New Learner: Parker or George C.: UBZII Questions

[New Learner]

I've purchased the UBZ2 book and it looks like Greek to me.
First, do you happen to know why the Index numbers for the 10,10 split on p. 1-9 is different than the 10,10 split on p. 2-12?
Second, how do you read the departures on p. 2-12? Say, for A,9 vs. 6 with an index number of 8. Does that mean Double at 8 or more, otherwise Hit (or otherwise Stand)?
Finally, the region around me has great single and double deck games. Do you suggest I memorize both the 1D and the 2D+ indices or do you suggest I memorize one or the other?

I tried to simulate the indices with PBA, but the numbers I get are radically different than the ones George C. has. Who's right? Thanks in advance.

[New Learner]

52 people have read this. Does anybody know the answers for any of these?

> I've purchased the UBZ2 book and it looks
> like Greek to me.
> First, do you happen to know why the Index
> numbers for the 10,10 split on p. 1-9 is
> different than the 10,10 split on p. 2-12?
> Second, how do you read the departures on p.
> 2-12? Say, for A,9 vs. 6 with an index
> number of 8. Does that mean Double at 8 or
> more, otherwise Hit (or otherwise Stand)?
> Finally, the region around me has great
> single and double deck games. Do you suggest
> I memorize both the 1D and the 2D+ indices
> or do you suggest I memorize one or the
> other?

> I tried to simulate the indices with PBA,
> but the numbers I get are radically
> different than the ones George C. has. Who's
> right? Thanks in advance.

[Cacarulo]

> I've purchased the UBZ2 book and it looks
> like Greek to me.

Come on, it isn't so hard.

> First, do you happen to know why the Index
> numbers for the 10,10 split on p. 1-9 is
> different than the 10,10 split on p. 2-12?

I don't have the book here so I can't tell.

> Second, how do you read the departures on p.
> 2-12? Say, for A,9 vs. 6 with an index
> number of 8. Does that mean Double at 8 or
> more, otherwise Hit (or otherwise Stand)?

Of course, that's the way indices work. For DD-indices you must double down when TC or RC >= index. Otherwise you follow BS. An exception would be a reversal index where you do exactly the opposite.

> Finally, the region around me has great
> single and double deck games. Do you suggest
> I memorize both the 1D and the 2D+ indices
> or do you suggest I memorize one or the
> other?

Yes, memorize both.

> I tried to simulate the indices with PBA,
> but the numbers I get are radically
> different than the ones George C. has. Who's
> right? Thanks in advance.

Follow the book or use SBA. It's more accurate.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[Don Schlesinger]

> First, do you happen to know why the Index
> numbers for the 10,10 split on p. 1-9 is
> different than the 10,10 split on p. 2-12?

My book starts with page 2-1. Where did you get a page 1-9??

Don

[New Learner]

Don,

I didn't know you wrote Unbalanced Zen II and your altered ego was George C.

> My book starts with page 2-1. Where did you
> get a page 1-9??

> Don

[Parker]

> Don,

> I didn't know you wrote Unbalanced Zen II
> and your altered ego was George C.

These are open, public forums. Just because your questions were directed at specific individuals does not preclude others from responding.

Furthermore, you complain in a follow-up post because over 50 people have read the post and no one has responded.

I had not previously responded to your post because I wanted to wait until I had time to check the book and compose a detailed, well-researched response.

You just succeeded in moving it way down on my list of priorities.

[Don Schlesinger]

> I didn't know you wrote Unbalanced Zen II
> and your altered ego was George C.

First of all, it's "alter ego." Second, you just shot your mouth off about how 50 people read your post and no one answered. So, did you want a personal answer from George, or would an answer from any of the 50 do?

Finally, instead of making a sarcastic ass of yourself, why don't you tell me where the pages came from, since they don't correspond to my latest version of the work, and maybe I can tell you why the indices don't jibe. Or, don't. I really couldn't care less.

If you want information from this page, you had better learn to lose the attitude fast. This is a FREE page, but it's also a civil one. You want to bitch, go somewhere else.

Don

[New Learner]

If I have offended, then I am sorry. That was not my intention, though Don, you certainly have razzed some people because they've made less than adequate comments or asked improper questions. I thought maybe I could tease you to lighten the mood. It was a bad joke at an inapropriate time.

As you've mentioned, Parker, this is a public forum and you are free to answer (or not). My intention to the second post was not to complain, but to just draw attention to the fact that 50+ people have read it and it's surprising that nobody knows the answers to any of the questions. In any case, I'm fully aware that nobody is required to answer any questions.

> These are open, public forums. Just because
> your questions were directed at specific
> individuals does not preclude others from
> responding.

