Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com

  #21  
Old September 27th, 2007, 07:05 PM
boneuphtoner boneuphtoner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 148
Default

Quote:
(with sweet 16, fab 3 indices)
Whoops! I meant Fab 4!!!
  #22  
Old September 28th, 2007, 05:52 AM
nightspirit's Avatar
nightspirit nightspirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 363
Thumbs up boneuphtoner, good job too!

Your idea reminds me of AM's BF-Count. You choosed also index values which are easy to remember. I like this idea with one index set for all decks, since most of the gain comes from betting in multideck. I believe George C. did the same and for those, who play more 2 deck he had special index set. That our versions perform better, than the canned ones sounds good. But we must bear in mind that they don't split tens and don't double the soft hands, which we included.

I don't generated risk-averse indices, because the gain when using them is only marginal. And our rounded versions performs as well as AM's SVUBZ.


Regarding your index set, I would skip the +15 indices. Make 10 vs. 10 at +10 for multideck and +5 for handheld games and remove 13 vs.10. I won't double my soft 20. Instead I would inlude other soft hands like A,7 vs. 2, A7 vs. A, A8 vs. 4 and A6 vs. 2. Just my suggestions. Anyway, nice work! Can you post a screenshot?

Last edited by nightspirit; September 28th, 2007 at 07:21 AM.
  #23  
Old September 28th, 2007, 10:25 AM
Mimosine's Avatar
Mimosine Mimosine is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 1,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nightspirit View Post
Make 10 vs. 10 at +10 for multideck and +5 for handheld games and remove 13 vs.10. I won't double my soft 20. Instead I would inlude other soft hands like A,7 vs. 2, A7 vs. A, A8 vs. 4 and A6 vs. 2. Just my suggestions. Anyway, nice work!
I would agree with this.

I think all these ideas are great. Rounded indices specific for each game or I like the all purpose indices as well. I'd choose the ones NS and I came up with (for 6D or SD&DD) over 1 set of all around indices, but this largely depends on what games you play to. If you play 6D 90% of the time, but once in awhile find a good DD or SD game, then don't waste the time on 2 sets of numbers.

Again to be clear, INSURANCE can never be a rounded number. It should always be precise because it constitutes roughly 1.1% of the advantage gained in index play. The next 17 I-18 plays don't add 1% combined!!!! Thus NS's numbers and my rounded numbers and boneuphtoner's numbers don't impart drastic changes in the output. significant and measurable, yes, but the decision on which numbers to use should always be left to the individual using them.

The two stated goals (or maybe implied) are simplicity in execution and performance BETTER than KO. The reasons being for me is that I know I can do a level 2 count and I love using KO, so this is my(our) attempt at a hybrid between the two.

I think very shortly we'll be at a stage where we can put all these things in this thread together and publish them as a freely available PDF - assuming NS that you're willing to allow this with your work.

That is where I'm leaning for the time being. there is work to be done, and i have not been contributing as much as i'd like, but as it stands we have several UBZ OS variants that achieve the goals stated above. For that thanks for everyone's contributions, especially NS.

And most importantly, UBZ is now a real card counting system (well, we have to get surrender and a bet ramp in order, but the latter can be optimized pretty easy in the absence of index play).
  #24  
Old September 28th, 2007, 10:37 AM
Mimosine's Avatar
Mimosine Mimosine is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 1,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nightspirit View Post
The cherry on the top would be to get some wonging and -out points with the TC version.
I already have the deck adjusted wongout and wongin points for 6D done.

Here are my initial estimates, again we could try to round them.

6D IRC = -24

WONG IN

5 Decks remain RC = -8 TC = ~1.20 (bet 2units)
4 Decks remain RC = -6 TC = ~1.25 (bet 2units)
3 Decks remain RC = -4 TC = ~1.33 (bet 2units)

