Those neutral cards are not so neutral!

I'm not sure I follow about the neutral cards but you shouldn't be getting 'hammered' in neutral counts for 2 reasons:
One, you should have a minimum bet out in neutral counts.
Two, mathematically, neutral counts are when a player looses the least.
So, maybe something else is going on like selective memory for these situations.

I'm not sure you follow me on this either!

Oh Molly Mother of Pearl! Holy Guacamole, Batman! I am not talking of a typical situation of what is described as a neutral count. I am describing an anomaly in which LOTS of 6-9's are played ahead of 2-5's and 10's in which YES you have minimal bets out but oddly enough you are losing 19 out of 20 hands. This particular situation is WHY and HOW you can lose badly in a neutral count.

Take six decks of cards... take out 50% of all the 6-9's... then play heads up using standard basic strategy flat betting minimums and let me know how you did! Put all those 6-9s back and then do the same thing. Are you seeing what I am saying yet? Neutral cards are not so neutral. In any case, the Gordon/DHME/Tarzan count does in fact identify this situation. My question was if other relatively intricate counting systems would identify this anomaly which is exactly the reason you can LOSE A LOT MORE in a neutral count. So OhBeHave just bear with me and try to grasp the concept instead of automatically veering off to "Must be selective memory because if there's a barrel of apples there it makes no sense mathematically that there could be some oranges under the apples and blah blah blah..." I am reasonably well versed on generalized statistical probabilities. I am talking about a very specific situation and the relevance of counting techniques that would identify said situation, not someone raising their hand and saying, "Well, gee... that could just never ever happen." Sorry if I sound a bit too harsh but seriously... try to understand a given concept before you throw broad brush generalizations that bear little relevance to the subject matter.

Are you starting to see why hanging out in the hot tub with large-breasted women can take a higher priority than hanging out here sometimes?

Hey Tarzan if your count is so special and can identify the anomaly which is an overload of 6-9's, why the hell are getting your brains beat in when it happens. So much so that you need to pull yourself away from your big breasted broads and post about "dealers from hell." You would sound less like a whining child if you would explain how there are no dealers from hell because you know how to avoid the situation. But truthfully, I wouldn't believe you anymore than I would someone who is hanging with big breasted women taking breaks from them just to post nonsense on an internet message board. By the way your system is weak, I would rather control the cards then settle for whats dealt to me. I don't care what kind of count you use, its still just a passive way of dealing with casino odds. Not for me junior, I'd rather be more aggressive in the outcome of the cards that are dealt, and not sit there and deal with "anomalies" that may or not occur. It pays better in this game to be an anomaly then trying to deal with one.

I know of no counting system that identifies when a high proportion of neutral cards have been removed (btw 6 is not neutral in any system). Not sure why anyone would want to know that in any case. Uston APC values every card except Aces (with SC Aces) but I don't see how this would identify a neutral count that is composed of an abnormaly large proportion of 6-9's.

We all have long runs of losses. I'd rather that happen at neutral counts than high counts.

Do you have some actual proof of the effect of the removal of 6-9's? Like a simulation or are you just steaming because of a big loss? Or just maybe its your counting system... Not making any judgements, I know nothing of your system.

Scenario you are describing is not so neutral!!!!

Tarzan said:

Oh Molly Mother of Pearl! Holy Guacamole, Batman! I am not talking of a typical situation of what is described as a neutral count. I am describing an anomaly in which LOTS of 6-9's are played ahead of 2-5's and 10's in which YES you have minimal bets out but oddly enough you are losing 19 out of 20 hands. This particular situation is WHY and HOW you can lose badly in a neutral count.

Take six decks of cards... take out 50% of all the 6-9's... then play heads up using standard basic strategy flat betting minimums and let me know how you did! Put all those 6-9s back and then do the same thing. Are you seeing what I am saying yet? Neutral cards are not so neutral. In any case, the Gordon/DHME/Tarzan count does in fact identify this situation. My question was if other relatively intricate counting systems would identify this anomaly which is exactly the reason you can LOSE A LOT MORE in a neutral count. So OhBeHave just bear with me and try to grasp the concept instead of automatically veering off to "Must be selective memory because if there's a barrel of apples there it makes no sense mathematically that there could be some oranges under the apples and blah blah blah..." I am reasonably well versed on generalized statistical probabilities. I am talking about a very specific situation and the relevance of counting techniques that would identify said situation, not someone raising their hand and saying, "Well, gee... that could just never ever happen." Sorry if I sound a bit too harsh but seriously... try to understand a given concept before you throw broad brush generalizations that bear little relevance to the subject matter.

Are you starting to see why hanging out in the hot tub with large-breasted women can take a higher priority than hanging out here sometimes?

Click to expand...

Tarzan,

The scenario you are describing is far from being neutral. To explain that you have to look at the effect of removal for each type of card (6, 7, 8, 9). This is naturally dependent on the set of rules you have. But for standard AC rules the 7's(+0.0028) would almost cancel the 9's(-0.0020), the 8's are the only neutral cards (-0.0002), the 6's (+0.0046). So the net effect is positive.

In terms of hi-lo, removing 12 6's results in a TC of +2 for a 6D game, we know that each TC unit for hi-lo is 0.5% increase in ev, given that the house edge is about 0.56%, the IBA would be 0.44%.

I ran a simulation for the scenario you described(remove 50% 6-9) on CVData IBA was 0.43%.

ohbehave said:

I know of no counting system that identifies when a high proportion of neutral cards have been removed (btw 6 is not neutral in any system). Not sure why anyone would want to know that in any case. Uston APC values every card except Aces (with SC Aces) but I don't see how this would identify a neutral count that is composed of an abnormaly large proportion of 6-9's.

Click to expand...

6 is neutral in the Gordon Count. It's a reasonable system with an ace sidecount. There is a multiparameter system based on that where 2-5, 6-9, and the X value cards are treated as 3 separate categories and like all multiparameter counts that's a very strong system. I think jack,jackson did some work on it here.

ohbehave said:

We all have long runs of losses. I'd rather that happen at neutral counts than high counts.

Do you have some actual proof of the effect of the removal of 6-9's? Like a simulation or are you just steaming because of a big loss? Or just maybe its your counting system... Not making any judgements, I know nothing of your system.

Click to expand...

Better to complain about the losses here than anywhere else. We've all been there. I'm coming off a standard deviation of losses right now.

The 6-9 group can be treated as neutral for betting purposes, the power of breaking them out is improved insurance and playing decisions.

My apologies to Tarzan as my posts in this thread were not really helpful to his situation.

I, myself, am also in a negative slide, AM. Its difficult when you know you aren't making mistakes at the table but things just aren't going your way.

Here's the thing...

You said,"I am also in a negative slide", implying that perhaps I am... perhaps not. I have a proven track record of success that runs for many years. You missed the boat for what I am talking about here, this "common denominator of likelihood". I post things to try and throw some positive trains of thought out there and help others, examining details of things I observe.

I have no need for anyone in particular to "help my situation", Ohbehave... there is nothing to help. I have achieved a level of success for many years now that few could possibly match from examining these odd tidbits of details along the way. To say "I don't want to examine some insignficant details of some enigma... I want to BE the enigma!" is not the right attitude as studying those strange peculiarities is actually what gets you there, Maz!

The original Gordon count evolved into DHM, DHME and beyond, making me the enigma I think. It is the most effective system I know of with proven results... it's far from weak. Don't listen to anything from a guy that has carefully ground ahead over the years playing full time and can well afford all the hot tubs and large breasted women in hot tubs that he cares to have time for... he has no clue what the hell he is talking about.

The Tarzan Count


The Tarzan Count, as I dub it, has a betting correlation of just .88, but with the Side-Counted Aces employed, it is much higher, perhaps .95

In "pitch games" I would love to be able to employ The Tarzan Count with a wide matrix of Basic Strategy Departure indices. I suspect that it may be capable of approaching, (or perhaps exceeding) what Peter Griffin had to say about the pracrical limits of "playing efficiency" An impressive P.E. exceeding .70 is extremely powerful in any hand-held game where three hands or more are dealt between shuffles.

As should be obvious, the playing efficiency of a card counting system is of diluted importance against New Jersey's shallow 8 deckers. Thus, these "6 of 8 dealt" monstrosities provide precious few opportunities to employ the 'extra' information provided by the "middle cards" surplus/deficit metrics.

As an exercise Tarzan suggested "Take six decks of cards... take out 50% of all the 6-9's... then play heads up using standard basic strategy flat betting minimums and let me know how you did! Put all those 6-9s back and then do the same thing.

I suggest a refinement.

Use just 2 decks (just for ease of use) and remove 16 of the 32 6's through 9's. Then "balance" the True Count by removing 2 Face Cards.
In terms of the "effects of removal" the 6 is just .05 less than a perfect balanced match to the 10. [+0.46% vs -0.51%] The overall effects of removal dictate that this modified DD would be very close to a balanced "Zero" True Count "off the top"

Firstly, lets quickly look at the "betting correlation" The combined EoR "effect of removal" of an equal amounts of these small cards and Face Cards is as follows:

FACE CARDS:

[-.51 x 4] = -2.04 per 4 card "set" of Face Cards.

