Unbalanced Zen II
- Thread starter Smoke8
- Start date
Hey, you might want to check out the thread called "BJInfo Open Source UBZ II V0.5" in the card counting section for some good indices for UBZII. As for a better system for DD, both Hi-Opt II and Omega II will out-perform any unbalanced count, especially if you side count aces. As for Mountain Man, I'm not sure.
-cc.
-cc.
Yes - the BJINFO UBZ Open Source, spearheaded by Mimosine, was an effort at my instigation to develop a
UBZ with a single set of indices good for 1-8 decks. It is one of the strongest level-2s available, UB'd or not. zg
UBZ with a single set of indices good for 1-8 decks. It is one of the strongest level-2s available, UB'd or not. zg
Complete Zen
Does the index numbers generated from CVIndex differ from those published index numbers? Playing DD, could a player see as much as a 10% gain using complete Zen vs KO Full? Maybe we can visit for awhile during our next session. Did you have a successful weekend? Saturday night was brutal.....Early Sunday A.M. was much better.... Won back my evening loss and made a little profit.
Does the index numbers generated from CVIndex differ from those published index numbers? Playing DD, could a player see as much as a 10% gain using complete Zen vs KO Full? Maybe we can visit for awhile during our next session. Did you have a successful weekend? Saturday night was brutal.....Early Sunday A.M. was much better.... Won back my evening loss and made a little profit.
Unbalanced zen ii cont'd
Hey MountainMan, advantage players seeking higher levels of play really should pursue every gain possible. I do like the performance of KO Full against DD, but, adding weight to the five's is important. Maybe not a huge gain, but it's a gain! This is why I'm so driven on researching other systems. Don S. did a very comprehensive study and published the results of several systems in his latest book BJA III under "Score" page 171. HiOpt II revealed the highest score for DD ( 47.96 ), Zen ( 44.10 ), UBZ2 (44.90 ), as you can see UBZ2 finished just ever so slightly higher than it's cousin Zen. With UBZ2 I don't have to side count Aces, this is why I'm leaning towards UBZ2 or Zen. Now that I know someone using Zen against the game of my choice sucessfully changes my original thoughts. Actual experiance means alot. Is there anyone reading these post that has any experiance with UBZ2 against DD ?
Hey MountainMan, advantage players seeking higher levels of play really should pursue every gain possible. I do like the performance of KO Full against DD, but, adding weight to the five's is important. Maybe not a huge gain, but it's a gain! This is why I'm so driven on researching other systems. Don S. did a very comprehensive study and published the results of several systems in his latest book BJA III under "Score" page 171. HiOpt II revealed the highest score for DD ( 47.96 ), Zen ( 44.10 ), UBZ2 (44.90 ), as you can see UBZ2 finished just ever so slightly higher than it's cousin Zen. With UBZ2 I don't have to side count Aces, this is why I'm leaning towards UBZ2 or Zen. Now that I know someone using Zen against the game of my choice sucessfully changes my original thoughts. Actual experiance means alot. Is there anyone reading these post that has any experiance with UBZ2 against DD ?
Ease vs Power
Nothing new here but to keep in mind.
If counts you are looking at are comparable then:
Not having to A side count
or
Not having to calculate a TC (true count)
are good things
One could consider pulling up a slightly weaker but easy to use count with extra indicies. These you learn at home and just remember them in the casino vs having to keep an A side count or perform a TC.
Squeezing out every last penny of performance is just that, squeezing pennies.
Don't forget to consider the actual games you are playing and how much you will be spreading your bets, these will have impact on which count is superior. If you are playing DD? and don't plan to spread much then the high PE (playing efficiency) counts get stronger. If you do plan to spread your bets with a decent cut then BC (betting correlation) gets stronger.
Zengrifter brings up a very good point. When moving up in counts picking a count with similar tags and indicies is a very wise move. As an example I went from hi lo to halves which have many similar tags and very similar indicies.
Finally, don't sweat which count to use to much, it really is about game selection, how you play it and enough money to not go broke.
:joker::whip:
good cards
Nothing new here but to keep in mind.
If counts you are looking at are comparable then:
Not having to A side count
or
Not having to calculate a TC (true count)
are good things
One could consider pulling up a slightly weaker but easy to use count with extra indicies. These you learn at home and just remember them in the casino vs having to keep an A side count or perform a TC.
