Mimosine
Well-Known Member
I finally put our open source UBZ II into action.
Using the hard work that we put in together and two composite Index tables, one for 6D and the same table with different numbers for DD.
First off. Using a level two count is pretty easy to get started with, but every now and then when practicing or at the table I have a small brain freeze. Most notably at the table when I would scan the whole table and realize that the count was about to raise or lower by a huge number like 7, 9, 12! in one round. Of course this happens with level 1 counts, but with level 2 counts it happens all the time. I have noticed that I need more practice at home, i can do a deck in 25 seconds with perfect accuracy, much slower than what I used to be able to do with KO (i think i had several 16s/decks), but on average with KO I was right around 20, and in the real world it was effortless.
Secondly. The count jumps like mad sometimes using UBZ. From grossly negative to obscenely positive. or even to obscenely negative in a DD game. With an IRC of -8 I had at least one -30 RC. Granted, with KO that would be -19, still not pretty.
Thirdly. a summation of these two 1st points with other observations. With the count fluctuating widely, one might feel a little sea sick. Instead what I "felt" was that I had a much better understanding of the composition of the remaining cards. While I know the difference between KO and UBZ is small, I still "felt" that I had a significantly better understanding of what was about to happen. And even more so than with KO, when the count was High (in either dd or 6d) the paint really hit the table. Often in KO high counts don't materialize, of course because of the cut card - this applies to every count. None-the-less something felt quite different about the counts.
Fourth. personal note. my new index tables which use Keycount, pivot, Advantage and rogue need a lot more study. for some reason with KO I could recall that table fine, but for UBZ, i have made some more precise modifications over KO and the extra variation has been a problem. Instead of remembering the numbers, I have actually learned that D11 v A has a relatively low index number, same with D9 v 2 (for DD or 6D using UBZ this happens at the pivot point, -2 or -6 respectively). whereas D9 v 7 has a higher index (advantage, +2, +6 respectively). Many different trends emerge. But i have found myself remembering the index numbers based on the strength of the hand. KO was much more simplistic.... Which i could make UBZ, but if i'm going to count with a level II, then i might as well learn 5-6 different and more accurate index numbers.
Fifth. Unrelated to the count, and more in the vain of "man this counting stuff is hard." after a few live rounds of DD (for the first time with UBZ) my counting was pretty solid. Occasionally I would have trouble with canceling out adjacent hands/ or adjusting the RC in increments of 3,4,5, etc and found myself counting each card-painfully slow and taxing. I recall, initially using KO I had this same problem, but with time it went away as patterns emerged. Also I didn't have any trouble keeping the count in my head with difficult/odd/multicard hands, or the waitress interrupting. I think using KO for over a year has definitely helped me to compartmentalize these different numbers in volatile flash ram with better retention
. I really have lost an emotional attachment to the money in losing streaks. Loosing $200-$300 in 10 minutes, only to pull out and risk another $500 is no big deal anymore. Though carrying enough cash to capitalize on this may soon require a money belt or some other such device, as getting robbed at this level would be devastating - especially after working so hard to double the BR in the last year, and aiming to do the same this year. One last note, I had a heads up game, and in one shoe I had the best run I've ever had. I got more BJ's in high counts in one shoe than I have had in several 2-3 hour sessions. I ended up somewhere around 48 units up at the end of one shoe. It was magical, I've had other shoes that probably approximate this one, but with a bigger unit the result was, well um bigger!
Using the hard work that we put in together and two composite Index tables, one for 6D and the same table with different numbers for DD.
First off. Using a level two count is pretty easy to get started with, but every now and then when practicing or at the table I have a small brain freeze. Most notably at the table when I would scan the whole table and realize that the count was about to raise or lower by a huge number like 7, 9, 12! in one round. Of course this happens with level 1 counts, but with level 2 counts it happens all the time. I have noticed that I need more practice at home, i can do a deck in 25 seconds with perfect accuracy, much slower than what I used to be able to do with KO (i think i had several 16s/decks), but on average with KO I was right around 20, and in the real world it was effortless.
Secondly. The count jumps like mad sometimes using UBZ. From grossly negative to obscenely positive. or even to obscenely negative in a DD game. With an IRC of -8 I had at least one -30 RC. Granted, with KO that would be -19, still not pretty.
Thirdly. a summation of these two 1st points with other observations. With the count fluctuating widely, one might feel a little sea sick. Instead what I "felt" was that I had a much better understanding of the composition of the remaining cards. While I know the difference between KO and UBZ is small, I still "felt" that I had a significantly better understanding of what was about to happen. And even more so than with KO, when the count was High (in either dd or 6d) the paint really hit the table. Often in KO high counts don't materialize, of course because of the cut card - this applies to every count. None-the-less something felt quite different about the counts.
Fourth. personal note. my new index tables which use Keycount, pivot, Advantage and rogue need a lot more study. for some reason with KO I could recall that table fine, but for UBZ, i have made some more precise modifications over KO and the extra variation has been a problem. Instead of remembering the numbers, I have actually learned that D11 v A has a relatively low index number, same with D9 v 2 (for DD or 6D using UBZ this happens at the pivot point, -2 or -6 respectively). whereas D9 v 7 has a higher index (advantage, +2, +6 respectively). Many different trends emerge. But i have found myself remembering the index numbers based on the strength of the hand. KO was much more simplistic.... Which i could make UBZ, but if i'm going to count with a level II, then i might as well learn 5-6 different and more accurate index numbers.
Fifth. Unrelated to the count, and more in the vain of "man this counting stuff is hard." after a few live rounds of DD (for the first time with UBZ) my counting was pretty solid. Occasionally I would have trouble with canceling out adjacent hands/ or adjusting the RC in increments of 3,4,5, etc and found myself counting each card-painfully slow and taxing. I recall, initially using KO I had this same problem, but with time it went away as patterns emerged. Also I didn't have any trouble keeping the count in my head with difficult/odd/multicard hands, or the waitress interrupting. I think using KO for over a year has definitely helped me to compartmentalize these different numbers in volatile flash ram with better retention
. I really have lost an emotional attachment to the money in losing streaks. Loosing $200-$300 in 10 minutes, only to pull out and risk another $500 is no big deal anymore. Though carrying enough cash to capitalize on this may soon require a money belt or some other such device, as getting robbed at this level would be devastating - especially after working so hard to double the BR in the last year, and aiming to do the same this year. One last note, I had a heads up game, and in one shoe I had the best run I've ever had. I got more BJ's in high counts in one shoe than I have had in several 2-3 hour sessions. I ended up somewhere around 48 units up at the end of one shoe. It was magical, I've had other shoes that probably approximate this one, but with a bigger unit the result was, well um bigger!
Last edited:
