Zengrifter,I have a question for you that i know you can answer.You are one of the smartest posters here.I started counting about a year ago and started with KO.Have had great results.I have read that you have used KO Full and UBzen2.I want to know what you think of both.I am thinking of moving to the next leavel and thought one of the two would be my next set.Am i right with this.Please let me know what you think.Thanks.
Question for the Zengrifter
- Thread starter pawnbroker
- Start date
I'm not Zen but maybe I can help. If it ain't broken, don't fix it! If you have had great results than why change systems?
But on the other hand if you are at a point where KO is very easy for you and you feel like you have room for improvement then you might want to consider UBZ2. It is much stronger then KO against DD which you play against. As for KO full over prefered it is only a few additional indexes which will improve your play but only by a few .02%.
But on the other hand if you are at a point where KO is very easy for you and you feel like you have room for improvement then you might want to consider UBZ2. It is much stronger then KO against DD which you play against. As for KO full over prefered it is only a few additional indexes which will improve your play but only by a few .02%.
Zengrifter told me quite some time ago. I think he said it was about 20% stronger , but I'm not entirely sure. I know it was enough to make me want to switch.
However, you need to learn a different set of indexes for each game. There is not a "UBZen2 Preferred", where 1 set works for all games. I asked about creating one compromised set for all games, but QFIT said it was done by trial and error, and that you would have to sim at least 2B hands, preferrably 4B. I don't have the simulation knowledge to do anything like that, but I sure would love a composite index set for UBZ2. I would switch from KO to UBZ2 immediately if there was one. To me it is no harder to count with a level-2 system than a level 1-system. But I don't want to learn a different index set for all the games.
I was planning on learning regular zen, but have not been practicing at all. Me and supercoolmancool were going to try shuffletrack so I started practicing deck estimation. I found it gets really easy after practice, so I think I will learn zen afterall. Originally I was worried about making esimation errors, but now I realize it is easy with practice. And the math isn't hard at all. I just need to find the time and motivation to get on it. I definitely will next summer if I havn't done it already.
However, you need to learn a different set of indexes for each game. There is not a "UBZen2 Preferred", where 1 set works for all games. I asked about creating one compromised set for all games, but QFIT said it was done by trial and error, and that you would have to sim at least 2B hands, preferrably 4B. I don't have the simulation knowledge to do anything like that, but I sure would love a composite index set for UBZ2. I would switch from KO to UBZ2 immediately if there was one. To me it is no harder to count with a level-2 system than a level 1-system. But I don't want to learn a different index set for all the games.
I was planning on learning regular zen, but have not been practicing at all. Me and supercoolmancool were going to try shuffletrack so I started practicing deck estimation. I found it gets really easy after practice, so I think I will learn zen afterall. Originally I was worried about making esimation errors, but now I realize it is easy with practice. And the math isn't hard at all. I just need to find the time and motivation to get on it. I definitely will next summer if I havn't done it already.
Scott is correct - I've never used either of those BUT if I were to choose one it would be UBZ, arguably the best UB'd system commerically available and equal in performance to virtually any level-2 bal'd count. On the other hand, IF I could back-count two tables at once with KO beginner, that would be the stronger strategy. zg
If I was going to use a strong unbalanced count on shoe games, I'd use BRH-1. Used it for quite a while and it works well, but you still have to do deck estimation and division in order to Wong out, and using High-Low with Wonging out is much more powerful than using any count without Wonging.
The problem with UBZ is that it shorts the ace, and you don't want to do that in a shoe game where BC is really all that matters. In SD and DD the added PE of the Zen ace makes it worth it.
The problem with UBZ is that it shorts the ace, and you don't want to do that in a shoe game where BC is really all that matters. In SD and DD the added PE of the Zen ace makes it worth it.