Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: AdvantageRay: Movin' On Up-KO to UBZII

  1. #1
    AdvantageRay
    Guest

    AdvantageRay: Movin' On Up-KO to UBZII

    Hey all. After reading Don's BJA2 for a third time (anxiously awaiting BJA3 by the way Don, already have my order in!), and paying extra attention to the SCORE chapter, it is clear that although the KO count may be a good start, it is certainly more of count with training wheels. (It helps the beginner not fall flat on his face, but certainly does not have the performance of some of the more sophistocated systems!)

    With that being said, I have logged about fifty hours of BJ play with the KO, and feel very comfy with it, but just looking for a little more. Going back to the SCORE chapter, it appears the next best system as far as mixing simplicity and power is George C's UBZII. From the SCORE charts, it definitely seems to rank as the granddaddy of the unbalanced systems, and seems to only consistently and significantly trail the all-mighty level two balanced dual paremeter Hi-Opt II (which I am definitely not ready to tackle).

    How is the UBZII in practice? Is it really the best unbalanced system out there or is there one better? Anybody else out there made the conversion from KO to UBZII? Any thoughts on this subject will be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Norman Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norman Wattenberger: Re: Movin' On Up-KO to UBZII


    I can't comment on the effort required, but thought you might like to see the gain. Below are the SCORES for double deck for penetrations of 26 to 52 cards cut off. KO Preferred, UBZ and Hi-Opt II.






  3. #3
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Movin' On Up-KO to UBZII

    > I can't comment on the effort required, but
    > thought you might like to see the gain.
    > Below are the SCORES for double deck for
    > penetrations of 26 to 52 cards cut off. KO
    > Preferred, UBZ and Hi-Opt II.

    Norm,

    When you have a minute, will you change "Score" to "SCORE"?

    Thanks.

    Don

  4. #4
    Norman Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norman Wattenberger: Re: Movin' On Up-KO to UBZII

    Keep forgetting it's an acronym

  5. #5
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Movin' On Up-KO to UBZII

    > Keep forgetting it's an acronym

    You and everyone else. Read "More on SCORE" in BJA3. If you haven't already read it, I'll send it to you.

    Don

  6. #6
    AdvantageRay
    Guest

    AdvantageRay: Re: Movin' On Up-KO to UBZII

    > I can't comment on the effort required, but
    > thought you might like to see the gain.
    > Below are the SCORES for double deck for
    > penetrations of 26 to 52 cards cut off. KO
    > Preferred, UBZ and Hi-Opt II.

    >
    Thanks for the chart Norm! The one thing this chart really seems to drive home is the concept of how powerful penetration is. At its worst (50%) it doesnt matter which system you use, it's all crap! I'll definitely keep it in mind when Im on my fifth casino without playing a hand and am contemplating giving in to a game with less then great penetration

    Dave

  7. #7
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Been there, done that

    I started with KO, and moved up to UBZ2 a few years ago.

    It took me a lot longer than I anticipated to get used to using level 2 tags. It was about a year before I finally reached the point where I felt as comfortable with UBZ2 as I had been with KO, that is, being able to keep the count heads-up with a fast dealer while carrying on a conversation with the pitboss.

    Now that I've made the switch I am happy with UBZ2, but if I had the whole thing to do over again with benefit of hindsight, I think I'd just learn to true-count KO.

    BTW, in the second edition of the UBZ2 book, George C. "officially" changed the name of the system from UBZII to UBZ2. He said he was tired of people asking about "UBZ-eleven" or "UBZ eye-eye."

  8. #8
    AdvantageRay
    Guest

    AdvantageRay: Re: Been there, done that

    > It took me a lot longer than I anticipated
    > to get used to using level 2 tags. It was
    > about a year before I finally reached the
    > point where I felt as comfortable with UBZ2
    > as I had been with KO, that is, being able
    > to keep the count heads-up with a fast
    > dealer while carrying on a conversation with
    > the pitboss.

    Once again Parker, thanks for the response. A year huh? Wow I would not have expected that!

    > Now that I've made the switch I am happy
    > with UBZ2, but if I had the whole thing to
    > do over again with benefit of hindsight, I
    > think I'd just learn to true-count KO.

    Do you think the results from the TKO would be better, slightly worse or about the same as UBZ2?

    > BTW, in the second edition of the UBZ2 book,
    > George C. "officially" changed the
    > name of the system from UBZII to UBZ2. He
    > said he was tired of people asking about
    > "UBZ-eleven" or "UBZ
    > eye-eye."

    haha thats kind of funny. I cant say Ive ever made that mistake, but I can understand his frustration.

  9. #9
    paranoid android
    Guest

    paranoid android: Re: Been there, done that

    > BTW, in the second edition of the UBZ2 book,
    > George C. "officially" changed the
    > name of the system from UBZII to UBZ2. He
    > said he was tired of people asking about
    > "UBZ-eleven" or "UBZ
    > eye-eye."

    In his manual he printed the name of his count as UBZ11 (u-b-z-1-1). Two 1's is generally construed as eleven. If he wanted it to be a Roman numeral 2, he should have used II, not 11. So I place the blame on him for the initial confusion. Not that I really care ;-)

  10. #10
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Been there, done that

    > In his manual he printed the name of his
    > count as UBZ11 (u-b-z-1-1). Two 1's is
    > generally construed as eleven. If he wanted
    > it to be a Roman numeral 2, he should have
    > used II, not 11. So I place the blame on him
    > for the initial confusion. Not that I really
    > care ;-)

    I pointed this out to Geroge, when I was doing the SCORE comparisons for BJA2. I wanted to be sure that, indeed, it wasn't UBZ-eleven. He assured me that he had meant to write Roman numeral 2 (II) and that, to avoid future confusion, he would write UBZ2, instead.

    Then, I went ahead and sent BJA3 to the printer, never having changed UBZII to UBZ2! UGH!

    Don

    P.S. We'll make it right for the softcover edition!

  11. #11
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Some figures

    > Do you think the results from the TKO would
    > be better, slightly worse or about the same
    > as UBZ2?

    The SCOREs below are based on the following rules:

    6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,1 player,5000 million rounds:

    Play-All

               1-4     1-8     1-12    1-16    1-20 
    TKO 10.41 27.41 36.81 42.64 46.59
    UBZ2 10.79 27.72 36.61 41.92 45.43


    Optimal Wonging

               1-4     1-8     1-12    1-16    1-20 
    TKO 66.49 68.17 69.14 69.43 69.54
    UBZ2 62.47 63.60 63.85 63.91 63.93


    Hope this helps.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  12. #12
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Exact C22 indices used in both systems *NM*


  13. #13
    AdvantageRay
    Guest

    AdvantageRay: Re: Some figures

    > Hope this helps.
    > Sincerely,
    > Cacarulo

    Helps very much! Exactly what I was looking for..

    Thanks!

    D

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.