Best system for these decks

[psyduck]

Zen indices are based on true edge => RC/(4*number of remaining decks)

Flash says there are also TC indices besides the original true edge indices. I dont know which you are using.

tthree,

Let me describe what I did.

I used the Zen tag values to generate indices based on TC = RC/number of unseen decks. Then I used those Zen indices in simulation to compare it to my own HiLo indices using flat bet. I failed to see any benefit of the Zen indices.

On the other hand, with the same flat bet I did see benefit of using HiLo indices over BS (HiLo without indices). Therefore you cannot say using flat bet in simulation cannot show PE improvement.

 

[tthree]

Try it using true edge formula for indices.

I knew you were doing something wrong and jumped to a quick conclusion. I forgot most people dont know Zen uses true edge indices. I didnt know it until someone asked me a question about Zen. I did a little research and found out the difference. The other way to make them equivalent is to multiply the Zen true edge indices by 4 if it is easier for your sim than changing to TE = TC/4.

I am surprised an error like that didnt eliminate all together the advantage the indices should generate. I guess it would have to be an error in the other direction for that to happen.

 

[psyduck]

Try it using true edge formula for indices.

I knew you were doing something wrong and jumped to a quick conclusion. I forgot most people dont know Zen uses true edge indices. I didnt know it until someone asked me a question about Zen. I did a little research and found out the difference. The other way to make them equivalent is to multiply the Zen true edge indices by 4 if it is easier for your sim than changing to TE = TC/4.

I am surprised an error like that didnt eliminate all together the advantage the indices should generate. I guess it would have to be an error in the other direction for that to happen.

tthree,

Let me explain one more time.

I do not have Zen indices from a book or any other source that MAY be based on TC = RC/4*(unseen decks) as you stated.

Instead, I generated my own Zen and HiLo indices using the same definition of TC = RC/unseen decks. With flat bet, I did not see benefit using the Zen indices compared to HiLo. In contrast, I did observe improvement using HiLo indices over BS, validating that the simulation condition can show PE difference.

 

[tthree]

I understand. I am guessing you are reading the same charts I am.

PE .51 for HILO.
PE .63 for Zen.

You must be doing something wrong. Thats a big difference in PE.

 

[zengrifter]

I am currently reading "the worlds greatest blackjack book" and it states not to bother counting when dealing with 6 deck games... why is this?

Book is badly out of date. zg

 

[zengrifter]

I strongly suggest Blackbelt in Blackjack by Arnold Snyder,which offers several simple counts for those who believe that there is such a thing as a "free lunch". It also contains the ZEN COUNT, A Professional Level count — that is all that you will ever need.

Adam, I recommend BJ Bluebook, and learn Mentor instead.
Mentor and ZEN are equal, but the indices in Blackbelt are wrong. zg

 

[psyduck]

I understand. I am guessing you are reading the same charts I am.

PE .51 for HILO.
PE .63 for Zen.

You must be doing something wrong. Thats a big difference in PE.

I found the reason. There was nothing wrong. PE of Zen depends on the number of decks.

I was simulating the 6-deck shoe game I play. With flat betting, I saw no PE improvement of Zen over HiLo. When I switched the deck to 2, I saw effect right away.

My conclusion is it does not pay for me to switch to Zen as long as I play the 6-deck shoe game.

 

[Gramazeka]

ZEN it is the overestimated system for shoes game.

Very good for shoes-

1.Hi Lo
2.EBJ 2
3.Halves
4.RAPC 71.

1-2-3 system- the identical index for play.

 

[bj21abc]

Psyduck,

I have toyed with the idea of moving to Zen for a while - however I am alos primarily a 6D player.

I recall running sims a long time ago (with a half-kelly betting ramp) and not seeing any big differences between the two. Have you compared apples to apples (ie results for hi-lo on your usual 6D game vs results for Zen, including your usual bet spread)

D.

I found the reason. There was nothing wrong. PE of Zen depends on the number of decks.

I was simulating the 6-deck shoe game I play. With flat betting, I saw no PE improvement of Zen over HiLo. When I switched the deck to 2, I saw effect right away.

My conclusion is it does not pay for me to switch to Zen as long as I play the 6-deck shoe game.

 

[tthree]

I found the reason. There was nothing wrong. PE of Zen depends on the number of decks.

I was simulating the 6-deck shoe game I play. With flat betting, I saw no PE improvement of Zen over HiLo. When I switched the deck to 2, I saw effect right away.

My conclusion is it does not pay for me to switch to Zen as long as I play the 6-deck shoe game.

This demonstrates what many have been saying on this site. Pitch games PE is where you find most of your advantage. In 4+ deck shoe games your advantage is mostly from BC.

 

[psyduck]

Psyduck,

Have you compared apples to apples (ie results for hi-lo on your usual 6D game vs results for Zen, including your usual bet spread)

D.

I used flat betting because I only wanted to compare PE, excluding BC. The only reason I thought about switching to Zen was its higher PE. The BC of HiLo is already high (based on literature). I may try to simulate a betting ramp just to see what happens.

 

[zengrifter]

How is TC calculated in Zen system if it is not RC/unseen decks?

"Snyder's Folly" was the introduction of a 1/4DTC scheme in his '98 and beyond BBiBJ, so called 'True Edge Zen'. Unfortunately and contra-logical, the smaller you make the TC divisor the smaller, not greater, the granularity of the computation. (Assuming that your indices are rounded to whole numbers)

Fred Rensey recognized this and uses a 2DTC for his ZEN-similar Mentor Count, for the increased TC granularity.

Thus we recommend always against using the 1/4DTC "true-edge" ZEN as published. New ZEN aspirants are advised to obtain TC@52cards (or even TC@104cards) indices. zg

 

[bj21abc]

Understood about the flat bet - but BC and PE (and IC) of most systems are easily found. Look at QFIT's site for a good table.

To make an informed decision I would run a sim with the betting ramp. That way you can see what happens to your EV (for same RoR) should you switch systems.

Then add to that the mistakes you would make for a level 2 count and new indices, less attention you can devote to cover, etc....

Not a straightforwards decision.

D.

I used flat betting because I only wanted to compare PE, excluding BC. The only reason I thought about switching to Zen was its higher PE. The BC of HiLo is already high (based on literature). I may try to simulate a betting ramp just to see what happens.

 

[zengrifter]

Then add to that the mistakes you would make for a level 2 count and new indices, less attention you can devote to cover, etc.

For most people who are proficient with simple arithmetic, level-2 counts (Ace-reckoned) do NOT give
rise to increased error or fatigue, any more than 1+2 is more prone to error and fatigue than 1+1. zg

 

[bj21abc]

It depends on who. I do not believe that this is true for "most". Keeping a level 1 count going whilst giving the table x% of your attention as well as keeping a conversation going is hard enough for most.

For most people who are proficient with simple arithmetic, level-2 counts (Ace-reckoned) do NOT give
rise to increased error or fatigue, any more than 1+2 is more prone to error and fatigue than 1+1. zg