Curious about Clark Cant's level 2 Precision Count

I pulled my copy of Michael Dalton's Blackjack: a Professional Reference off of the bookshelf a couple of days ago to revisit a topic in the "C" section, and wouldn't you know I happened to notice one of the listings as follows:

Cant, Clark. See Precision Count

After leafing over to the "P" section, I find the following entry:

Precision Count. {PCS/L2} Also called the C-K Count (Clark Cant and Paul Keen) (c1982)

The tag values were also included and the count has a BC of .97 and a PE of .62

First of all, I will first state that I have no intention of moving from the Hi-Lo with 30 indicies that I currently employ for the 6 deckers that I play, to a level two count. I vaguely recall a reference by Clarke in one of his rambling posts something about this count, but I am curious as to the history behind its development. Has this count been published anywhere, and if so, where? If not, how was it included in Dalton's book? Does anyone use this count, including it's co-developer, Clarke Cant? Does anyone else have any thoughts or information regarding this count?

Just curious,
Telescopic

I had a Timex Sinclair 1000, with the thermal printer that was sold with it. Paul Keen had just gone to work at GBC in Las Vegas. I had an algebraic index program that fit in the 16K with all the Griffin EORs. When people can to Paul asking about indexes, I was in the next day with the indexes, and the correlations for each decision, and the one deck and infinite deck index printed on THERMAL PAPER.

Las Vegas gets hot.....duh.

So there was plenty of repeat business from people leaving their "scrolls" in their car in the hot sun.

But there were also some people, including DS himself requesting the program, in one instance, who liked the idea of having algebraic indexes for various counts to compare to. This was especially true for those who were playing the level 2 Revere point count. Full indexes were not sold for a time after Lawrence Revere AKA Spec Parsons died, until his daughter picked up the business again.

Along with these people were many that asked about converting from the Revere level 2 count to the Zen count, and said they were having problems with it. With that Paul Keen, and me, Clarke Cant, came up with the CK count, that had the values of:
(Ace to tens) -1,1,2,2,2,2,1,0,-1,-2

This was close to the Revere level 2 point count values, but still gained much of the Zen like weighting of the ace.

I never used this count, but had already learned the Zen count, and the same program produced the corrected indexes that Snyder put in the first edition of Blackbelt in Blackjack. It has a hair less PE and and hair more BE but it is perfect for Revere players who could still use the Revere, in shoe games, but use the CK in pitch games if they chosed too.

I personaly use the Uston +/- generally and switch to the Zen in really good singel and double deck games.

And there you have the entire developement!

Sales of the delicate scrolls were fun and Paul and I liked to tease Howard Swartz with our games as well. Later Grifter (watch your bankrolls kids) came up with the idea of playing the Zen in most games and going to the AOII for really deep pitch games similarly.

dumper doesn't dump you off the rge board.

... CC when you say, "Later Grifter came up with the idea of playing the Zen in most games and going to the AOII for really deep pitch games." Actually, it was Paul Keene who first came up with that novelty. He often used AO2 for pitch games, and Zen (with AO2 indices) against shoes. He wryly called it the "Zomega 2 System." Paul told me this himself a few years before he passed away.

fuzzbuster

The truth in regard to what you insinuate is far stranger than you can handle. It is just a count, not some stupid hold. I detect some wish that I had some secret that would prove a plot to uphold counting versus progressions or something. Believe me there may be psychokinesis and remote viewing, I am sure there is, but everything, EVERYTHING, is subject to the same rules of math and logic that show how counting works.

What secrets I do have don't uphold progressions or any other nonsense. As for the hope that I have something on DS or AS, well I tell you about derivatives that don't exist, or index numbers that didn't match Wong's until Wong went to his unusual rounding in his 1995 edition of PBJ, but there is no plot, no secret that suits your purposes. I could point you to a bank merger IA consulted on, but there is nothing that makes Burning.... any less than a true book on useful tactics to play blackjack for high stakes and little heat--and that despite some very high real ID heat IA had.

I could even point you to some papers by Targ and others on mathematical measures of psi ability that could even explain why you might still win with a losing progression, but you would have to accept that math applies to voodoo too!

So you are reaching for something that does not exist!!!!

So despite my actually very grounded disputes there is nothing for you.

I forgot about Paul coming up with that originally. I used to chide Paul about changing counts so often, that I forgot how he settled on this. Just shows how conventionalism can cause anyone, EVEN me, to edit out some things. Here I was so used to Paul shifting counts that I fuzzed out this.

Clearly written and easy to follow.
You could have easily gone into your code word - catch phrase mode and nobody would have know what the hell you were talking about.
Good Job.

I hope you go the point I made to Frank, and in my answer to fuzzbuster. We are all subject to that "not my problem field," that we all tend to edit reality down to our hat size. In this context I was so used to chiding Paul about switching counts so often, that I forgot about his very valid and accurate final solution to this dialemna. So I guilty often too.

that is always finding the 'patterns' in the random chaos.

I was refering to the fact that you are in "The BJ encyclopedia"
Good bad or indifferent- that is recognition, at least by Mike Dalton.

My typos! Argh!

of what you speak. If you really want to know--obvious crack omitted--you would search groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe on zengrifter's reposting of a more private series of posts I made, that he retitled, "A Blanket Party for Don." That is all the facts that exist in regard to your original post. There is no other data.

Your noting of my being in the Encyclopedia, is an evasion of sorts, or is different from your original post. IMHO you still are trolling for information that would support your claims of a conspiracy to hide some flaw that is hidden by the counting world. That does not exist.

The last time anyone attempted to get information from me like this was a scam from two dishonest Treasury agents, who are now diseased, whose motive was far more sinister. They offered to use any dirt I had in exchange for something unrelated. When they made a similar unrelated offer to a friend what he did was ruled justifiable________. I chose not to aid such activities even when they target people I find objectionable. What they had in mind was reopening the investigations mentioned in The Predictors, but with a truly disgusting quid pro quo attached, and a certain twist I don't care to explain.

Their company is very poor company to be in.

I doubt you have their motive, but this is an example of trying, to create things that don't exist, or make connections that don't exist, and the dumb scams that usualy follow along.

The CCC post will have things that actually answer your question, and as I posted before, will not be the information you seek, because the information you seek never existed and never can exist!

they desisted only when deceased! When they deceased the 2 dishonest T-men were running other scams.

You are only being dishonest to yourself, looking for that magic flaw!

you are starting to sound as fat headed as the dumper. NO
conspriacy- just plain stupidity-unseen by all the PHDs etc, etc.
AND it is hidden real well-in plain sight.

the dumbest dead ex-wife ;-)!