How to learn Zen Count?

[Mark1234]

Hi.
I wouild like to learn Zen Count - I have Arnold Snyder's "Blackbelt in Blackjack" book, but I have found that Zengrifter adviced not to learn from this book, so I ask if You could guide me to some topics about how to lern Zen Count, or prowide any tips etc.
[You have to believe me - I have searched this forum, but I couldn't find any information, excetp this: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm ].
I would be grateful for any advices.
Mark.

P.S Sorry for my english - I know it's far from perfect.

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

I'm new to it but have noticed Zen to be similar to Hi/Lo but with more edge in the neutral or lower counts. Seems helpful that it tracks sevens as +1.

Seven seems to be a fairly powerful card for the dealer.

Anyway from what i know (blind leading the blind) Zen is a level two count. Thus the running count should fluctuate about twice as much as Hi/Lo. This needs to be accounted for when doing the True Count conversion.

I'm still not using it at the tables because I'm so quick at Hi/Lo it that doesn't seem worth the risk of making the switch at this point in time. However I'm learning to count Zen better and better each day on the trainer. Part of it seems to be grouping +2 cards with -2 cards.

Like 4, 5, 6 negates J, Q, 10.

Previously I'd have counted the above cards as

Plus one Plus one Plus one Plus one Plus one Plus one

Minus one Minus one Minus one Minus one Minus one Minus one

Takes too many brain cells.

These days I'm just beginning to feel really comfortable at the tables and don't want to rock the boat.

 

[rollem411]

For the Zen system:

2,3,7 = +1

4,5,6 = +2

8,9 = 0

T,J,Q,K = +2

A = -1

Just practice counting and stick with this forum daily. Everyone is willing to help with anything and has helped me plenty so far and I've only been a member for a couple weeks.

http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm

This site gives you many systems to learn if you decide to go another way.

 

[Mark1234]

Thanks for answers.
It will be easier if I write here what I'm exactly looking for:
1.TC conversion - will it be enough if I divde my RC by decks left to be dealt? For instance: D6 game, RC: 12, decks left: 3, TC=4? If it is not so easy - correct me please
2. What about deck estimation in TC conversion - should I divide by halves/quarters fo decks, or round to full decks? If round to full decks - round up or down?
3. What about betting ramp - is it necessary to make conversion for true edge, or can I use TC conversion ? And where to find these ramps (1-10, 1-12, 1-15, 1-20)?
4. Zengrifter mentioned in the interview about easier to learn round indices - any source of these indices?...

 

[Brock Windsor]

Hi.
I wouild like to learn Zen Count - I have Arnold Snyder's "Blackbelt in Blackjack" book, but I have found that Zengrifter adviced not to learn from this book, so I ask if You could guide me to some topics about how to lern Zen Count, or prowide any tips etc.
[You have to believe me - I have searched this forum, but I couldn't find any information, excetp this: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm ].
I would be grateful for any advices.
Mark.

P.S Sorry for my english - I know it's far from perfect.

I'm not a Zen counter but I would think Blackbelt in Blackjack to be a very good source. Not sure why zg would advise against learning from it. The book has all the rounded index numbers, TE conversion, betting according to bankroll, tags...Snyder has proven that rounded index #s are essentially as powerful as exact numbers. Snyder is one of the all time greats, I would trust what he has published.
BW

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

Thanks for answers.
It will be easier if I write here what I'm exactly looking for:
1.TC conversion - will it be enough if I divde my RC by decks left to be dealt? For instance: D6 game, RC: 12, decks left: 3, TC=4? If it is not so easy - correct me please
2. What about deck estimation in TC conversion - should I divide by halves/quarters for decks, or round to full decks? If round to full decks - round up or down?
3. What about betting ramp - is it necessary to make conversion for true edge, or can I use TC conversion ? And where to find these ramps (1-10, 1-12, 1-15, 1-20)?
4. Zengrifter mentioned in the interview about easier to learn round indices - any source of these indices?...

My understanding is that you could divide the running count by two first THEN divide from the remaining two decks. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Instead of "RC = 12, decks left: 3, TC=4?"??? Incorrect.

R/C = 12/2 = 6. Then divide 6 by 3 decks left = TC 2.

Remember Zen uses a doubling of some card values. Well almost as some numbers like 2 and ace retain the same value as before in Hi/Low. So the divisor of 2 against the R/C should give the number you want to then divide by the remaining decks.

Other people have explained to "divide the R/C by remaining half decks" but that's stupid. You've already learned to estimate remaining full decks so why f with figuring half decks?

With three full decks remaining sure you could divide the R/C by six half decks but this makes for a more difficult assessment while playing.

12/.50 decks? Silly

12/2/3 = 2TC.

So I think anyway.

 

[rollem411]

My understanding is that you could divide the running count by two first THEN divide from the remaining two decks. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Instead of "RC = 12, decks left: 3, TC=4?"??? Incorrect.

R/C = 12/2 = 6. Then divide 6 by 3 decks left = TC 2.

