BJInfo Open Source UBZ II V0.5

  • Mimosine

    BJInfo Open Source UBZ II V0.5

    Hey Gang,
    In light of recent interest in making a workable UBZII I’ve slapped together a UBZII variant based on the original UBZII manual, “KO Blackjack,” Advice from Fred Renzey and AutoMonkey (see: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=6666 )

    The goal – develop rounded indicies that are easy to use and remember for SD, DD, and 6D games.

    the method – common pivot point of 0 which is equal to TC = +2 at all points in the deck. To accomplish the goal — use different IRCs. To simplify betting and indices we need to develop a Key Count (defined where we first have the advantage) and for V0.5 we will define two additional points; first – “Advantage” where we have a TC on average of +4, and a second upper level “Rogue” where we have a TC on average of +6. These 3 points; KeyCount, Advantage, Rogue will varry based on the number of decks, but also should be very easy to remember and incorporate into play.

    
    Tags									
    2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	 T	 A
    1	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	-2	-1
    

    Initally i’m trying to get these numbers to work for Key Count, Pivot Point, and Advantage:

    SD -2, 0, +2
    DD -3, 0, +3
    6D -6, 0, +6

    The Rogue number is still in its infancy.

    the Key Count, Advantage, and Rogue numbers very very roughly correlate
    to the average TC listed below.

    
                 IRC     KeyCount  (P)ivot  (A)dvantage (R)ogue
        SD        -4        -2        0         2
        DD        -8        -3        0         3
        6D       -24        -6        0         6         8
      AVG TC       0         1        2         4         6
       Bet        1u        2u     1/2 Max   Max bet   2 Hands
    

    Simplified Index plays, using KO Blackjack as inspiriation:

    Take Insurance at +1.

    
    	UPCARD									
    Hand	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	A
    17										
    16								A	K	
    15									P	
    14										
    13	I	I								
    12	P	P	K	I	K					
    11										P
    10									A	P
    9	P					P				
    8				P	P					
    10,10				R	R					
    A,8			R	A						
    

    in All cases the P = 0. “I” will be the IRC (easy enough to remember) K and A represent -x and +x based on the number of decks. e.g. 6D K = -6, A = +6.

    The mysterious Rogue value is for the player willing to split 10s, play 2 hands, and double down on A,8 V 4 — all some of the most risky plays.

    I will be developing this further, once I get a simulator, and maybe some feedback. to me this is a logical extension of KO blackjack, that is easy for me to grasp. Looking at Automatic Monkey’s Simian Varriant UBZ, or George C’s or Fred Renzey’s KISS indicies, I’m not quite ready to digest so many different index numbers – thus I’m trying to make a simplified rounded index matrix.

    Betting being the most important part of counting, my numbers there too are also a first approximation.

    thoughts to get me to a V0.6 ?

  • TENNBEAR

     

    Great Work, I think you are on to a unbalaced system that will improve the overall strength in the games with weak penetration.
    I am planning to upgrade from KO to UBZEN2 soon.

  • Knox

     

    Quote: Renzey said:
    The Count Sytem Performance Comparisons on pg 194 of BJBBII showed the EVs of UBZII to be +0.72% vs. +0.68% for Full Matrix KO. UBZII was tested using the exact format I suggested in my last post.

    Is that enough to change? A personal call.

    My call right now is no, its not worth it. The beauty of KO is it is so incredibly easy. It takes minimal effort. In contrast, counting some cards as 2 points and some as 1 makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

    So KO is easy and I get a little bored with it. Fine, I just add some of the additional index plays. Not quite the “Full Matrix KO”, but a customized version, with some of my own indices and rounding, that works for me and captures most of the benefit. Chop out a few of the full matrix plays on the high positive and negative extremes and you still have a very easy-to-play yet powerful system.

    Be sure to consider the simplicity of a system in which you make virtually no errors versus one more complicated. What will your error rate be? Will you still be able to monitor your surroundings, drink if you choose, chat with the PB, dealer, and ploppies while still having a good time playing?