[Sum = -2.04%]

2. = +.38
3. = +.44
4. = +.55
5. = +.69

SMALL CARDS:

[Sum = +2.06%]

The difference of +0.0.2 for each quartet of high /low cards cannot be safely dismissed, as in this modified Double Deck there would be [for the Running Count] 8 times +0.02 = +0.16, and that is probably insignificant. Consider that the player's e.v. in a DD game with S17 and DAS is -.19% Thus a spot-on ZERO True Count with this set of counting "tags" would make for a game where the e.v. is shaved slightly by -.03

Now lets take a look at the EoR for these "middle cards"

MIDDLE CARDS:

6 = +.46
7 = +.28
8 = 0.00
9 = -.18

[Sum = + .52 times 4 = + 2.08%

With 16 of these "middle cards" depleted it would improve the e.v. by > +2.08%
Note: as the DD has been reduced from 102 cards to 86 cards the True Count is proportionately higher.
Thus far we have the equivalent of a [Running Count] with:
6 fours and 2 threes (sum to EoR = +4.18) ~OR~
6 fives (sum to EoR = +4.14)
A Hi-Lo player would compute this as +6 / 1.75 = T.C. of 3.4
A Hi-Opt II player would see this as either 15 or 12 / 1.75 and would be "floored" to T.C. +6 or T.C. +8
Betting optimally the Hi-Lo player would assume an advantage of about 1.5%
The Hi-Opt II player would view this composition as affording himself 1.25% or 1.75%.
An Advanced Omega II player would be including the nines in his count and would have a more conservative view of his advantage.

Hi-Lo being a level one count that has three zero-valued cards will be somewhat inaccurate in revealing e.v.'s during the course of play - than a level two count with only two zero-valued cards, with low cards having strong and weak tags, and Ace adjusted wagering
re: general player's expectation:

We see that the removal of one half of these "middle cards" will result in a player's e.v. that is generally equivalent to a True Count of > +2.

We can eliminate this distorted expectation by judiciously REMOVING eight [8] Face Cards.
Thus the +4.16 will be balanced by -4.08
Note: this is the same 25% reduction of TENS that we see in a Spanish21 shoe
Note: the modified DD has finally settled at 80 cards.

Following Tarzan's seminal suggestion of "hand-simulating" BJ with this modified pack of cards;
I would go further and suggest the following procedure:
Play BJ with this modified distribution and tabulate the result until, at bare minimum, 1,000 hands are played.
After every 100 hands SWITCH to an alternative pack of cards.
That pack will have been created in the opposite fashion of the first.
Where 1/2 of the "middle cards"; were removed, this alternate pack will ADD an extra eight [8] "middle cards" and ADDING eight [8] Face Cards"

After the net result of 2,000 hands played are tabulated, it should be clear what the effects of surplus and deficit "middle cars" are.

The one thing that I did not do though is to see whether or not the modifications that I made to the packs of cards are disproportional
to normal densities of each of the card groupings.

Being anything but a mathematician I am prone to the errors that sloppy proofing can generate; but I am certain that there are peeps here who are astute at ferreting out errors and will follow up this post.

In summary, what leaps off the page for me is THE FACT that the 4 card sets of Small Cards and Middle Cards are, EQUAL in their effect upon removal.

Don't listen to anything from a guy that has carefully ground ahead over the years playing full time and can well afford all the hot tubs and large breasted women in hot tubs that he cares to have time for... he has no clue what the hell he is talking about.

Click to expand...

That is about the best advice you've given, don't listen to you. Somehow in the last few weeks you went from a daily grinder into a playboy high roller. A bit of advice for ya slick from a real pro, just because you don't know a stronger system doesn't mean it isn't out there. Your system may seem strong to you but I wouldn't think of wasting my time with it. Its all relative pal. I am no grinder, and if you can't figure a better way of handling your business at the table, your dreams of big breasted women and even bigger money, will stay right here in your little message board world.

Tarzan said:

Due to the obscure count that I use, the Gordon/DHME/Tarzan count which pinpoints this phenomenon of this "perfect storm" of casino victory and clues me in on walking the heck away from this table is possibly not as likely to be as evident in other counts.

I have often wondered if the obscurity of my counting method is the reason no one has ever really talked about this but it is essentially the means in which the casino can make a nice killing in a "neutral" count.

