Bren_22: Unbalanced Counts

[Bren_22]

hi all,

If playing a 6 deck game and wanting to use an unbalanced counting system, which one should I pick?

I hear that the KO count is very good and simple to use. Would there be any clear advantage using UBZ2 or the UstonSS Count.

I have never heard anyone suggest of talk about the UstonSS Count. I only came across it on the BJMath web site when rating counting systems, and it features very highly in the ratings.

Is the UstonSS recommended for 6 decks? if not why?

thxs

bren.

[Don Schlesinger]

I'd go with K-O as a start, because it is the simplest. UBZ2 will outperform K-O (see the Chapter 11 SCORE analyses), but it is a level-2 system and, therefore, slightly more difficult to learn.

Don

[Bren_22]

> I'd go with K-O as a start, because it is
> the simplest. UBZ2 will outperform K-O (see
> the Chapter 11 SCORE analyses), but it is a
> level-2 system and, therefore, slightly more
> difficult to learn.

> Don

Thxs for the reply Don, but why no information on the UstonSS Count?

It seems to be like a unbalanced version of the Halves count, and has similar BE/BE/IC.

Can't be that bad can it?

thxs

Bren

[Norm Wattenberger]

They are all excellent counts. KO for its simplicity is remarkably strong. UBZ II is better and a great compromise for switching between handheld and shoes. UstonSS (great work by Arnold & Sam Case ? but bad name) has a near perfect betting correlation. (I don?t think Uston ever used any of his own counts.) The question is, how complex do you want to get in an unbalanced count? It is my belief that you should change counts in your life a minimum number of times. Better yet, a maximum of once unless you intend to devote your life to counting. So picking your first count is somewhat dependent on where you want to end up. If you intend never to make this a profession, there is nothing whatever wrong with KO. If you wish to advance substantially, keep in mind that unbalanced counts are not very effective at shuffle tracking should you later take that route. But it really comes down to your own comfort. In my case, I have no problem at all with multi-level counts ? but I hate side counts. You need to find your own comfort level.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Thxs for the reply Don, but why no
> information on the UstonSS Count?

> It seems to be like a unbalanced version of
> the Halves count, and has similar BE/BE/IC.

> Can't be that bad can it?

I didn't say it was bad. It's just that, if you go to level 2, then UBZ2 is better.

Don

[Titaniumman]

Bren,

If you decide to go with an unbalanced count, and initially learn KO with possible plans of later advancing to a level two count, you might want to talk to Parker first.

He started with KO and switched to UBZ2. He has said many times that in hindsight, he would not have switched because the effort of relearning outweighed the benefits yielded.

[Hollywood]

> hi all,

> If playing a 6 deck game and wanting to use
> an unbalanced counting system, which one
> should I pick?

> I hear that the KO count is very good and
> simple to use. Would there be any clear
> advantage using UBZ2 or the UstonSS Count.

> I have never heard anyone suggest of talk
> about the UstonSS Count. I only came across
> it on the BJMath web site when rating
> counting systems, and it features very
> highly in the ratings.

> Is the UstonSS recommended for 6 decks? if
> not why?

> thxs

> bren.

I use KO exclusively. I find it simple. For me it works well, because I have no where near the skills (math especially) as some of my other BJ buddies.
But, I am living proof that you don't need to be a sharpshooter at this stuff. For me, if I had to deal with a side count I would need a prescription for prozac.
I have tried other systems and KO is the only one I has worked for me effectively without
A. confusing me
B. making certain that the look on my face is not to focused. (camo reason).

Anyway, I thought I would just give you the 2 cents from a person who is not that clever at this stuff and yet if I told you how much I was up, just following this rooms suggestions, you would fall off your chair.

Good luck

Hollywood

[Bren_22]

> They are all excellent counts. KO for its
> simplicity is remarkably strong. UBZ II is
> better and a great compromise for switching
> between handheld and shoes. UstonSS (great
> work by Arnold & Sam Case ? but bad
> name) has a near perfect betting
> correlation. (I don?t think Uston ever used
> any of his own counts.) The question is, how
> complex do you want to get in an unbalanced
> count? It is my belief that you should
> change counts in your life a minimum number
> of times. Better yet, a maximum of once
> unless you intend to devote your life to
> counting. So picking your first count is
> somewhat dependent on where you want to end
> up. If you intend never to make this a
> profession, there is nothing whatever wrong
> with KO. If you wish to advance
> substantially, keep in mind that unbalanced
> counts are not very effective at shuffle
> tracking should you later take that route.
> But it really comes down to your own
> comfort. In my case, I have no problem at
> all with multi-level counts ? but I hate
> side counts. You need to find your own
> comfort level.