    Don’t get me wrong, innovation is a good thing and I wish you well on this endeavor. Just a few things to thing about…

  • zengrifter

     

    UBZ-MIMO looks pretty good. I can suggest a few minor improvements –

    1. Make the A value the same for 1-2D and then simply Ax2 for 6-8D.
    2. Include the R value for 1-2D at +4 and again Rx2 for 6-8D
    3. Use R value for certain stiffs also, like maybe 14v10 and 15v9&A (just guessing which ones but you get the idea.)

    zg

    Ps – I DO recommend splitting 10s!

    ——————————
    FROM GRINDER’S WAREHOUSE –
    UBZ11, DD, Specific vs Composite Indices
    HERE – http://web.archive.org/web/20041221174949/frontpage.inxpress.net/grinder/simpage/ubz11ddindice.htm

  • nightspirit

     

    The table shows the index numbers for the conditions Mimosine gave in her post above. They were generated with the help of CVIndex. For DD I don`t know which pen. to use, so I picked 1.4/2. For 6 decks I think 4.75/6 is a good compromise. Would be nice if anybody could take a look on the numbers and validate it. So far I’m not so familiar with the software.

    Sims for SD I haven’t run so far. Maybe we can use AM numbers.

    The next questions raised yet by Mimosine: in which range should we round the index numbers for simplicity? (if the table below is correct) For example, should we round numbers from -3 to +4 to zero (pivot).
    And hands like 12 vs. 5, 12 vs. 6, 13 vs. 2 and three simple ignore?

    Each column represents a new sim. The Late Surrender indexes were only generated in the last two columns. (The option was checked but I didn’t include 15 vs. 9, A and 14 vs.10), so BS calls for LS 16 vs. 9,10,A and 15 vs. 10) I simply forgot about it in the first sims.

  • Mimosine

     

    Quote: nightspirit said:
    The table shows the index numbers for the conditions Mimosine gave in her post above. They were generated with the help of CVIndex. For DD I don`t know which pen. to use, so I picked 1.4/2. For 6 decks I think 4.75/6 is a good compromise. Would be nice if anybody could take a look on the numbers and validate it. So far I’m not so familiar with the software.

    that would be Mr. Mimosine to you

    nevertheless i’m going to generate two strategy tables maybe later today using your sim as a reference. then we can see what the results are using your numbers, my simplified 2 rounded number chart, and a less rounded 5 number chart (with KK, pivot, IRC, Advantage, and Rogue numbers). i suspect they will probably all perform about the same. let’s keep up the work on 6D for now, then get cranking on DD.

    good work!

    edit: P.S. it looks like for insurance decisions the pivot, i.e. 0 (tc = +2) will be perfect for ALL LATE SURRENDER!!! this would be great.

  • Automatic Monkey

     

    Great stuff, with the Rogue number. One other thing you might want to add is the opposite of the Rogue number for SD and DD games where you are not Wonging out- a count so low that you are not doubling on 11, hitting a lot more stiffs, not splitting etc. Such indices have value in that they allow you to make the same amount of money while putting less money at risk.

  • Mimosine

     

    Quote: Automatic Monkey said:
    Great stuff, with the Rogue number. One other thing you might want to add is the opposite of the Rogue number for SD and DD games where you are not Wonging out- a count so low that you are not doubling on 11, hitting a lot more stiffs, not splitting etc. Such indices have value in that they allow you to make the same amount of money while putting less money at risk.

    an excellent suggestion.

    i’m sure we will hit you up for your expertise to develop the SD & DD strategy – and will rely heavily on your UBZ-SV. i think starting with 6D is the way to go, as you have already formulated a lot with respect to sd and dd games, while 6D remains largely under-explored and remains the most viable game for someone at my betting level.

  • Mimosine

     

    Rounded Index Numbers for UBZ-OS (Unbalanced Zen – Open Source), 6D along with NightSpirit’s numbers. In going for simplicity – one set of numbers for H17 or S17. These are the numbers I plan to sim when possible.

    IRC = -24, tags as listed above.

    Broken down:
    1) Moron – all index plays at RC = 0,
    except Insurance which is the most important index play, +4.

    2) Simple – all index plays at -6 or +6 (Defined as the KeyCount and Advantage numbers).
    Ins = +4
    Splitting 10’s = +10

    3) Full – more complete set of rounded numbers for those inclined. Here we incorporate the IRC, Rogue and the Pivot (RC = 0, TC = +2). So you have 5 numbers to remember -24, -6, 0, +6, +10.