Remember Zen uses a doubling of some card values. Well almost as some numbers like 2 and ace retain the same value as before in Hi/Low. So the divisor of 2 against the R/C should give the number you want to then divide by the remaining decks.

Other people have explained to "divide the R/C by remaining half decks" but that's stupid. You've already learned to estimate remaining full decks so why f with figuring half decks?

With three full decks remaining sure you could divide the R/C by six half decks but this makes for a more difficult assessment while playing.

12/.50 decks? Silly

12/2/3 = 2TC.

So I think anyway.

I don't think this is correct. I posted something like this on another thread. You divided the original RC of 12 by 2 because of the added value to the 4,5,6, but this is because they are more effective cards. This is where the BE comes in. You would be messing with it because you divide by 2 then by the remaining decks. I think Mark had it correct or at least hope because thats how I've been playing for a bit now.

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

I don't think this is correct. I posted something like this on another thread. You divided the original RC of 12 by 2 because of the added value to the 4,5,6, but this is because they are more effective cards. This is where the BE comes in. You would be messing with it because you divide by 2 then by the remaining decks. I think Mark had it correct or at least hope because thats how I've been playing for a bit now.

Look at it this way:

Both Zen and Hi/Lo are BALANCED counts.

Zen: All the positive numbers 1+1+2+2+2+1 = 9

All the negative numbers -1-2-2-2-2 = -9

-9 + 9 = 0



Hi/Lo +1+1+1+1+1 = 5

-1-1-1-1-1 = -5

cancel each other out EXCEPT...

Except that the Zen count is near double the swing as Hi/Lo.

Therefor in Zen the divisor of the running count prior to division of the remaining decks would be closer to 2. Rounded for convenience. Not an exact divisor as 9 isn't quite twice the value of 5. But it should be close enough to gain an edge. So I think.

 

[rollem411]

Look at it this way:

Both Zen and Hi/Lo are BALANCED counts.

Zen: All the positive numbers 1+1+2+2+2+1 = 9

All the negative numbers -1-2-2-2-2 = -9

-9 + 9 = 0



Hi/Lo +1+1+1+1+1 = 5

-1-1-1-1-1 = -5

cancel each other out EXCEPT...

Except that the Zen count is near double the swing as Hi/Lo.

Therefor in Zen the divisor of the running count prior to division of the remaining decks would be closer to 2. Rounded for convenience. Not an exact divisor as 9 isn't quite twice the value of 5. But it should be close enough to gain an edge. So I think.

I see where your coming from, but it seems like you are trying to convert the play back to a hi-lo count, which wouldn't make sense to count a level 2 system only to switch it to a level 1.

For when you say the Zen count is double the swing as Hi-lo, it is supposed to be because it is a better system. If you use the link I posted above it shows the difference between the BC, PE, and IC. The BC is actually higher in Hi-Lo, but if you look at the PE and IC there is a huge difference in favor of Zen. By dividing by 2 you will lose the edge you gained by using the Zen count. Using index play for the Zen count will then be wrong and throw off your whole game. Anyone else have any thoughts?

 

[zengrifter]

Thanks for answers.
It will be easier if I write here what I'm exactly looking for:
1.TC conversion - will it be enough if I divde my RC by decks left to be dealt? For instance: D6 game, RC: 12, decks left: 3, TC=4?

Correct.

2. What about deck estimation in TC conversion - should I divide by halves/quarters fo decks, or round to full decks? If round to full decks - round up or down??

Depends on remaining decks -

3-8Ds round down to full decks.
1-3Ds round down to half decks
1/4-1D round down to quarter decks

3. What about betting ramp - is it necessary to make conversion for true edge, or can I use TC conversion ?

TC (per deck)

And where to find these ramps (1-10, 1-12, 1-15, 1-20)?

Someone please give Mark some ZEN betting advice/ramps.

4. Zengrifter mentioned in the interview about easier to learn round indices - any source of these indices?...

Start with these indices (multideck version), then round them per the interview using only the 'Grifter-60' -
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm

zg

.

 

[ThePloppyInTheAlohaShirt]

I see where your coming from, but it seems like you are trying to convert the play back to a hi-lo count, which wouldn't make sense to count a level 2 system only to switch it to a level 1.

For when you say the Zen count is double the swing as Hi-lo, it is supposed to be because it is a better system. If you use the link I posted above it shows the difference between the BC, PE, and IC. The BC is actually higher in Hi-Lo, but if you look at the PE and IC there is a huge difference in favor of Zen. By dividing by 2 you will lose the edge you gained by using the Zen count. Using index play for the Zen count will then be wrong and throw off your whole game. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Dividing by two just scales the zen count to similar values from hi-lo. It does not discard any information gained from using level two tags. It would be the same as changing your tags to 1/2 for 2, 3, and 7, and 1 for 4, 5, and 6.

This scaling is probably only useful for people learning zen after becoming proficient with a balanced level one count. The scaled zen count will be similar to the hi-lo count and most of the indices will be the same (to obtain the correct indices for the scaled zen count, one would need to divide the full-deck indices linked in the top message by 2 as well).

