> The multiplication by four damages both playing and
> betting accuracy.

I've seen the posts on the various sites regarding this subject, however, it is important to me to understand this issue since I use the True Edge Zen but am considering switching to the "half-deck" or "full-deck" Zen. Your point that the TE results in less resolution in the playing indices is strong and, by itself, probably enough to switch. The betting issue,however, is less clear to me although you say it is more of a concern to you (I play 6-deck shoes so it is of concern to me as well). My thought is that a Kelly-bettor (or more precisely, a half-Kelly bettor) is best served by knowing the % advantage at any particular point. The True Count (as opposed to the True Edge) is simply a proxy for the % advantage while the True Edge is the precise % advantage (though not exactly precise since each Zen point = .29% and not .25% as implied by the "times 4" divisor to determine the TE.) Ramping my bets based on "fractional" advantage is not a problem for me (Kelly-betting should be based on advantage, fractional or not as I mentioned above), and I understand that the floating advantage (i.e. non-linearity of the advantage as the deck depletes)is not a major issue. Is this the only problem with the betting? Is there any testing ground that would be acceptable to both sides? It amazes me that guys as seemingly bright as Norm and Arnold can be so diametrically opposed on this issue. I am all for the adversarial system when it comes airing out a controversy and know little about any personal matters between the 2 camps but it is bothersome that a consensus can't be reached. I'm leaning toward the half-deck (TC = RC/half-decks remaining) determination of True Count for playing indices but don't know which way to go regarding betting, TE or optimal bets as in WGBJS. By the way, is there a way to get the complete Zen indices based on half-decks without CVVData. I have CVBJ and CVCX but would prefer not to spend the extra $ simply to generate 1 set of indices. Thanks.