    4) UBZ-NS NightSpirit’s Sim numbers to a reasonable approximation across all the different games he simmed (e.g. H17, S17).

              Moron    Simple        Full    UBZ-NS
    
       INS        4         4         4         4
    
      12 v 2      0         6         6         4
      12 v 3      0         -6        0         -3
      12 v 4                          -6       -11
      12 v 5                         IRC       -24
      12 v 6                         IRC       -20
      13 v 2                         IRC       -18
      13 v 3                         IRC       -27
      16 v 9      0         6         10        10
     16 v 10      0         -6        -6       -12
     15 v 10      0         6         6         6
    
      8 v 5       0         6         6         7
      8 v 6       0         -6        0         -1
      9 v 2       0         -6        -6        -6
      9 v 7       0         6         6         7
     10 v 10      0         6         6         7
      10 v A      0         6         6         6
      11 v A      0         -6        -6        -6
    
     A,8 v 5      0         -6        0         -3
     A,8 v 6      0         -6        -6        -7
    
      XX v 5                10        10        11
      XX v 6                10        10        10

    i plan on simming these with Powersim, once i read the manual a little more – i probably have to generate a bet spread to get real numbers. I’ll probably do a 1-10 spread for all. It will take some time. if someone wants to crank these out using CVCX/CVData please do! i guess i’ll also have to sim H17 and S17, but I won’t sim LS for the time being.

  • Mimosine

     

    ROUND 1 sims:
    Using PowerSim6
    Decks: 6
    Cards: 312
    Players: 4
    Shuffle Point: 234
    Maximum Rounds per shoe (32767 = infinity): 32767
    Burn Cards: 1
    Maximum Dealer Rounds (0 = infinity): 0
    Holecard(1) or Upcard(0) last: 1
    European No Hole Card: 0
    Maximum Split Hands: 4
    Double After Splits: 1
    Resplit Aces: 0
    Extra Hits on Split Aces: 0
    Double on hard 10 or 11 only: 0
    Double on split aces: 0
    Dealer hits soft 17: 0
    Late Surrender: 0
    Pick up hands from Last(1) to first(0): 1
    Display hands: 0
    Display shoes: 0
    Strategy File for Player 1: UBZmoron.str
    Strategy File for Player 2: UBZsimple.str
    Strategy File for Player 3: UBZfull.str
    Strategy File for Player 4: UBZns.str

    Tag for 1: -1
    Tag for 2: 1
    Tag for 3: 2
    Tag for 4: 2
    Tag for 5: 2
    Tag for 6: 2
    Tag for 7: 1
    Tag for 8: 0
    Tag for 9: 0
    Tag for 10: -2

    Count is unbalanced
    Initial Running Count: -24

    (Crude 10-100 spread)
    Bet Spread: -20: 10 -19: 10 -18: 10 -17: 10 -16: 10 -15: 10 -14: 10 -13: 10 -12: 10 -11: 10 -10: 10 -9: 10 -8: 10 -7: 10 -6: 20 -5: 20 -4: 30 -3: 30 -2: 40 -1: 40 0: 50 1: 50 2: 60 3: 60 4: 80 5: 80 6: 100 7: 100 8: 100 9: 100 10: 100 11: 100 12: 100 13: 100 14: 100 15: 100 16: 100 17: 100 18: 100 19: 100 20: 100

    Results:

    10000000 rounds Bankroll = 10000
    1: $.133445/$22.2079 = .600889% var = 1539.35 SCORE = 11.56818 ROR = .176616
    2: $.150129/$22.2079 = .676018% var = 1554.995 SCORE = 14.4944 ROR = .145014
    3: $.152476/$22.2079 = .686587% var = 1557.115 SCORE = 14.93083 ROR = .141077
    4: $.157337/$22.2079 = .708475% var = 1550.543 SCORE = 15.96537 ROR = .131408

    not very impressive… i don’t think…. comments? From the SCORE UBZsimple and UBZfull indicies are pretty good. I need to run this against KO with the same spread to see how it fairs…. var seems HUGE, but i don’t really know if it is…. hmmm.

