Speed counting new level II systems

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

I got into this counting game backasswords. Learned to count before basic strategy. Geezus! So glad i never lost my shirt.

But be that as it may it seems am learning the Zen approach quickly. Speed not quite as fast as Hi/Lo yet but gaining. Can use the fast cycle of the site trainer and still with count fairly well. Not sure i want to bring it into the casino yet though.

Zen clearly shows an improvement in winnings. Even on the low end. Almost tempted to bet a little higher at the extreme end as it seems more predictable. But then this is stupid because even when I'm hitting stiffs against dealers stiff and winning it just raises the percentage, not the advantage. Can't double or split when below negative 1 T/C.

So one of the benefits of Zen is flat betting the low end instead of wonging out. Nullifies some of the house edge while waiting for the final deck of a large shoe which could turn positive.

I can't wait to see the look on a few players at the table when hitting twelve against dealers six. In the low T/C anyway.

 

[jack.jackson]

I got into this counting game backasswords. Learned to count before basic strategy. Geezus! So glad i never lost my shirt.

But be that as it may it seems am learning the Zen approach quickly. Speed not quite as fast as Hi/Lo yet but gaining. Can use the fast cycle of the site trainer and still with count fairly well. Not sure i want to bring it into the casino yet though.

Zen clearly shows an improvement in winnings. Even on the low end. Almost tempted to bet a little higher at the extreme end as it seems more predictable. But then this is stupid because even when I'm hitting stiffs against dealers stiff and winning it just raises the percentage, not the advantage. Can't double or split when below negative 1 T/C.

So one of the benefits of Zen is flat betting the low end instead of wonging out. Nullifies some of the house edge while waiting for the final deck of a large shoe which could turn positive.

I can't wait to see the look on a few players at the table when hitting twelve against dealers six. In the low T/C anyway.

Ya Zens a pretty smoothe count. You'll especially notice the difference in single and double deck games,like when the RC(TC) goes from -12(-8)* to +4(1Deckremain)from one hand to the next. When such extreme fluxs occur in the TC like that, from one hand to the next(12) I tend to get even a little more agressive with my playing strategy. For example, because a total RC of +16(TC+12) came out in just one round of play. I would be more inclined to make a aggressive play that requires a TC of +5 or even +6.

*Means 1.5 decks left to play. Note: IM dividing by 2/3 Here, NOT 3/4 as you might suppose.

Another great feature I like about Zen is that the eights and nines are neutral. Which not only makes it easier to count, it serves great for INS purposes. I like to INS one hand@ +3 when playing X2, and 1/4 of my bet when playing one hand.
Zen also great has great accuracy for paticular hands, opposed to a ace-neutral counts. Because of the reckoned ace. Like hard doubling on 8,9,10 and splitting tens. I actually learned this by learning both the A02 and ZEN.

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

Ya Zens a pretty smooth count. You'll especially notice the difference in single and double deck games,like when the RC(TC) goes from -12(-8)* to +4(1Deckremain)from one hand to the next. When such extreme fluxs occur in the TC like that, from one hand to the next(12) I tend to get even a little more aggressive with my playing strategy. For example, because a total RC of +16(TC+12) came out in just one round of play. I would be more inclined to make a aggressive play that requires a TC of +5 or even +6.

*Means 1.5 decks left to play. Note: IM dividing by 2/3 Here, NOT 3/4 as you might suppose.

Another great feature I like about Zen is that the eights and nines are neutral. Which not only makes it easier to count, it serves great for INS purposes. I like to INS one hand@ +3 when playing X2, and 1/4 of my bet when playing one hand.
Zen also great has great accuracy for particular hands, opposed to a ace-neutral counts. Because of the reckoned ace. Like hard doubling on 8,9,10 and splitting tens. I actually learned this by learning both the A02 and ZEN.

OK I'm glad you brought that up because it made me realize there could be something skewered with my TC conversion. You're numbers ain't matching mine and I suspect it is me not you.

Somewhere i read that Zen is measured in a half deck divisor in order to get the TC. So I'd simply taken the running count, split it in half and divided the remainder by the decks left in the shoe.

BUT those numbers might not match yours...

OR crap maybe they do.

Do me a favor, check my math:

Zen Count, six deck shoe, half the cards played, R/C = +12 T/C = +2 OK?

Hi/Lo, six deck shoe half the cards played, R/C = +6 T/C = +2 OK?

Whatever I'm doing it's working OK and leads to a long term advantage. However i didn't read a book on the subject. Just got the formula from somewhere off the internet.