> Furthermore, you complain in a follow-up
> post because over 50 people have read the
> post and no one has responded.

> I had not previously responded to your post
> because I wanted to wait until I had time to
> check the book and compose a detailed,
> well-researched response.

> You just succeeded in moving it way down on
> my list of priorities.

[Don Schlesinger]

> I thought maybe I
> could tease you to lighten the mood. It was
> a bad joke at an inapropriate time.

That's one of the problems of the Internet; if you're joking, then you need to add :-) so that we know your tone.

> My intention to the second post was
> not to complain, but to just draw attention
> to the fact that 50+ people have read it and
> it's surprising that nobody knows the
> answers to any of the questions. In any
> case, I'm fully aware that nobody is
> required to answer any questions.

In all likelihood, we know the answers to all the questions. Provide the information I've asked for, and try again.

Don

[New Learner]

Unbalanced Zen 2, 3rd Printing, by George C., on page 1-9, the Split indices for 10,10 reads 9,7,7 to correspond with the dealer's 4,5,6 respectively.

In the chart on page 2-12, the extension of the indices presented on 1-9, the indices for 10,10 reads 10,8,8 for the dealer's 4,5,6.

> Finally, instead of making a sarcastic ass
> of yourself, why don't you tell me where the
> pages came from, since they don't correspond
> to my latest version of the work, and maybe
> I can tell you why the indices don't jibe.
> Or, don't. I really couldn't care less.

[Parker]

It's not a good idea to tease The Don. :-)

Anyway, getting back to your original questions:

> I've purchased the UBZ2 book and it looks
> like Greek to me.

Keep it mind that this book is not intended to be a basic text on card counting. It makes an assumption that the reader is already familiar with basic strategy, card counting principles, and the basic concepts of unbalanced counts such as key count, pivot point, etc.

You might want to get a copy of Knockout Blackjack by Ken Fuchs and Olaf Vancura. Even though you will not be learning the KO count, it provides a good explanation of unbalanced systems in general Other good reference texts would be Professional Blackjack, by Stanford Wong, or Blackbelt in Blackjack, by Arnold Snyder.

> First, do you happen to know why the Index
> numbers for the 10,10 split on p. 1-9 is
> different than the 10,10 split on p. 2-12?

No, but I can guess. The numbers in the first section (which was the original edition of the book) were obtained using Imming's UBE and the numbers in the second section were generated with Karel Janecek's SBA. It is not unusual for different software to produce slightly different results.

Also, the chart on 1-9 is for "Reno rules" (double on 10-11 only) and the chart on 2-12 is for double any first two cards, although I don't think that this would have any effect on splitting tens.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter. The numbers only differ by 1. George C., Don Schlesinger, Arnold Snyder, and many others have all concluded that indices can be off by one full integer with no significant effect on EV.

Besides, splitting 10's will draw a lot of heat and is usually not recommended in single and double deck games.

> Second, how do you read the departures on p.
> 2-12? Say, for A,9 vs. 6 with an index
> number of 8. Does that mean Double at 8 or
> more, otherwise Hit (or otherwise Stand)?

You depart from basic strategy at or above the index number. So, for A,9 vs 6 you would stand below +8 and double at or above that number.

> Finally, the region around me has great
> single and double deck games. Do you suggest
> I memorize both the 1D and the 2D+ indices
> or do you suggest I memorize one or the
> other?

It depends on what you plan to play, as well as how much difficulty you have memorizing indices. If you plan to play a lot of single deck, by all means memorize the 1D indices - there is a significant gain in doing this. However, if you only play the single deck game occasionally, you can get by with using the 2D+ indices, and just learn the exact ones for a few key plays, such as insurance and 16 vs 10.

Personally, I play only single and double deck games. I memorized the exact indices for single deck, and the exact double deck numbers that can be found starting on page 1-18.

> I tried to simulate the indices with PBA,
> but the numbers I get are radically
> different than the ones George C. has. Who's
> right? Thanks in advance.

Trust George. I'm not sure if PBA is designed to be used on unbalanced counts used in running count mode.

Furthermore, I have complete sets of indices generated on SBA that a friend did for me, and they closely match George's.

Also, remember that indices near the pivot point are most accurate. The further from the pivot, the less accurate, and the more they will change with penetration.

[New Learner]

[Don Schlesinger]

> Also, the chart on 1-9 is for "Reno
> rules" (double on 10-11 only) and the
> chart on 2-12 is for double any first two
> cards, although I don't think that this
> would have any effect on splitting tens.

Are they both for h17? Now, that would make a difference!

> Trust George. I'm not sure if PBA is
> designed to be used on unbalanced counts
> used in running count mode.

It isn't.

Don