  • nightspirit

     

    Hey Mimo, had some time today and run a few sims for you. For 4.5/6 S17 DAS 2Billion rounds with CVCX

              Score
    Moron     16.88
    Simple    18.62
    Full      18.89
    ubz-NS    18.93
    
    KO pref  16.40 
    UBZII    16.71   (both canned sims)
    

    The last picture shows a comparsion version of the canned sims vs. ubz-os-full. That UBZ-OS performs so well here is because KO doesn`t split the tens and both soft double are also not contained, I think. You won’t be able to split the 10’s all the time, so see this comparision with a grain of salt. Furthermore, we don’t know how well UBZ-OS-full performes for other rules. That’s the next step

  • nightspirit

     

    Today I resumed the 2 deck idea and ran some sims. I tried to round the index numbers according Mimosines plan, my previous sims and Monkeys SVUBZ. And thats what i used for 2 decks S17, DAS, LS 2000 billion rounds:

              index number
    12 v. 2          2
    12 v. 3          0
    12 v. 4         -2
    12 v. 5         -8
    12 v. 6         -8
    13 v. 2         -8
    13 v. 3         -8
    16 v. 9          2
    16 v. 10       -8
    15 v. 10        2
    
    8 v. 5           2
    8 v. 6           0
    9 v. 2          -2
    9 v. 7           2
    10 v. 10        2
    10 v. A         2
    11 v. A         -2
    
    A,8 v. 5        -2
    
    A,8 v. 4         8
    X,X v. 5         8
    X,X v. 6         8
    
    Surrender
    15 v. 9           0
    15 v. 10          0
    14 v. 10          0

  • nightspirit

     

    opps.. Insurance +1, for the 2 deck sim above. To insure at 0 or +2 wouldn`t change SCORE that much i think.

  • Knox

     

    Guys, I am on the verge of a software purchase for sims. I can’t take it anymore, not having one. I want to be able to sim any custom system that I develop. Help me double check and make sure I buy the right software first time around. Is Qfit the only way to go and if so which program?

    Thanks

  • nightspirit

     

    Quote: Knox said:
    Guys, I am on the verge of a software purchase for sims. I can’t take it anymore, not having one. I want to be able to sim any custom system that I develop. Help me double check and make sure I buy the right software first time around. Is Qfit the only way to go and if so which program?

    Thanks

    I only use Qfit’s suite and don’t know where other simulators have their advantages and disadvantage etc… But with Qfit’s software I have all i ever need. And if you got problems or questions Norm’s support is outstanding as well.

    Among a lot of other things can you sim or redesign your custom systems with CVData and with CVCX you get quick the optimal bet ramp. I think Automaic Monkey, our “Lord of sims” can give you a lot more information.

  • Mimosine

     

    NS,

    Really good work. I ran some heavy duty powersim sims a few weeks back and was really disappointed with the results. I couldn’t get any of the UBZs to outperform KO. I think i tracked it down to an error in my index play file, but was so fed up i put it on the back burner…

    your results have rekindled my interest! that is a pretty big difference using simple UBZ vs. KO! wow!

    a lot of my index numbers were rounded using intuition and an excel spreadsheet that tracks TC as a function of RC. ZG and others have suggested using rounded index numbers for 2D and SD that are HALF the value of 6D. I think this would work great and be easy to memorize… Insurance would have to be accurate of course since it is the most important.

    but we could use -3 and +3 for the other index numbers, the IRC would stay the same for the H 12v4, 13v2, 13v3, and we would have to adjust TT V5,6 to a lower number i think maybe half of the rogue index number…. but more than +3.

    does this jive with the results you’re seeing?

    i need to buy CVCX finally. powersim doesn’t cut it, and finally i have a mac that can run windows so i can pump pump pump out some sims on my nice Duo 2.4GHzzzzoooooom!

  • nightspirit

     

    Quote: Mimosine said:
    NS,

    Really good work. I ran some heavy duty powersim sims a few weeks back and was really disappointed with the results. I couldn’t get any of the UBZs to outperform KO. I think i tracked it down to an error in my index play file, but was so fed up i put it on the back burner…

    your results have rekindled my interest! that is a pretty big difference using simple UBZ vs. KO! wow!

    Thanks, you’r welcome! I also hope that I doesn’t made a mistake with the settings. Would be nice if another member could cross check the results. I think to use CVData for such sims would garuantee a higher accuracy. Could be one method to check it.