WONG OUT

5 Decks remain RC = -28 TC = ~ -0.8
4 Decks remain RC = -24 TC = ~ -1.0
3 Decks remain RC = -18 TC = ~ -1.0

These Numbers are VERY rough.... But we can use optimized bet spreads to determine good wong in points based on when we should bet 2 units. I calculated these numbers using excel, but there is something a little wonky with the calculation, the RC's might be off by +/- 4, or they might be just right.... I'm not 100% confident in them, I know they're close and several conversations with Fred Renzey lead me to believe I'm on the right track.... maybe someone could sim these that after all would be a good indicator if my intuition is good (again )
  #25  
Old September 28th, 2007, 12:22 PM
nightspirit's Avatar
nightspirit nightspirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimosine View Post
The two stated goals (or maybe implied) are simplicity in execution and performance BETTER than KO.
I think that goal is achieved. The rounded versions perform better than KO-preferred but (understandably) not better than KO-Full. But to use only the most important BS deviations saves us, the simplicity! When I find some time in the next weeks, I will try to generate a full set of indices for 2 and 6 decks, such as published in the KO book (just for the sake of completeness). And maybe we could add the one or other index number for single and double deck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimosine View Post
I think very shortly we'll be at a stage where we can put all these things in this thread together and publish them as a freely available PDF - assuming NS that you're willing to allow this with your work.
Are you kidding me??? Thats a fantistic idea! Most of the work did my computer, special thanks to him!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimosine View Post
That is where I'm leaning for the time being. there is work to be done, and i have not been contributing as much as i'd like, but as it stands we have several UBZ OS variants that achieve the goals stated above. For that thanks for everyone's contributions, especially NS.
That's not worth mentioning. It was a great idea by you! And without your interest in that project nobody would have cared about it. You really have a brilliant understanding of the unbalanced counts and you proved again that

"in general the published versions of systems are NOT the superior versions" Quote zengrifter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimosine View Post
And most importantly, UBZ is now a real card counting system (well, we have to get surrender and a bet ramp in order, but the latter can be optimized pretty easy in the absence of index play).
Yeah, I found it undervalued all the time! The surrender indices are almost completely, only 15 vs. 10 is absent. The concept of key and pivot values got somehow lost. The bet ramps are not the problem, since the sims are already there.
  #26  
Old September 28th, 2007, 12:28 PM
nightspirit's Avatar
nightspirit nightspirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimosine View Post
I already have the deck adjusted wongout and wongin points for 6D done.

Here are my initial estimates, again we could try to round them.

6D IRC = -24

WONG IN

5 Decks remain RC = -8 TC = ~1.20 (bet 2units)
4 Decks remain RC = -6 TC = ~1.25 (bet 2units)
3 Decks remain RC = -4 TC = ~1.33 (bet 2units)

WONG OUT

5 Decks remain RC = -28 TC = ~ -0.8
4 Decks remain RC = -24 TC = ~ -1.0
3 Decks remain RC = -18 TC = ~ -1.0

These Numbers are VERY rough.... But we can use optimized bet spreads to determine good wong in points based on when we should bet 2 units. I calculated these numbers using excel, but there is something a little wonky with the calculation, the RC's might be off by +/- 4, or they might be just right.... I'm not 100% confident in them, I know they're close and several conversations with Fred Renzey lead me to believe I'm on the right track.... maybe someone could sim these that after all would be a good indicator if my intuition is good (again )
Very cool! I'm not that familar with CVData's shoe depth function, but where there's a will, there's a way.
  #27  
Old September 30th, 2007, 08:40 PM
boneuphtoner boneuphtoner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 148
Default Show me how!

Quote:
Can you post a screenshot?

I'd love to, but I tried copying and pasting the CVCX charts, and when I pasted them into this message, all I got was a jumbled series of columns containing the raw data. Any ideas?
  #28  
Old September 30th, 2007, 09:40 PM
Mimosine's Avatar
Mimosine Mimosine is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 1,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boneuphtoner View Post
I'd love to, but I tried copying and pasting the CVCX charts, and when I pasted them into this message, all I got was a jumbled series of columns containing the raw data. Any ideas?
export as a tab delineated file from excel. then copy paste, then muck about with it a bit, and finally you might get something presentable.... these forums have really WEAK html support. otherwise you could make some really nice tables using the <table> feature...
  #29  
Old October 2nd, 2007, 04:45 PM
nightspirit's Avatar
nightspirit nightspirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boneuphtoner View Post
I'd love to, but I tried copying and pasting the CVCX charts, and when I pasted them into this message, all I got was a jumbled series of columns containing the raw data. Any ideas?
I use Darkshot2 for screenshots. Then you can upload it to one of these free picture hosting sites, like imageshack or photobucket.

For which spread and penatration you would like to see the bet ramps, Mimosine? Any preferences?
  #30  
Old October 2nd, 2007, 05:26 PM
boneuphtoner boneuphtoner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 148
Default Lets see if this works

Here are a few comparisons of my 25 indices compromised UBZ with the level 2 Mentor and RPC Counts (with Sweet 16 and Fab 4). Included comparisons are 6, 8, and 2 decks. My UBZ-Ultimate Strategy is shown in blue.



 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 AM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC