BJInfo Open Source UBZ II V0.5

#61
zengrifter said:
1-2D composite works, as does 6-8D. So the theory is that by adjusting the IRC -AND- mentally doubling the 1-2D composite #s for 6-8D play, we can achieve a single composite index strategy good for any# decks. zg
I suppose. But how about this idea instead- balanced has a lot of advantages for shoe games, and by changing one tag from UBZ you get a balanced count of Zen, Mentor or RPC as you prefer.

So let's find a set of balanced indices for one of those counts, that will also work as composite unbalanced indices for SD/DD, with an appropriate IRC.

That way all a user will have to do to switch between pitch and shoe is change one tag and an IRC.
 
#62
Automatic Monkey said:
I suppose. But how about this idea instead- balanced has a lot of advantages for shoe games, and by changing one tag from UBZ you get a balanced count of Zen, Mentor or RPC as you prefer.

So let's find a set of balanced indices for one of those counts, that will also work as composite unbalanced indices for SD/DD, with an appropriate IRC.

That way all a user will have to do to switch between pitch and shoe is change one tag and an IRC.
I do not understand your preference of UB'd counts for pitch games? zg
 
#63
zengrifter said:
I do not understand your preference of UB'd counts for pitch games? zg
There's a couple of reasons. First is that deck estimation on pitch games is difficult. The way the dealer holds the cards can be deceptive, and also you are peeking to left and/or right, and counting cards as they are dealt face-up, and you have to take this all into account in your true count divisor too. If you are using an unbalanced system, you just count the cards as you see them and that's that. The other reason is that pen on pitch games isn't that good, the best pen you'll ever see is 75% and that's the worst pen you should ever play a shoe game at. So you don't get as far away from the pivot point as you can in a shoe game.

But if you want to Wong out of shoes you have to do some deck estimation anyway even with an unbalanced count, so you might as well true count. This is what works for me, at least.
 

DB1

New Member
#64
New Counter Questions

A couple of questions. From the chart below, why is 16 v 9, 16 v 10, and 15 v 10 given indices? Do you only surrender above the indice? Otherwise you would hit as basic strategy calls?

Also, why is 13 v 2 given a higher negative indice than 13 v 3. It seems that they should be equal, or 13 v 3 should be more negative. The other poster had them bost listed at IRC. Does it make much of a difference?

Thanks in advance!


nightspirit said:
Here is the deck-adjusted sim. I used this great multi-depth feature of CVData to create various betting strategies for the shoe.
Assumed was: 4.5/6, S17, DAS, DOA, LS,SPL4, SPLA1 spread 1-12 (ramp see previous page), 100hands/hour, 3 other players, 2 Billion rounds, with the following indices:

Code:
[U]irc	     RC: -12	   RC: -6	 Pivot	      RC: +6	   RC: +10	RC:+12[/U]
12 v. 5	     16 v.10      13 v. 3       12 v. 3	     12 v. 2       X,X v. 5     16 v. 9
12 v. 6		          12 v. 4	 8 v. 6	      15 v.10	   X,X v. 6	
13 v. 2		           9 v. 2	 surrender    8 v. 5		
		           11 v. A	  15 v. 9      9 v. 7		
		           A,6 v.2	  15 v. A      10 v.10		
		           A,7 v. 2	  14 v. 10     10 v. A		
		           A,8 v.5	               A,8 v.4		
		           A,8 v.6				
insurance: +4
irc=-24

and the wongin and -out points according Mimosine’s table:




1. play-all SCORE 33.59
2. deck-adjusted UBZ SCORE 44.53


Special thanks to Norm! :)
 
#65
DB1 said:
A couple of questions. From the chart below, why is 16 v 9, 16 v 10, and 15 v 10 given indices? Do you only surrender above the indice? Otherwise you would hit as basic strategy calls?

Also, why is 13 v 2 given a higher negative indice than 13 v 3. It seems that they should be equal, or 13 v 3 should be more negative. The other poster had them bost listed at IRC. Does it make much of a difference?
To the first questions, YES.

The second, the #s are correct, but it does not make a big difference - you could call them both +4. (See Zengrifter Interview) zg
 

DB1

New Member
#66
One last stupid question. On all of the surrender options, do you follow basic strategy when surrender isn't offered? Or should you stand rather than hit when the count is greater than the indice?

Thanks again!
 

Mimosine

Well-Known Member
#68
So now the real question is....

who's using this?

anyone? anyone willing to chime in and share their thoughts. i never got a chance to implement it, since i moved away from some of my favorite casinos. now i'm getting more serious and am ready to graduate from KO to our collective version of UBZ. I want to implement it at almost the "full level" with 3-4 different index points for 6D, with x/2 index numbers for DD and SD.

let us know if you've adopted this system...
 
#69
Mimosine said:
So now the real question is....

who's using this?

anyone? anyone willing to chime in and share their thoughts. i never got a chance to implement it, since i moved away from some of my favorite casinos. now i'm getting more serious and am ready to graduate from KO to our collective version of UBZ. I want to implement it at almost the "full level" with 3-4 different index points for 6D, with x/2 index numbers for DD and SD.

let us know if you've adopted this system...
No one should use it UNTIL its complete per bold, finish it. zg
 

Mimosine

Well-Known Member
#70
zengrifter said:
No one should use it UNTIL its complete per bold, finish it. zg
i don't think there is anything left to do.
index numbers were generated for SD and DD, then 6D. Surrender has been taken care of, a bet schedule was arrived at, we even have wong in and out points. what is missing?
 

boneuphtoner

Well-Known Member
#71
So now the real question is....

who's using this?
I've been using it since last summer, but have only applied it in the casino once a couple of weeks ago. It went pretty well. I'm using the composite index UBZ posted a page or so above, not the DD or six deck specific indices.
 
#72
Mimosine said:
i don't think there is anything left to do.
index numbers were generated for SD and DD, then 6D. Surrender has been taken care of, a bet schedule was arrived at, we even have wong in and out points. what is missing?
Do we have the single composite index - any# decks? zg
 

boneuphtoner

Well-Known Member
#74
Check post #20, page 2 of this thread

Hi ZG,

See post 20 page 2 of this thread for my compromised indices for use against 2-8 decks. SCORE comparative plots using these compromised indices are found on the next pages of this system versus RPC and Mentor. For SD, the only changes is the +10 indices (not many of them) become +5.
 

boneuphtoner

Well-Known Member
#75
results have been verified

One other thing, I had Nightspirit confirm my results. This is the first real strategy I created using my own generated indices and doing my own rounding. I tested it with CVCX to generate those plots. But, I wanted to make sure that the results I observed could be duplicated. Nightspirit privately confirmed just that last October.
 

Knox

Well-Known Member
#77
Why not just tag 2-7 as +1, 10 as -1, and A as -2 thereby creating a balanced system that would be easier to count, but also giving some additional weight to the Ace similar in concept to an Ace sidecount? I did not see a single system listed like that on Qfit, does it just sim out to be lame-o?
 
#78
Knox said:
Why not just tag 2-7 as +1, 10 as -1, and A as -2 thereby creating a balanced system that would be easier to count, but also giving some additional weight to the Ace similar in concept to an Ace sidecount? I did not see a single system listed like that on Qfit, does it just sim out to be lame-o?
Classic! Get with Jack Jackson. zg
 
#80
jack said:
Wait until IM done with my level 19 count. This ones gonna be a dandy!:)
Thats nothin - Knox just came up with a heavily inverted imbl'd level-2 - the RC falls rather than rises - its a radical new counting paradigm.

Start a new Open Source thread!! zg
 
Last edited:
Top