    Quote: Mimosine said:
    a lot of my index numbers were rounded using intuition and an excel spreadsheet that tracks TC as a function of RC. ZG and others have suggested using rounded index numbers for 2D and SD that are HALF the value of 6D. I think this would work great and be easy to memorize… Insurance would have to be accurate of course since it is the most important.

    but we could use -3 and +3 for the other index numbers, the IRC would stay the same for the H 12v4, 13v2, 13v3, and we would have to adjust TT V5,6 to a lower number i think maybe half of the rogue index number…. but more than +3.

    does this jive with the results you’re seeing?

    Yes, sounds good! I must have overlooked your Key Count values.. (I realized that I confused A,8 vs. with A,8 v. 5 first ) I will substitute the -2 and +2 values with -3 and +3, the rogue value could be +10 for 6 decks and +5 for 2 decks. I only choosed +8 because of AM’s risk averse indices and it would be easy to remember as +IRC. Anyway, I think your intuitive values will perform as well, if not better and I will try to run the sims according your idea in the next days.

    Quote: Mimosine said:
    i need to buy CVCX finally. powersim doesn’t cut it, and finally i have a mac that can run windows so i can pump pump pump out some sims on my nice Duo 2.4GHzzzzoooooom!

    Yeah, get it! With that processor you could produce sims a waaaayyy faster than I (I don’t have the heart to mention which processor I use …).

  • Mimosine

     

    Quote: nightspirit said:
    I only choosed +8 because of AM’s risk averse indices and it would be easy to remember as +IRC.

    that would be easy to remember. go for it!

  • nightspirit

     

    According Mimosine’s idea for 2 decks, I substituted my original “2” index number from above with “3”, made some other small changes and compared both with eachother. The “3” performs slightly better. But personally i would stick with the “2”. See below.

    
                     index 
    12 v. 2          3
    12 v. 3          0
    12 v. 4         -3
    12 v. 5         -8
    12 v. 6         -8
    13 v. 2         -8
    13 v. 3         -8
    16 v. 9          3
    16 v. 10        -8
    15 v. 10         3
    
    8 v. 5           3
    8 v. 6           0
    9 v. 2          -3
    9 v. 7           3
    10 v. 10         3
    10 v. A          3
    11 v. A         -3
    
    A,8 v. 5        -3
    A,8 v. 6        -3
    
    X,X v. 5         8
    X,X v. 6         8
    
    Surrender
    15 v. 9           0
    15 v. A          -3
    14 v. 10          0
    
    insurance         1 

    (Link is dead)

    Then I generated some index numbers for single deck. Depending on rules and penetration some will change slightly, but since we round them anyway, that doesn’t matter much. I generated the same as for DD and 6D. I know it’s not possible to use all because of rule restrictions like double on 10,11 only.
    For S17

    
                     index 
    12 v. 2          2
    12 v. 3          1
    12 v. 4         -1
    12 v. 5         -3
    12 v. 6         -2
    13 v. 2         -2
    13 v. 3         -3
    16 v. 9          3
    16 v. 10        -4
    15 v. 10         1
    
    8 v. 5           2
    8 v. 6           1
    9 v. 7          -1
    9 v. 7           2
    10 v. 10         1
    10 v. A          1
    11 v. A         -4
    
    A,8 v. 5        -1
    A,8 v. 6        -2
    
    X,X v. 5         3
    X,X v. 6         4
    
    Surrender
    15 v. 9           1
    15 v. A          -2
    14 v. 10          0  
    
    insurance        1
    If the dealer H17, hit on 12 vs. 6 when RC < -5 and double down 11 vs. A when RC > -4.

    For handheld games I would choose only one strategy and use them for both. My suggestion would be:

    
                     index
    12 v. 2          2
    12 v. 3          0
    12 v. 4         -2
    12 v. 5         irc
    12 v. 6         irc
    13 v. 2         irc
    13 v. 3         irc
    16 v. 9          2
    16 v. 10        irc
    15 v. 10         2
    
    8 v. 5           2
    8 v. 6           0
    9 v. 2          -2
    9 v. 7           2
    10 v. 10         2
    10 v. A          2
    11 v. A         -2
    
    A,8 v. 5         0
    A,8 v. 6        -2
    
    X,X v. 5        +irc
    X,X v. 6        +irc
    
    Surrender
    15 v. 9           0
    15 v. A          -2
    14 v. 10          0
    
    insurance 
    SD    0
    DD    1

    What do you think? To memorize 6 for 6 decks and 2 for 2 decks sounds fairly simply, or?
    The next steps could be to develop optimal betting ramps for SD, DD and 6D. Then we could establish some group values ala KO. The cherry on the top would be to get some wonging and -out points with the TC version.

  • boneuphtoner

    A different approach

    To NightSpirit and Mimosine,

    You guys have done some great work. I simmed UBZ-OS-Full 6 decks with CVCX and was able to reproduce your results. Which surpassed KO and and the canned UBZ sims by a noticeable margin! Great job.

    I’ve taken a slightly different approach. My goal was to come up with a single set of indices that would best the canned UBZ, KO, and Hi-Lo sims for SD, DD, six and eight decks. One set of indices for everything. I have sims to prove that I’ve done just that for SD-eight decks.

    The UBZ-OS-Full six deck strategy bested my strategy for a six deck sim, which isn’t suprising since my strategy was designed as a compromise for all numbers of decks. When I tried your six deck UBZ-OS-Full strategy with a two deck sim, my compromised strategy came out ahead. I have no doubt that your 2 deck strategy would beat my compromised strategy.

    I’m using the same IRCs and insurance indexes as you guys…here are my SBA risk averse generated compromise indices:

    16 v. 10 -5
    15 v. 10 5
    16 v. 9 10
    12 v. 2 0
    12 v. 3 0
    12 v. 4 -5
    12 v. 5 IRC
    12 v. 6 IRC
    13 v. 2 IRC
    13 v. 3 IRC
    9 v. 2 0
    9 v. 7 10
    8 v. 5 10
    8 v. 6 0
    10 v. 10 15
    10 v. A 10
    11 v. A 0
    A,8 v. 5 0
    A,8 v. 6 0
    A,9 v. 5 10
    A,9 v. 6 10
    10,10 v. 5 10
    10, 10 v. 6 10
    9,9 v. A 10
    9,9 v. 7 10
    Surrender
    15 v. 9 0
    15 v. A 0
    14 v. 10 0
    14 v. 9 10
    14 v. A 10
    13 v. 10 15
    16 v. 8 10

    Could someone verify my results? For single deck, the only difference is all of the +10 indices become +5. That’s it. It sims consistently better than the canned UBZ sims across the board. This also sims consistently better than the RPC and Mentor counts (with sweet 16, fab 3 indices) across the board.

    Just opening yet another wrinkle in the discussion. The thing I like about this strategy is that there is only one set of indices to remember.

  • boneuphtoner

     

    Quote:
    (with sweet 16, fab 3 indices)

    Whoops! I meant Fab 4!!!

  • nightspirit

    boneuphtoner, good job too!

    Your idea reminds me of AM’s BF-Count. You choosed also index values which are easy to remember. I like this idea with one index set for all decks, since most of the gain comes from betting in multideck. I believe George C. did the same and for those, who play more 2 deck he had special index set. That our versions perform better, than the canned ones sounds good. But we must bear in mind that they don’t split tens and don’t double the soft hands, which we included.

    I don’t generated risk-averse indices, because the gain when using them is only marginal. And our rounded versions performs as well as AM’s SVUBZ.
    (Link is dead)

    Regarding your index set, I would skip the +15 indices. Make 10 vs. 10 at +10 for multideck and +5 for handheld games and remove 13 vs.10. I won’t double my soft 20. Instead I would inlude other soft hands like A,7 vs. 2, A7 vs. A, A8 vs. 4 and A6 vs. 2. Just my suggestions. Anyway, nice work! Can you post a screenshot?

  • Mimosine

     

    Quote: nightspirit said:
    Make 10 vs. 10 at +10 for multideck and +5 for handheld games and remove 13 vs.10. I won’t double my soft 20. Instead I would inlude other soft hands like A,7 vs. 2, A7 vs. A, A8 vs. 4 and A6 vs. 2. Just my suggestions. Anyway, nice work!

    I would agree with this.

    I think all these ideas are great. Rounded indices specific for each game or I like the all purpose indices as well. I’d choose the ones NS and I came up with (for 6D or SD&DD) over 1 set of all around indices, but this largely depends on what games you play to. If you play 6D 90% of the time, but once in awhile find a good DD or SD game, then don’t waste the time on 2 sets of numbers.

    Again to be clear, INSURANCE can never be a rounded number. It should always be precise because it constitutes roughly 1.1% of the advantage gained in index play. The next 17 I-18 plays don’t add 1% combined!!!! Thus NS’s numbers and my rounded numbers and boneuphtoner’s numbers don’t impart drastic changes in the output. significant and measurable, yes, but the decision on which numbers to use should always be left to the individual using them.

    The two stated goals (or maybe implied) are simplicity in execution and performance BETTER than KO. The reasons being for me is that I know I can do a level 2 count and I love using KO, so this is my(our) attempt at a hybrid between the two.

    I think very shortly we’ll be at a stage where we can put all these things in this thread together and publish them as a freely available PDF – assuming NS that you’re willing to allow this with your work.

    That is where I’m leaning for the time being. there is work to be done, and i have not been contributing as much as i’d like, but as it stands we have several UBZ OS variants that achieve the goals stated above. For that thanks for everyone’s contributions, especially NS.

    And most importantly, UBZ is now a real card counting system (well, we have to get surrender and a bet ramp in order, but the latter can be optimized pretty easy in the absence of index play).

  • Mimosine

     

    Quote: nightspirit said:
    The cherry on the top would be to get some wonging and -out points with the TC version.

    I already have the deck adjusted wongout and wongin points for 6D done.

    Here are my initial estimates, again we could try to round them.

    6D IRC = -24

    WONG IN

    5 Decks remain RC = -8 • TC = ~1.20 (bet 2units)
    4 Decks remain RC = -6 • TC = ~1.25 (bet 2units)
    3 Decks remain RC = -4 • TC = ~1.33 (bet 2units)

    WONG OUT

    5 Decks remain RC = -28 • TC = ~ -0.8
    4 Decks remain RC = -24 • TC = ~ -1.0
    3 Decks remain RC = -18 • TC = ~ -1.0

    These Numbers are VERY rough…. But we can use optimized bet spreads to determine good wong in points based on when we should bet 2 units. I calculated these numbers using excel, but there is something a little wonky with the calculation, the RC’s might be off by +/- 4, or they might be just right…. I’m not 100% confident in them, I know they’re close and several conversations with Fred Renzey lead me to believe I’m on the right track…. maybe someone could sim these that after all would be a good indicator if my intuition is good (again )

  • nightspirit

     

    Quote: Mimosine said:
    The two stated goals (or maybe implied) are simplicity in execution and performance BETTER than KO.

    I think that goal is achieved. The rounded versions perform better than KO-preferred but (understandably) not better than KO-Full. But to use only the most important BS deviations saves us, the simplicity! When I find some time in the next weeks, I will try to generate a full set of indices for 2 and 6 decks, such as published in the KO book (just for the sake of completeness). And maybe we could add the one or other index number for single and double deck.

    Quote: Mimosine said:
    I think very shortly we’ll be at a stage where we can put all these things in this thread together and publish them as a freely available PDF – assuming NS that you’re willing to allow this with your work.

    Are you kidding me??? Thats a fantistic idea! Most of the work did my computer, special thanks to him!

    Quote: Mimosine said:
    That is where I’m leaning for the time being. there is work to be done, and i have not been contributing as much as i’d like, but as it stands we have several UBZ OS variants that achieve the goals stated above. For that thanks for everyone’s contributions, especially NS.

    That’s not worth mentioning. It was a great idea by you! And without your interest in that project nobody would have cared about it. You really have a brilliant understanding of the unbalanced counts and you proved again that

    in general the published versions of systems are NOT the superior versions” Quote zengrifter

    Quote: Mimosine said:
    And most importantly, UBZ is now a real card counting system (well, we have to get surrender and a bet ramp in order, but the latter can be optimized pretty easy in the absence of index play).

    Yeah, I found it undervalued all the time! The surrender indices are almost completely, only 15 vs. 10 is absent. The concept of key and pivot values got somehow lost. The bet ramps are not the problem, since the sims are already there.

The BlackjackInfo Knowledge Base contains over 200,000 messages posted by the BlackjackInfo community.

Posting and replies to the knowledge base are no longer available, but comments and replies are welcomed on the blog.