UBZ2 vs. Uston SS
- Thread starter ace157
- Start date
Ace,
When I was developing the Brh-I, since I had already worked out that any count can be true counted, balanced or unbalanced, I tried all these combinations. First using a simulator I had wrote myself, and then using SBA by Karel Janecek. The reason I used SBA, was that if anyone else bought SBA, apart from being able to genererate indices and and optimal betting spreads (so why bother buying any book??), they could check any claims that I make about any of my systems - it simply showed that for a betting enhanced count, with the constraint that it would only be level '2.5' as I call it (only the 5 counts +3), Brh-I consistently gave the best SCORE and NO over all ranges of decks and penetrations.
I will go back and run SBA results for your SS-9 count and post the results.
Cheers,
Brett.
When I was developing the Brh-I, since I had already worked out that any count can be true counted, balanced or unbalanced, I tried all these combinations. First using a simulator I had wrote myself, and then using SBA by Karel Janecek. The reason I used SBA, was that if anyone else bought SBA, apart from being able to genererate indices and and optimal betting spreads (so why bother buying any book??), they could check any claims that I make about any of my systems - it simply showed that for a betting enhanced count, with the constraint that it would only be level '2.5' as I call it (only the 5 counts +3), Brh-I consistently gave the best SCORE and NO over all ranges of decks and penetrations.
I will go back and run SBA results for your SS-9 count and post the results.
Cheers,
Brett.
ace157 said:
I tested the efficiency of SS-9 and it still had a BC of 99.0 though that was on the trial of CVdata so it could b off. When i calculated the "worth" of the 2s i found them to be just a bit lower than the 3s. I took the effect of removal (.4) and multiplied it by the chances of getting a 2 (4/52) for a result of 0.03076 which was closer to the 3s (tagged as 2; result of 0.033076) than it was to the 7s (tagged as 1; result of 0.02308). What calculation did you use to figure out what tags should go w/ what? if you don't mind me asking
Actually I tell a small lie...
There is another count developed by 'Kim Lee' - otherwise known as Steve H. It was to the Zen/UBZ11 family what Brh-I was to RPC. As I remember it, he changed the '5' to +3 in Zen to give another level '2.5' count with a net unbalance per deck of +4. I believe it had the edge over Brh-I in 1-2 decks, broke even at 4, and Brh-I did a bit better in 6-8 decks.
Brett.
There is another count developed by 'Kim Lee' - otherwise known as Steve H. It was to the Zen/UBZ11 family what Brh-I was to RPC. As I remember it, he changed the '5' to +3 in Zen to give another level '2.5' count with a net unbalance per deck of +4. I believe it had the edge over Brh-I in 1-2 decks, broke even at 4, and Brh-I did a bit better in 6-8 decks.
Brett.
Brett_Harris said:
There is another count developed by 'Kim Lee' - otherwise known as Steve H. It was to the Zen/UBZ11 family what Brh-I was to RPC. As I remember it, he changed the '5' to +3 in Zen to give another level '2.5' count with a net unbalance per deck of +4. I believe it had the edge over Brh-I in 1-2 decks, broke even at 4, and Brh-I did a bit better in 6-8 decks.
Brett.
Brett.
SS-9 vs BRH-1
if we look at JJ's results, we see that SS-9 had a .44 better win return while BRH-1 had .9% less risk of ruin and .03 better score.... all in all, the return is slightly better with SS-9 with a minimally increased risk and a negligible difference in SCORE. I would say that the 2 systems are very close and it would come down to a matter of preference.
I'm working on creating indexes for SS-9 and will post the results. Then based on personal subjective opinion i'll play a few shoes and describe the "ease of use" of SS-9
if we look at JJ's results, we see that SS-9 had a .44 better win return while BRH-1 had .9% less risk of ruin and .03 better score.... all in all, the return is slightly better with SS-9 with a minimally increased risk and a negligible difference in SCORE. I would say that the 2 systems are very close and it would come down to a matter of preference.
I'm working on creating indexes for SS-9 and will post the results. Then based on personal subjective opinion i'll play a few shoes and describe the "ease of use" of SS-9
Indexes are made
I just ran index generations for the catch 20. Two more couldn't hurt to bump up from IL 18, and the big 63 would have just been too many. So i created indexes for sd, dd, 3d, 4d, 6d, 8d.. then took the average value for the situations and here's what i came up with
Hit when RC <
12v2 21
12v3 12
12v4 9
12v5 6
12v6 7
13v2 7
13v3 4
15v10 16
16v9 18
16v10 9
DD when RC >
8v5 16
8v6 12
9v2 11
9v7 16
10v10 16
10vA 14
11vA 9
A8v5 11
A8v6 9
Insurance - Never
I'll run a couple sims to compare SS-9 OS indexes to BRH-1 with a one dec TC
I just ran index generations for the catch 20. Two more couldn't hurt to bump up from IL 18, and the big 63 would have just been too many. So i created indexes for sd, dd, 3d, 4d, 6d, 8d.. then took the average value for the situations and here's what i came up with
Hit when RC <
12v2 21
12v3 12
12v4 9
12v5 6
12v6 7
13v2 7
13v3 4
15v10 16
16v9 18
16v10 9
DD when RC >
8v5 16
8v6 12
9v2 11
9v7 16
10v10 16
10vA 14
11vA 9
A8v5 11
A8v6 9
Insurance - Never
I'll run a couple sims to compare SS-9 OS indexes to BRH-1 with a one dec TC
6D, DAS, S17, 1-12 bet spread, $500 starting bankroll, 200 mill rounds
BRH-1 (with whole deck TC)
WR - 8.40
SCORE - 18.33
NO - 54, 564
RoR - 0.39%
SS-9 (with Rounded indexes)
WR - 15.13
SCORE - 10.47
NO - 85, 514
RoR - 17%
Basically these results show little difference than JJ's sim w/o the TC or the indexes. The numbers i provided are each particularly interesting
first - the SS-9 win return is significantly higher than BRH-1
second - the score significantly favors BRH-1
thrid - BRH-1 by far and away wins the RoR competition
So essentially it comes down to the question of whether its worth ss-9's risk for the increase in win return? That would depend on ur preference, but even i would have to say no. That is an EXTREME decrease in risk of ruin. Though the win return is almost double, the risk is over 10x.
Other Notes: You could manipulate bankroll sizes to give SS-9 a more favorable RoR, but upon decreasing the BR size, SS-9's RoR increases at a much faster rate than BRH-1.
Conclusion - alas Brett, it seems you have won.... not to be discouraged, i might have to stick with SS-9 just for fun and see how it turns out. If it doesn't, expect to hear from me haha.
BRH-1 (with whole deck TC)
WR - 8.40
SCORE - 18.33
NO - 54, 564
RoR - 0.39%
SS-9 (with Rounded indexes)
WR - 15.13
SCORE - 10.47
NO - 85, 514
RoR - 17%
Basically these results show little difference than JJ's sim w/o the TC or the indexes. The numbers i provided are each particularly interesting
first - the SS-9 win return is significantly higher than BRH-1
second - the score significantly favors BRH-1
thrid - BRH-1 by far and away wins the RoR competition
So essentially it comes down to the question of whether its worth ss-9's risk for the increase in win return? That would depend on ur preference, but even i would have to say no. That is an EXTREME decrease in risk of ruin. Though the win return is almost double, the risk is over 10x.
Other Notes: You could manipulate bankroll sizes to give SS-9 a more favorable RoR, but upon decreasing the BR size, SS-9's RoR increases at a much faster rate than BRH-1.
Conclusion - alas Brett, it seems you have won.... not to be discouraged, i might have to stick with SS-9 just for fun and see how it turns out. If it doesn't, expect to hear from me haha.