Zen Masters, Have you any advice?

[schismist]

I would challenge you to come up with one good reason to use ZEN with 1/4D calibrated-TC (ie, ZTE). zg

I would have to decline your challenge...

Unlike aslan, I never had any intention to use zen. My plan was to learn UBZII for pitch and continue to use TKO for shoe. The main reason for this was that I do find the fractions difficult. I admit it: I have a MSc in Math and I suck at fractions. Oh well... (Of course, if it took me that long to realize that a PhD is for suckers, I must really be a slow learner. )

Switching between these is easy because they both tag the same cards. I just have to count down a deck like 10 times and then I'm back in the other mode.

Now, instead, I'm planning on sucking it up and doing the fractions, unlearning the 7 and switching to Hi-Lo for both. Another impetus for this is that I want to try cutoff tracking.

How can I get my fractions up to speed?

 

[zengrifter]

I would have to decline your challenge...
Unlike aslan, I never had any intention to use zen. My plan was to learn UBZII for pitch and continue to use TKO for shoe. The main reason for this was that I do find the fractions difficult. I admit it: I have a MSc in Math and I suck at fractions. Oh well... How can I get my fractions up to speed?

In the 1984 Blackbelt Snyder gives 1/2 dozen different methods for performing TC WITHOUT fractions or division. Is that not in the current version? zg

 

[schismist]

There are 5 pages on converting to true count, and 2 of them are taken up almost entierly by pictues of balancing scales. I'm assuming there was more before he started with the TE.

He gives 2 alternate methods. One is to multiply the index you're considering by the number of decks remaining and compare to the running count. I'm guessing the advantage of this method is that the denominator always 1,2, or 4. Two is to divide the running count by the index and compare to the number of decks.

They sound okay, but what about betting? And how can I practice?

 

[zengrifter]

One is to multiply the index you're considering by the number of decks remaining and compare to the running count. I'm guessing the advantage of this method is that the denominator always 1,2, or 4.

There. No fractional division!

As for betting, thats the easy part WHEN you are using 1D TC calibration.

BUT, maybe UBZ is the one for you. zg

 

[schismist]

Okay, I've written a little computer program to test me. I'm ignoring 3.5 decks because I hate 7s. If I can replace 1.75 by 2, then I can replace 3.5 by 4, right?

A question about negative counts: is a TC of -1.5 rounded to -1 or -2, when comparing to the usual published indices. For example, I should hit 16v10 against any negative hi-lo running count, right? So, by extrapolation, if I have a TC of -1.5, I should hit 13v2 (index -1), but not a 12v5 (index -2)?

In other words, do I continue to round down (i.e. to a larger negative number when the count is negative? "Hit on the left"?

Thanks for all your help zg, I think I'm getting somewhere...

 

[schismist]

I measured a bunch of stacks of cards today because I had suspected that gravity would make the height rise nonlinearly with the number of decks. To my surprise, it actually was linear. Each deck is about 5/8 in. Can you actually tell the difference between 4.5 and 4.75 decks in the discard tray in a 80% 6 deck game? This would be between 2 13/16 in and 2 31/32 in...

Or is the 1.25 deck divisor only necessary in pitch?

 

[zengrifter]

Okay, I've written a little computer program to test me. I'm ignoring 3.5 decks because I hate 7s. If I can replace 1.75 by 2, then I can replace 3.5 by 4, right?

Yes.

A question about negative counts: is a TC of -1.5 rounded to -1 or -2,

Up to -1

In other words, do I continue to round down (i.e. to a larger negative number when the count is negative? "Hit on the left"?

Actually, it doesn't matter - re-read my interview, and flip a coin. zg

 

[zengrifter]

I measured a bunch of stacks of cards today because I had suspected that gravity would make the height rise nonlinearly with the number of decks. To my surprise, it actually was linear. Each deck is about 5/8 in. Can you actually tell the difference between 4.5 and 4.75 decks in the discard tray in a 80% 6 deck game? This would be between 2 13/16 in and 2 31/32 in...

Yes. Its not about inch-measurement - its about proportionate estimation. USE SOFTWARE FOR DRILLS. zg

 

[aslan]

Three thoughts -

1. You should practice with software drills.
2. If the TC adjustment is slowing you down too much you should switch to UB'd - UBZ-2, etc.
3. You mentioned "True Edge" - IF you are learning ZEN 'True Edge' , stop. TE is a 1/4D TC and is inferior for betting accuracy. You need 1D or 2D TC ZEN indices and method. zg

I just ordered Smart Cards software. Thanks!