 

[jack.jackson]

Oh Boy!

OK I'm glad you brought that up because it made me realize there could be something skewered with my TC conversion. You're numbers ain't matching mine and I suspect it is me not you.

Somewhere i read that Zen is measured in a half deck divisor in order to get the TC. So I'd simply taken the running count, split it in half and divided the remainder by the decks left in the shoe.

BUT those numbers might not match yours...

OR crap maybe they do.

Do me a favor, check my math:

Zen Count, six deck shoe, half the cards played, R/C = +12 T/C = +2 OK?

Hi/Lo, six deck shoe half the cards played, R/C = +6 T/C = +2 OK?

Whatever I'm doing it's working OK and leads to a long term advantage. However i didn't read a book on the subject. Just got the formula from somewhere off the internet.

First things First. My above example, is a specific and seperate issue, when compared to the true count method, when calculating by full-deck or by half-deck.
Its also important to note than we dont confuse this issue when comparing the differences between a level 1 count and a level 2 count.
Irrelevant, of which level count were using. When calculating the TC, it will be done one of two ways.
By full deck or by half deck. In your example above, not only is one a level 1 and ones a level 2, but it appears as if 1 is done by half-deck and 1 is done by full deck.
Its important to note that when your using the 1/2 deck method, your indices will be 1/2 the value, when opposed to using the full deck method.
Heres an example: 3 decks left in a 6 deck game=is equal to 6, one-half decks.
And a RC of +6 is =+2 in full deck mode.(6/3)
And a RC of +6 is = +1 in half deck mode.(6/6)
So as you see, if your using full deck mode, your Indices are gonna be twice that of 1/2 deck mode.
9vs2=+2(FDM)is the same thing, as 9vs2=+1(HDM)

Zen grifter, help me out, is this right?

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

First things First. My above example, is a specific and seperate issue, when compared to the true count method, when calculating by full-deck or by half-deck.
Its also important to note than we dont confuse this issue when comparing the differences between a level 1 count and a level 2 count.
Irrelevant, of which level count were using. When calculating the TC, it will be done one of two ways.
By full deck or by half deck. In your example above, not only is one a level 1 and ones a level 2, but it appears as if 1 is done by half-deck and 1 is done by full deck.
Its important to note that when your using the 1/2 deck method, your indices will be 1/2 the value, when opposed to using the full deck method.
Heres an example: 3 decks left in a 6 deck game=is equal to 6, one-half decks.
And a RC of +6 is =+2 in full deck mode.(6/3)
And a RC of +6 is = +1 in half deck mode.(6/6)
So as you see, if your using full deck mode, your Indices are gonna be twice that of 1/2 deck mode.
9vs2=+2(FDM)is the same thing, as 9vs2=+1(HDM)

Zen grifter, help me out, is this right?

Thank you Jack,

We've been on the same page. I'm an old dog and have trouble with the new tricks.

However the way i visualize a half deck conversion is to forget about the half deck altogether. Take HALF the running count (easier to divide anyway) of a level two system THEN divide by the remaining decks.

In other words: Figuring all the half decks remaining in the shoe is tricky. Especially when you're working harder to play by the more advanced count. A full deck is what, about 5/8ths an inch? Easier to visualize in the discard tray and subtract from the whole shoe.

That biatch of a Sixth grade teacher taught me that trick "Simplify before you multiply or divide". Way back when she was a certifiably awful person but maybe that's why I remember the lesson.

 

[zengrifter]

I got into this counting game backasswords. Learned to count before basic strategy. Geezus! So glad i never lost my shirt.

But be that as it may it seems am learning the Zen approach quickly. Speed not quite as fast as Hi/Lo yet but gaining. Can use the fast cycle of the site trainer and still with count fairly well. Not sure i want to bring it into the casino yet though.

Zen clearly shows an improvement in winnings. Even on the low end. Almost tempted to bet a little higher at the extreme end as it seems more predictable. But then this is stupid because even when I'm hitting stiffs against dealers stiff and winning it just raises the percentage, not the advantage. Can't double or split when below negative 1 T/C.

So one of the benefits of Zen is flat betting the low end instead of wonging out. Nullifies some of the house edge while waiting for the final deck of a large shoe which could turn positive.

I can't wait to see the look on a few players at the table when hitting twelve against dealers six. In the low T/C anyway.

Remember that you are nOT going to learn the 1/4D 'true-edge' version in the current Blackelt. You will learn either a 1D-TC or 2D-TC version. zg