TKO vs UBZ II V0.5

[revrac]

I am considering moving to UBZ II after reading the post "BJInfo Open Source UBZ II V0.5". I have been using TKO with about 60 indices and wondered how that would compare to the UBZ II method described in the open source post using the rounded indices shown by boneuphtoner. Has anyone run any comparisons on these two (TKO full index vs UBZ II rounded top 25 index)? Are there any comparisons for double deck and six deck?

I was able to find one post at "http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=13405" which showed several Scores for a 6 deck but wasn't sure if this was based off from the old UBZ or the improved upon version which was discussed in the open source post. Any comparisons, suggestions or comments would be appreciated.

 

[FLASH1296]

No need to split hairs, UBZ II is superior to K.O.

 

[revrac]

Ubz ii

So i've decided I will convert to UBZ II. I have a couple of questions (i've also posted on the open source thread). I'm wondering if there should be a moving KC, Max bet line and Insurance spot simulating a TC UBZ. I've attached a file showing what I've calculated for double deck and six deck. Most of the index points were pulled from the other post and work done by Mimo, NS, and boneu. I've just added the moving targets and also created a true count tab similar to the TKO file. If anyone could tell me if what I have seems correct or if there is something i'm missing i'd greatly appreciate it.

First tab = indexes and moving KC, Insurance, Max bet line, Wong points
Second and third tab = TC UBZ for six deck and double deck

 

[Renzey]

No need to split hairs, UBZ II is superior to K.O.

Besides that, I believe that playing UBZ in RC mode would be easier than playing TKO. With UBZ, there's absolutely no need for a moving KC, and only a moderate need for shifting the Insurance and Max Bet indices -- which can be effectively pre-known and "true fudged" according to shoe or deck depth. Considerably more straightforward than accurate implementation of KO.

The one shortcoming of UBZ is that a semi-neutralized Ace is not a friendly component of unbalanced counts. That's because if played in pure RC mode, the hand indices (as with all unbalanced counts) are not played that accurately. However, if you "true fudge" it (much easier than it may sound), that problem goes away and you reap the benefit of a 60%+ PE.

 

[revrac]

Besides that, I believe that playing UBZ in RC mode would be easier than playing TKO. With UBZ, there's absolutely no need for a moving KC, and only a moderate need for shifting the Insurance and Max Bet indices -- which can be effectively pre-known and "true fudged" according to shoe or deck depth. Considerably more straightforward than accurate implementation of KO.

The one shortcoming of UBZ is that a semi-neutralized Ace is not a friendly component of unbalanced counts. That's because if played in pure RC mode, the hand indices (as with all unbalanced counts) are not played that accurately. However, if you "true fudge" it (much easier than it may sound), that problem goes away and you reap the benefit of a 60%+ PE.

No need to have a moving KC? On a 6 deck it looks like we'd have an advantage at around -8 with one deck played and around -1 with 5 decks played or is the true count chart incorrect? Also, i'm thinking taking insurance at +6 early on and +1 towards the end of the shoe.