Some insights?[/B]

Click to expand...

Just ran a flat bet, basic strategy sim with a six deck shoe that had half the 6's, 7's, 8's and 9's removed. Player EV was +1.47%! It adopted itself a radically aggressive basic strategy however. Could program it to play standard basic strategy, but that would take time.

FLASH1296 said:

The Tarzan Count, as I dub it, has a betting correlation of just .88, but with the Side-Counted Aces employed, it is much higher, perhaps .95

In "pitch games" I would love to be able to employ The Tarzan Count with a wide matrix of Basic Strategy Departure indices. I suspect that it may be capable of approaching, (or perhaps exceeding) what Peter Griffin had to say about the pracrical limits of "playing efficiency" An impressive P.E. exceeding .70 is extremely powerful in any hand-held game where three hands or more are dealt between shuffles.

As should be obvious, the playing efficiency of a card counting system is of diluted importance against New Jersey's shallow 8 deckers. Thus, these "6 of 8 dealt" monstrosities provide precious few opportunities to employ the 'extra' information provided by the "middle cards" surplus/deficit metrics....

Click to expand...

One missing link we have to consider in the relative efficiencies of counts is how they perform when we have a bunch of money on the table. All AC players are using enormous spreads.

For example, the most powerful playing index is 16 vs. 10, but how much information a system gives for the 16 vs. 10 decision isn't that important to a counter? Why? Because that decision is so close to a toss-up with a neutral shoe, when we have anything but a minimum bet up the decision is always "Stand." For a backcounter the decision is always to stand. Griffin's playing efficiencies for counts are for a play-all, flat-bet scenario which is anything but what we are doing. More important to me are decisions like 12 vs. 2, 15 vs.10 and insurance, and of course the surrender plays when that is available, because those are the decisions I'm making when the black is on the felt. Believe it or not, the Archer Count with an ace sidecount (10's are -2, aces are neutral, all other cards are +1) is pretty darned powerful in these kinds of games because of their great insurance correlation (perfect, if you back out the ace sidecount) and good information for a lot of other plays that kick in at high counts like 12 vs. 2 and doubling 8 vs 5 and 6. If I was cranking out a huge spread in AC and interested in sidecounting that would be something worth looking into.

Tarzan said:

You said,"I am also in a negative slide", implying that perhaps I am... perhaps not.

Click to expand...

My comment above was in reference to Automatic Monkey's statement that he is coming off a standard deviation of losses, hence the ",AM" after the comment.

Seem pretty complex to me, but heres how I would go about attempting to make use of the middle cards.

2,3,4,5/+1 vs X/-1

For single and double deck games, and for stiff hands only(12-16).

Of course you could count each 6,7,8,9 individually for greater efficiency, but counting them as a group should give you most of the possible gain.

Then you would use the discard tray, to determine the shortage or excess of the middle cards, by 4 for every 13 cards in the discard tray, for normal distribution.

So if your index for 15vX is +3, and theres 1/2 deck in the tray(*8) and your TC is +2 w/only 4 middle cards seen, you would need to add 4 extra to your(aprox) RC,(resulting in a Stand on 15vX),while subtracting for 12 and 13's.

I guess H14 would remain neutral.

*Average distrubution of middle cards.

Wait you multiplied the EOR of the "middle" cards by 4, but didn't multiply the EORs of the small cards.

The EORs of the small cards are much higher than the middle ones.

Regarding this zany count, what's the point of tracking middle cards if it doesn't help you identify a situation where you're playing at a disadvantage? I would submit that a surplus or deficit of neutral cards is not a particularly big advantage or disadvantage at all.

If you can track the middle cards, in addition, I thinks its great. Oviously, the more information you have about the remeaining cards, the better. Sadly this is beyong my limitations without my game suffering. My biggest problem is as others have suggusted, lumping the 6 in with 7,8,9. I just don't see the 6 as nuetral.

kewljason said:

If you can track the middle cards, in addition, I thinks its great. Oviously, the more information you have about the remeaining cards, the better. Sadly this is beyong my limitations without my game suffering. My biggest problem is as others have suggusted, lumping the 6 in with 7,8,9. I just don't see the 6 as nuetral.

Click to expand...

Maybe an alternative would be to call the 3-6 the low cards and the 2,7,8,9 as the "middle" cards. The reason is that the 2 is closer to the 7,8,9 in terms of EoR than the 6 is. You get the same insurance correlation out of it and it hurts a few play decisions but increases the BC significantly.