Squeezing out every last penny of performance is just that, squeezing pennies.
Don't forget to consider the actual games you are playing and how much you will be spreading your bets, these will have impact on which count is superior. If you are playing DD? and don't plan to spread much then the high PE (playing efficiency) counts get stronger. If you do plan to spread your bets with a decent cut then BC (betting correlation) gets stronger.
Zengrifter brings up a very good point. When moving up in counts picking a count with similar tags and indicies is a very wise move. As an example I went from hi lo to halves which have many similar tags and very similar indicies.
Finally, don't sweat which count to use to much, it really is about game selection, how you play it and enough money to not go broke.
:joker::whip:
good cards
Good point, ZG. And let's not forget the "hidden cost" of time spent learning a new system rather than spending that time *playing* a system that a person already plays *well*.
I don't think many players factor this into their equations.
That being said, if one still has their heart set on learning a new system, your suggestion to stick with a logical upgrade (one similar in tags and indices, staying with a RC system if one plays one already, etc.) is the best bet.
I don't think many players factor this into their equations.
That being said, if one still has their heart set on learning a new system, your suggestion to stick with a logical upgrade (one similar in tags and indices, staying with a RC system if one plays one already, etc.) is the best bet.
Hi Smoke,
If you don't already do it, might I suggest adding depth bets to your existing KO Full system before you sim it against a level 2 system? I added a couple of index plays to KO along with depth bets and it performs better than the canned UBZII and on par with the UBZII OS composite (as found on this forum). There's (almost) nothing new to learn, and you're going to grab a good portion of that elusive 10% performance you're looking for, or in some cases, surpass it.
If you don't already do it, might I suggest adding depth bets to your existing KO Full system before you sim it against a level 2 system? I added a couple of index plays to KO along with depth bets and it performs better than the canned UBZII and on par with the UBZII OS composite (as found on this forum). There's (almost) nothing new to learn, and you're going to grab a good portion of that elusive 10% performance you're looking for, or in some cases, surpass it.
Sure. Daniel Dravot wrote a book on it titled "The Color of Blackjack". It's basically a method of true fudging the KO count to capture early betting opportunities.
Alternatively, you can check out this table:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=116&d=1180298696
Whereas traditional KO has you increasing your bets at a RC of -4 in a 6D game, for example, you can see in this table that you actually have an advantage before that early in the shoe.
Here is a spread sheet from assume_R that converts a KO running count to a TC. It's the same info as in the table, but you can change the IRC to whatever you use. This should point you in the right direction as well. You can see that with 1 deck dealt, a RC of -11 is equivalent to a TC of +1, as is a RC of -8 with 2 decks dealt, and so on.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3049951/TC_Conversion.xlsx
If you have any questions, let me know. I'm not the best at explaining things sometimes, especially after a day out with my cousin at the bar. :grin:
TMH
Alternatively, you can check out this table:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=116&d=1180298696
Whereas traditional KO has you increasing your bets at a RC of -4 in a 6D game, for example, you can see in this table that you actually have an advantage before that early in the shoe.
Here is a spread sheet from assume_R that converts a KO running count to a TC. It's the same info as in the table, but you can change the IRC to whatever you use. This should point you in the right direction as well. You can see that with 1 deck dealt, a RC of -11 is equivalent to a TC of +1, as is a RC of -8 with 2 decks dealt, and so on.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3049951/TC_Conversion.xlsx
If you have any questions, let me know. I'm not the best at explaining things sometimes, especially after a day out with my cousin at the bar. :grin:
TMH
Last edited:
Sim
Sim KO Full vs. UBZII & Complete Zen. Betting ramps modified in attempt to equalize dollars wagered. Spread 1 -9, DD, 70% Pen, H17, DOA, DAS, LS.
Ramp for unbalanced counts start at RC-2 and CZen at +1. Play All and always play two hands.
Let me know if modifications need to be made as I am not familiar with unbalanced counts. MM
Sim KO Full vs. UBZII & Complete Zen. Betting ramps modified in attempt to equalize dollars wagered. Spread 1 -9, DD, 70% Pen, H17, DOA, DAS, LS.
Ramp for unbalanced counts start at RC-2 and CZen at +1. Play All and always play two hands.
Let me know if modifications need to be made as I am not familiar with unbalanced counts. MM