Aloha

 

[zengrifter]

Dividing by two just scales the zen count to similar values from hi-lo. It does not discard any information gained from using level two tags. It would be the same as changing your tags to 1/2 for 2, 3, and 7, and 1 for 4, 5, and 6.

This scaling is probably only useful for people learning zen after becoming proficient with a balanced level one count. The scaled zen count will be similar to the hi-lo count and most of the indices will be the same (to obtain the correct indices for the scaled zen count, one would need to divide the full-deck indices linked in the top message by 2 as well).

Aloha

Yes - 1D Hilo indices = 1/2D ZEN indices. zg

 

[rollem411]

Dividing by two just scales the zen count to similar values from hi-lo. It does not discard any information gained from using level two tags. It would be the same as changing your tags to 1/2 for 2, 3, and 7, and 1 for 4, 5, and 6.

This scaling is probably only useful for people learning zen after becoming proficient with a balanced level one count. The scaled zen count will be similar to the hi-lo count and most of the indices will be the same (to obtain the correct indices for the scaled zen count, one would need to divide the full-deck indices linked in the top message by 2 as well).

Aloha

I don't think we are on the same page. You said to divide by 2 to get the indices for Hi-Lo. But what about the TC for betting spreads? I always thought the formula was.

TC = RC/Decks remaining.....not

TC = RC/2/Decks remaining

 

[ThePloppyInTheAlohaShirt]

I don't think we are on the same page. You said to divide by 2 to get the indices for Hi-Lo. But what about the TC for betting spreads? I always thought the formula was.

TC = RC/Decks remaining.....not

TC = RC/2/Decks remaining

You just need to know what you want to bet at a given TC based on the way you compute that TC. Here's two ways to look at the same spread.

For TC = RC/#decks
TC Units
<2 1
2 2
4 4
6 6
8 2x6

For TC = RC/2/#decks
TC Units
<1 1
1 2
2 4
3 6
4 2x6

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

You just need to know what you want to bet at a given TC based on the way you compute that TC. Here's two ways to look at the same spread.

For TC = RC/#decks
TC Units
<2 1
2 2
4 4
6 6
8 2x6

For TC = RC/2/#decks
TC Units
<1 1
1 2
2 4
3 6
4 2x6

Help me out here.

I want to play the LOW limit tables. Five measly bucks min. My five clams isn't my "unit" but the lowest sum I want to drop in a neutral or low count.

My "unit" will be $20.00 with a spread up to between $80.00 and $120.00

So with that in mind help me figure.

I suppose i could put down

$20.00 at TC+1
$40.00 at TC+2
$60.00 at TC+4
$80.00 etc

 

[zengrifter]

I always thought the formula was.

TC = RC/Decks remaining.....not

TC = RC/2/Decks remaining

You are correct. I don't know where he came up with /2, but that would be the same as 1/2DTC, which is inferior to 1DTC and 2DTC. zg

 

[ThePloppyInTheAlohaShirt]

Help me out here.

I want to play the LOW limit tables. Five measly bucks min. My five clams isn't my "unit" but the lowest sum I want to drop in a neutral or low count.

My "unit" will be $20.00 with a spread up to between $80.00 and $120.00

So with that in mind help me figure.

I suppose i could put down

$20.00 at TC+1
$40.00 at TC+2
$60.00 at TC+4
$80.00 etc

Here's something rough for your TC = RC/2/#decks

TC Bet Advantage
<1 $5 negative
1 $10 about even
2 $20 about .5%
3 $40 about 1%
4 $80 about 1.5%
5 $120 about 2%

Its probably not terribly close to optimal, but you're never more than doubling your bet and none of the bets work out to weird fractions of your $20 unit.

 

[ThePloppyInTheAlohaShirt]

You are correct. I don't know where he came up with /2, but that would be the same as 1/2DTC, which is inferior to 1DTC and 2DTC. zg

The only weakness I see is that when Irish divides his RC by 2, he's performing an additional operation at the table. Dividing by half decks remaining or using 1/2 scale tags gets around that (at the table anyway). Otherwise its just the full deck TC scaled down by a factor of 2.

Is this the basis of your inferiority comment? Or do you see another weakness?

 

[zengrifter]

Here's something rough for your TC = RC/2/#decks

TC Bet Advantage
<1 $5 negative
1 $10 about even
2 $20 about .5%
3 $40 about 1%
4 $80 about 1.5%
5 $120 about 2%

Its probably not terribly close to optimal, but you're never more than doubling your bet and none of the bets work out to weird fractions of your $20 unit.

Please do it in reg 1DTC too. zg

 

[ThePloppyInTheAlohaShirt]

Please do it in reg 1DTC too. zg

Easy enough. For TC = RC/#decks:

TC Bet Advantage
<2 $5 negative
2 $10 about even
4 $20 about .5%
6 $40 about 1%
8 $80 about 1.5%
10 $120 about 2%

Aloha