Talking of side counts, is it possible (not that I really want to, just curious) to add side counts to Unbalanced counts? Has anybody ever done that? How would you go about it?

thxs

Bren.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Talking of side counts, is it possible (not
> that I really want to, just curious) to add
> side counts to Unbalanced counts? Has
> anybody ever done that? How would you go
> about it?

Surely you could. But you'd really have to true count the side count for any real gain, negating the simplicity of the unbalanced count. I doubt anyone has done this.

[Parker]

> Bren,

> If you decide to go with an unbalanced
> count, and initially learn KO with possible
> plans of later advancing to a level two
> count, you might want to talk to Parker
> first.

> He started with KO and switched to UBZ2. He
> has said many times that in hindsight, he
> would not have switched because the effort
> of relearning outweighed the benefits
> yielded.

Since my name was mentioned, I figured that I'd contribute my opinion, straight from the horse's mouth (or some part of the horse).

It did indeed take me much longer to master a level two count than I had anticipated. It has been nearly two years, and I am just now starting to feel really comfortable with UBZ2.

Of course, I complicated things somewhat by my decision to learn two sets of indices, one for single deck and one for double deck. Also, I play single and double deck games exclusively.

One nice thing about UBZ2 is that if I ever decide to switch to a balanced system, all I have to do is start counting the 3 as +1 instead of +2, learn a true-count conversion, and I am now doing the balanced Zen count.

Of course, one may do the same thing with KO - stop counting the 7, true count, and you've got Hi-lo.

Counting requires a certain sort of mental aptitude, that is separate from intelligence and/or mathmatic ability. Almost anyone can learn to count cards, but it is much easier for some than others.

Some people can learn a multi-level count with multiple side counts and 200 indices in a matter of days.

I hate those people. :-)

Those of us who are mere mortals take a little longer.

If you plan on playing mostly shoes, I don't feel that a multi-level count is worth the effort. Most of your advantage is gained through betting correlation, that is, throwing the big bets out when the count calls for it, and a level one count will tell you when to do that as well as any more complex count.

[Zenfighter]

> Since my name was mentioned, I figured that
> I'd contribute my opinion, straight from the
> horse's mouth (or some part of the horse).

> It did indeed take me much longer to master
> a level two count than I had anticipated. It
> has been nearly two years, and I am just now
> starting to feel really comfortable with
> UBZ2.

> Of course, I complicated things somewhat by
> my decision to learn two sets of indices,
> one for single deck and one for double deck.
> Also, I play single and double deck games
> exclusively.

> One nice thing about UBZ2 is that if I ever
> decide to switch to a balanced system, all I
> have to do is start counting the 3 as +1
> instead of +2, learn a true-count
> conversion, and I am now doing the balanced
> Zen count.

> Of course, one may do the same thing with KO
> - stop counting the 7, true count, and
> you've got Hi-lo.

> Counting requires a certain sort of mental
> aptitude, that is separate from intelligence
> and/or mathmatic ability. Almost anyone can
> learn to count cards, but it is much easier
> for some than others.

> Some people can learn a multi-level count
> with multiple side counts and 200 indices in
> a matter of days.

> I hate those people. :-)

> Those of us who are mere mortals take a
> little longer.

> If you plan on playing mostly shoes, I don't
> feel that a multi-level count is worth the
> effort. Most of your advantage is gained
> through betting correlation, that is,
> throwing the big bets out when the count
> calls for it, and a level one count will
> tell you when to do that as well as any more
> complex count.

Open "The Bible" and you will read

"A false balance is abomination to the Lord,
A just weight is his delight'.

Proverbs 11:1

Btw, don't skip your prayers every morning,
He'll forgive you, for sure!
With the Nevada bosses, I'm not so optimistic,
if you insist in cleaning them with your
terminator UBZ2 count.

Regards
Z

[Cacarulo]

Reading your post makes me think that you're associating unbalanced counts with systems that don't need a TC conversion. Balanced and Unbalanced systems can be played in both: TC or RC mode. Balanced systems are not very good in RC mode due to the lower pivot (0) and of course, TC systems are better than RC systems. For example, TKO is better than KO.
If you don't want to TC, the options are KO or R7 in the level-1 category and UBZ2 in the level-2 category.
If TC is not a problem then use Hi-Lo or TKO or better than that: Hi-Lo/7 which is archived on this site.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo