increasing your RISK by doubling the money that is at jeopardy.

Risk Aversion is a means to reduce your fluctuations; thus lowering your R.O.R. and consequently your bankroll requirements.
 
S

SuperTrump

Active Member
While we're on the subject of Zen indices...

Am I correct in saying that one should be using the SD indices and NOT the MD indices for shoe games? This was mentioned by ZG in one of his postings on Zen.

Also, what is SO BAD about the 1/4 deck conversion to Kelly% and the existing indices featured in Snyder's BBIBJ?? How much LESS accurate are they compared to the TC method?
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
Why on Earth would you want to use SD indices in a shoe game?

Whatever gave you such a notion?

You should generate a matrix of Risk-Averse indices specific to the
number of decks and rules using appropriate software, e.g. S.B.A.
 
Last edited:
S

SuperTrump

Active Member
FLASH1296 said:
Why on Earth would you want to use SD indices in a shoe game?

Whatever gave you such a notion?

You should generate a matrix of Risk-Averse indices specific to the number of decks and rules using appropriate software, e.g. S.B.A.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
Sorry... My mistake!... Confused the 1DTC conversion with SD indices.... :rolleyes:

In a previous posting ZG stated:

"Use the decisions designated in ZGI. Someone please provide the link to ZEN'83 multideck. You will use the old multideck indices generated for 1DTC... or alternately we have a 2DTC version in the forum somewhere.

Do NOT use the 1/4DTC version as published in the current BBIBJ. zg"

So the correct indices are the Snyder TC multi-deck indices?
 
Last edited:
QFIT

QFIT

Well-Known Member
FLASH1296 said:
Risk Aversion is a means to reduce your fluctuations; thus lowering your R.O.R. and consequently your bankroll requirements.
Click to expand...
The way we look at it, you can increase your unit size with RA indexes keeping the same risk and your resultant win/hour will increase.
 
S

SuperTrump

Active Member
I note that most players on here recommend SBA > CVData for TC index generation?

Any specific reason for this or is it just down to personal preferance?
 
iCountNTrack

iCountNTrack

Well-Known Member
QFIT said:
The way we look at it, you can increase your unit size with RA indexes keeping the same risk and your resultant win/hour will increase.
Click to expand...
The way we look at it: very nicely put haha.
 
QFIT

QFIT

Well-Known Member
SuperTrump said:
I note that most players on here recommend SBA > CVData for TC index generation?

Any specific reason for this or is it just down to personal preferance?
Click to expand...
Well, not everyone.:). In the latest version of Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack Chapter 10, the SBA indexes were replaced by CVData indexes. For unique features of the CVData generator, see http://www.qfit.com/cvdatav2a.htm
 
Last edited:
R

rukus

Well-Known Member
SuperTrump said:
Thanks Norm... Will probably run with CVDATA... Features, support and upgrades seem much better than SBA!
Click to expand...
+1 for CVData, i use it on my 1DTC zen indices (RA) and used it for the 2DTC indices you can find on these boards if you search.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
SuperTrump said:
While we're on the subject of Zen indices...

Am I correct in saying that one should be using the SD indices and NOT the MD indices for shoe games? This was mentioned by ZG in one of his postings on Zen.

Also, what is SO BAD about the 1/4 deck conversion to Kelly% and the existing indices featured in Snyder's BBIBJ?? How much LESS accurate are they compared to the TC method?
Click to expand...
Just the opposite - use the multideck#s EVEN for 1D.

The 1/4D TE was Snyders biggest (only?) folley - 1/4DTC suffers from lost granularity for betting. Its contra-intuitive, but 1D and 2D TC have greater betting (NECESSARY) granularity. zg
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
granularity |ˌgranyəˈlaritē|
noun
1 the quality or condition of being granular.
2 technical the scale or level of detail present in a set of data or other phenomenon : the granularity of this war is not the sand that covers most of the country, but these details that have proved so elusive.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
FLASH1296 said:
granularity |ˌgranyəˈlaritē|
noun
1 the quality or condition of being granular.
2 technical the scale or level of detail present in a set of data or other phenomenon : the granularity of this war is not the sand that covers most of the country, but these details that have proved so elusive.
Click to expand...
Yes, a 2DTC allows much finer count-betting precision than 1/4DTC.
QFIT's sims prove it. zg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top