Well I am glad I have always been and continue to be blessed. Perhaps the difference is motive. I never try to say I am the best, I try to help others see better ways if they want to pursue them. Since I have done so much of my own research into largely unexplored avenues, often with the help of or in collaboration of others (thanks to these people that have proved so valuable in aiding me), I often speak of things nobody else knows about. Because I share or hint at what others don't and can't know people say I am trying to sound smarter than others.ZenKinG said:
The 8 has absolutely no betting value to the game whatsoever. And the fact that the 7 is slightly plus while the 9 is slightly minus is uninteresting, because Ralph Stricker's Silver Fox count is weaker than Hi-Lo and yet reckons both the 7 and the 9.psyduck said:
People see the sim results and want to understand how they are possible but they just make comments like the last few about looking at ranks individually instead of looking at how related deck compositions and rank interactions. The EoRs people are referencing are for a full deck. The EoR of many ranks vary quite a bit by deck composition. I have counters' EoRs that work off the concept that if you only play positive deck compositions the EoRs that matter are the EoRs when you have an advantage not neutral deck EoRs. Like you all are with me, I was skeptical even though the logic was sound. The researcher said it was quite a powerful way to construct counts for advantage play.psyduck said:
You know what else has near perfect betting correlation. HALVES. And I make no errors either. And i play only +2 and higher. Wont find many people out there playing as perfect a counting game as you can play. My edge is around 2.5% these days with no heat. Reason you wont find many pure backcounters is because not many people have my discipline. Then again thats why I say Im the best. I dont just say it to say it.KewlJ said:I hesitate to say anything more, as we have been over all this. But....
It's not that Thr-ummy's math is wrong. It is that it just don't matter very much. It really doesn't. And this isn't a new argument. This same argument took place decades ago. It was about the time I was born, maybe before. All these different higher level counts. That's all Thr-ummy is doing....an extension of that old argument. It isn't new. It isn't some grand "thinking outside the box" BS. It really isn't.
And guess what? Back in the 70's and 80's it didn't mater and it doesn't today either. There is a reason why Uston never played his own advanced count. There is a reason why everyone doesn't play the Thorp Ultimate count, which has almost perfect betting correlation. Two words: Diminishing returns. It just isn't worth the effort and any gain that these math guys show on paper disappears in real life play with just a slightly higher error rate. I mean come on, look at some of these known players of the last couple decades, including various teams....the MIT team for god sakes. Generally some pretty smart folks go to MIT. Why did they decide to keep things relatively simple? Diminishing returns.
AND in this day and age of shoe games, those diminishing returns are even less significant than ever. This whole exercise by Thr-ummy is one of those things that looks good on paper (clinical) but has little or minimal value in real life play. These ideas are just not how you win at blackjack.
I am not advocating for any particular count. People should play whatever they decide is right for them. I just don't like (never have) these unreasonable, unrealistic, expectations that come with all this nonsense. It's just not fair. It is misleading....and I am being polite by not using harsher language.
It's called KARMA...ZenKinG said:
How did you completely miss everything I said about me NOW only purely backcounting? In fact I've purely backcounted most of my career, but now that's all I do and refuse to play heads up for several reasons. For some odd reason, I just can't win heads up with 2 hands, I don't know why and I don't believe this is selective memory anymore. First off, I don't buy the argument that heads up provides a higher win rate than purely backcounting simply because you're getting more rounds per hour. Yeah, you might get SLIGHTLY more rounds, BUT only if their aren't any other tables open because a good backcounter can get the same rounds as someone who plays heads up if there's a lot of tables to bounce back and forth backcounting. Besides, the slightly more rounds you MIGHT get heads up are offset by all the negative expectation bets you're placing off the top waiting for +1 and higher. Not to mention heads up exposes you to these drone pit bosses since they have a 'checklist' to spot a counter and the main thing on that checklist is spread.KewlJ said:
SplitFaceDisaster said:
First, I track 8s and 9s together. This is like Tarzan's count. Just the third group is presented in side count form. Because you count every rank, the variance is reduced and the P/E is greatly improved. The only drawback is when you buy insurance using AccuZen (short for Accurate Zen), even if you are right, the dealer downcard can be an ace. But Zen put face card double weight the ace, so the problem is not severe. I invent this counting system and divide it into five levels. Level 1 is the standard Zen. The differences among level 3, level 4 and level 5 are the numbers of the included indexes. Level 3 has the most important indexes. With penetration 84% (1D cut off 6D), PA rule set, Level 3 AccuZen has SCORE of $53.50.SplitFaceDisaster said:
Good luck convincing any of them of that. They deny any value of gathering and using info differently. If you account for all the cards you should use the info differently than they do to get the most out of it. I know you are a researcher, combine the way Moses and Tarzan used their column counts and adapt it to your information gathered. The information will still be more powerful if you think creatively. As a researcher I assume you think creatively. Non-researchers only need to be a disciplined sponge that socks up other peoples research in order to use it. It does get the money and they can have a subset of knowledge that works well for them. But they won't understand what people like Tarzan or Moses do or where it generates its power from. Hell, Tarzan took a level one count and made it more powerful than any of the published multi-level counts just by using information differently for playing decisions. He mostly missed the opportunity to use it for betting but did some minor tweaking. But I am sure he did a lot of fine tuning with Gronbog that since we traded information about our systems. Everyone before Gronbog said it could be simmed but none would actually make a simulator that could sim it. Then the blamed Tarzan for not having the stat to back up his claims. That is like saying I know how you can fly to the next star system but never helping you to do it and then blaming you for not having done what nobody has invented the means to do. Well I guess Tarzan got the last laugh when the sims came out by being able to transform a level 1 count into the strongest count. I always said the biggest advantage of his system was in longevity but some people only see value in numbers. Now they have to eat crow. Just think if Tarzan used the information in a multilevel way rather than a level 1 count.BJgenius007 said: