Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Praying Mantis: UBZ II or TKO?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Praying Mantis
    Guest

    Praying Mantis: UBZ II or TKO?

    I recently asked Parker about UBZ II, as I am seriously considering moving in that direction since I play mostly DD.

    I recently spoke with a fellow that has been at this game a number of years and told me that even though UBZ II is a good 'pitch' system, I would be better off with TKO rather than UBZ II because, I already use KO and it's a level 1 system. I would only have to learn true-counting to get basically, the same advantage.

    He feels there won't be that big of a difference with the playing efficiency by using a True KO vs. an unbalanced system that is not trued. (UBZ II) He believes it is easier to learn TC vs. a multi-level system. Seems to make sense to me.

    I found that UBZ II is about 10% more efficient than KO with SCORE. Has anyone compared SCORE of KO and TKO to see what difference we are talking about by just truing the system?

    Also, if I do go TKO, will that affect the indices?

    Appreciate any insite, guys...and gals, Bettie...

    PM

  2. #2
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: UBZ II or TKO?

    > I recently asked Parker about UBZ II, as I
    > am seriously considering moving in that
    > direction since I play mostly DD.

    I responded to your question on my pages, but I will expand a bit here -- added value for Don's Domain. :-)

    > I recently spoke with a fellow that has been
    > at this game a number of years and told me
    > that even though UBZ II is a good 'pitch'
    > system, I would be better off with TKO
    > rather than UBZ II because, I already use KO
    > and it's a level 1 system. I would only have
    > to learn true-counting to get basically, the
    > same advantage.

    It is true that most of the gain from going to a level 2 system comes in the area of playing efficiency, which is more important in single and double deck games. George C. developed UBZ2 with the double deck game in mind.

    In shoe games, I suspect that TKO and UBZ2 will be pretty close, although I won't know for sure until I actually run the sims.

    > He feels there won't be that big of a
    > difference with the playing efficiency by
    > using a True KO vs. an unbalanced system
    > that is not trued. (UBZ II) He believes it
    > is easier to learn TC vs. a multi-level
    > system. Seems to make sense to me.

    Me too, although this is a personal thing. It is pretty well documented that I had a tougher time than I expected going to level 2 tags. However, many people struggle with true count conversions and having to keep track of two numbers (running count and true count), as evidenced by the popularity of systems such as KO and Red 7. I guess it just depends on the individual, and how his/her mind works.

    > I found that UBZ II is about 10% more
    > efficient than KO with SCORE. Has anyone
    > compared SCORE of KO and TKO to see what
    > difference we are talking about by just
    > truing the system?

    Not yet, at least not that I'm aware of. Perhaps Cac or Zen can crunch some quick numbers (which I can shamelessly appropriate for my book :-)).

    > Also, if I do go TKO, will that affect the
    > indices?

    Most certainly. You will need true-counted indices. You can get the I-18 and Fab 4 from John Auston's BJRM, you can use CVData or SBA to generate your own . . . or you can wait for my book. :-)

    Here's another thought to mull over: Keep in mind that UBZ2 can be true-counted just like KO. I ran a sim on this a while back that seemed to indicate that a true-counted UBZ2 would out-perform balanced level 2 ace-reckoned counts such as Zen and RPC. Brett Harris came to essentially the same conclusion with his BrH systems.

  3. #3
    Hollywood
    Guest

    Hollywood: Re: UBZ II or TKO?

    > I responded to your question on my pages,
    > but I will expand a bit here -- added value
    > for Don's Domain. :-)

    > It is true that most of the gain from going
    > to a level 2 system comes in the area of
    > playing efficiency, which is more important
    > in single and double deck games. George C.
    > developed UBZ2 with the double deck game in
    > mind.

    > In shoe games, I suspect that TKO and UBZ2
    > will be pretty close, although I won't know
    > for sure until I actually run the sims.

    > Me too, although this is a personal thing.
    > It is pretty well documented that I had a
    > tougher time than I expected going to level
    > 2 tags. However, many people struggle with
    > true count conversions and having to keep
    > track of two numbers (running count and true
    > count), as evidenced by the popularity of
    > systems such as KO and Red 7. I guess it
    > just depends on the individual, and how
    > his/her mind works.

    > Not yet, at least not that I'm aware of.
    > Perhaps Cac or Zen can crunch some quick
    > numbers (which I can shamelessly appropriate
    > for my book :-)).

    > Most certainly. You will need true-counted
    > indices. You can get the I-18 and Fab 4 from
    > John Auston's BJRM, you can use CVData or
    > SBA to generate your own . . . or you can
    > wait for my book. :-)

    > Here's another thought to mull over: Keep in
    > mind that UBZ2 can be true-counted just like
    > KO. I ran a sim on this a while back that
    > seemed to indicate that a true-counted UBZ2
    > would out-perform balanced level 2
    > ace-reckoned counts such as Zen and RPC.
    > Brett Harris came to essentially the same
    > conclusion with his BrH systems.

    Nice post Parker.

    As a pure KO guy, I always love these.

    When the book comes out I want to PRE-ORDER the first 20 copies.

    Hollywood

  4. #4
    Praying Mantis
    Guest

    Praying Mantis: True Counting UBZ II?

    > I responded to your question on my pages,
    > but I will expand a bit here -- added value
    > for Don's Domain. :-)

    You made my point about "paid" vs. "free"

    > It is true that most of the gain from going
    > to a level 2 system comes in the area of
    > playing efficiency, which is more important
    > in single and double deck games. George C.
    > developed UBZ2 with the double deck game in
    > mind.

    Which is precisely WHY I am considering switching.

    > Me too, although this is a personal thing.
    > It is pretty well documented that I had a
    > tougher time than I expected going to level
    > 2 tags. However, many people struggle with
    > true count conversions and having to keep
    > track of two numbers (running count and true
    > count), as evidenced by the popularity of
    > systems such as KO and Red 7. I guess it
    > just depends on the individual, and how
    > his/her mind works.

    That's my problem, mine don't work too well... Quite frankly, not even sure which would be more difficult, learning to TC or a level 2 system. By the sound of your experience, TC seems much, much simpler. Of course, I could be wrong.

    > Not yet, at least not that I'm aware of.
    > Perhaps Cac or Zen can crunch some quick
    > numbers (which I can shamelessly appropriate
    > for my book :-)).

    With their permission, of course.

    > Most certainly. You will need true-counted
    > indices. You can get the I-18 and Fab 4 from
    > John Auston's BJRM, you can use CVData or
    > SBA to generate your own . . . or you can
    > wait for my book. :-)

    May have to wait for the book, although, I plan on "attempting" a sim with BJRM. (Of course, Zen or Cac could come through in the pinch...like they always do)

    > Here's another thought to mull over: Keep in
    > mind that UBZ2 can be true-counted just like
    > KO. I ran a sim on this a while back that
    > seemed to indicate that a true-counted UBZ2
    > would out-perform balanced level 2
    > ace-reckoned counts such as Zen and RPC.
    > Brett Harris came to essentially the same
    > conclusion with his BrH systems.

    Come on, Parker. I want the SIMPLE life...it's going to be hard enough for me to either learn a level 2 system or TC...you can't possibly expect me to do BOTH?

    btw, Prof Harris system is in his book that I can't find anywhere. I didn't even know who this guy was until I started researching UBZ II. I would like to read his book, know where I can get a copy? Bettie?

    Again, many, many thanks.

    PM

  5. #5
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Some System' Comparisons

    > I responded to your question on my pages,
    > but I will expand a bit here -- added value
    > for Don's Domain. :-)

    Below is more added value to Don's Domain.

    > In shoe games, I suspect that TKO and UBZ2
    > will be pretty close, although I won't know
    > for sure until I actually run the sims.

    They are pretty close in shoe games. TKO is a little better for a spread of 1-12 or more. Besides, TKO is still a level-1 system.

    > Not yet, at least not that I'm aware of.
    > Perhaps Cac or Zen can crunch some quick
    > numbers (which I can shamelessly appropriate
    > for my book :-)).

    No problem, you can honestly steal them

    > Most certainly. You will need true-counted
    > indices. You can get the I-18 and Fab 4 from
    > John Auston's BJRM, you can use CVData or
    > SBA to generate your own . . . or you can
    > wait for my book. :-)

    I'm always of the idea of employing indices generated by CVdata or SBA. Forget about published indices. I also think that instead of the I-18 we should use the C-22 for a better comparison.

    > Here's another thought to mull over: Keep in
    > mind that UBZ2 can be true-counted just like
    > KO. I ran a sim on this a while back that
    > seemed to indicate that a true-counted UBZ2
    > would out-perform balanced level 2
    > ace-reckoned counts such as Zen and RPC.
    > Brett Harris came to essentially the same
    > conclusion with his BrH systems.

    Look at the following comparison. Of course this is for shoes.

    The following SCORE comparison is based on 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6 pen,Catch-22 floored indices,heads-up,play-all,5000 million rounds each.

     
    1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16 1-20
    Zen 11.40 28.97 38.60 44.51 48.49
    UBZII(T) 11.38 28.87 38.47 44.35 48.31
    Halves 11.16 28.69 38.33 44.25 48.27
    RPC 10.90 28.27 37.86 43.78 47.80
    Hi-Lo/A 10.80 27.77 37.02 42.69 46.55
    Cac/7 10.36 27.39 36.86 42.74 46.74
    TKO 10.41 27.41 36.81 42.64 46.59
    UBZII 10.79 27.72 36.61 41.92 45.43
    KO 8.62 25.52 34.94 40.69 44.55
    Hi-Lo 9.61 25.83 34.84 40.43 44.24


    Hope this helps.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

    PS: Ahh, and don't forget to save this post

  6. #6
    bfbagain
    Guest

    bfbagain: Hey Cac. :-)

    Could you please add a couple of systems to this? How about HiOptII and AOII both with and without ace side counts.

    Please? Thanks.

    cheers
    bfb

  7. #7
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Hey Cac. :-)

    > Could you please add a couple of systems to
    > this? How about HiOptII and AOII both with
    > and without ace side counts.

    You're in your lucky day today

     
    1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16 1-20
    Hi-Opt II/A 12.92 31.64 41.64 47.75 51.88
    AOII/A 12.26 30.48 40.29 46.28 50.33
    Hi-Opt II 10.76 27.30 36.27 41.72 45.38
    AOII 10.13 26.18 34.94 40.29 43.90


    As you can see Hi-Opt II/A is way up in the TOP. I haven't found a better system yet for shoes.

    Hope this helps.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  8. #8
    bfbagain
    Guest

    bfbagain: More?

    I wonder how LS affects those two systems. Also, are you using the published indices for both AOII and HiOPT II? And one more...what about using the full indices as opposed to the catch 22?

    Here's why I asked. I use a full set of AOII indices. But they are MY set of indices, not Bryce's.

    They were determined after many generations between SBA and CVDATA. Much more than any normal person, or even, I submit, a bj researcher would run, unless that was their system of choice, as it is for me.

    I then interpolated the indices (all risk-averse btw), rerun the sims again, and again, to extract every ounce of power, so what I have today, compared to Hi Opt II (using CVCX) is a little more powerful.

    But....and now as I think about it. I'm not sure that the HiOpt II sims in CVCX are with full indices AND the ace side count, which might explain why your numbers seem considerably higher.

    Hmmm. I'll have to go back and check this. As it is, I have no doubt that I have the most powerful set of AOII indices on the planet. :-) Although I could be wrong.

    Do you think you could run your sims again with RSA and LS. I'm thinking that should narrow the gap a little.

    Thank you so much cac
    bfb

  9. #9
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: More?

    > I wonder how LS affects those two systems.
    > Also, are you using the published indices
    > for both AOII and HiOPT II? And one
    > more...what about using the full indices as
    > opposed to the catch 22?

    No, I calculated those indices from scratch. They are EM-indices (EV-Maximizing). It wouldn't be fair to use the published indices since some of them are RA. In order to have an apple to apple comparison they should all be EM or RA.
    Of course, you can get an RA set of the C22 and the SCOREs will improve.
    A full set will obviously be better but I think that not by that much.

    > Here's why I asked. I use a full set of AOII
    > indices. But they are MY set of indices, not
    > Bryce's.

    Sure. If you use a commercial simulator you'll get better indices.

    > They were determined after many generations
    > between SBA and CVDATA. Much more than any
    > normal person, or even, I submit, a bj
    > researcher would run, unless that was their
    > system of choice, as it is for me.

    > I then interpolated the indices (all
    > risk-averse btw), rerun the sims again, and
    > again, to extract every ounce of power, so
    > what I have today, compared to Hi Opt II
    > (using CVCX) is a little more powerful.

    > But....and now as I think about it. I'm not
    > sure that the HiOpt II sims in CVCX are with
    > full indices AND the ace side count , which
    > might explain why your numbers seem
    > considerably higher.

    > Hmmm. I'll have to go back and check this.
    > As it is, I have no doubt that I have the
    > most powerful set of AOII indices on the
    > planet. :-) Although I could be wrong.

    Put all that effort in Hi-Opt II and I'm sure Hi-Opt II will outperform AOII. The reason is simple: Hi-Opt II does not count the nine and Insurance is the play that makes up for the difference!

    > Do you think you could run your sims again
    > with RSA and LS. I'm thinking that should
    > narrow the gap a little.

    Same answer given to Parker. I didn't run any sims for this comparison. This was already done a long time ago.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  10. #10
    bfbagain
    Guest

    bfbagain: Insurance! Damn insurance. :-)

    Thank you for your time and answers cac. Too bad about not doing those sims for RSA and LS, huh. Maybe someone else has done those.

    Yes, the insurance efficiency would make a superior difference. And given the same effort towards Hi Opt II that I gave AOII, that could be significant as well.

    However, I think what this does do, is clearly show that if one was so inclined, and playing errors notwithstanding, it would be hard pressed to come up with a better system than either one of these two. And when applied to SD and DD, fuhgedabouit. No contest.

    cheers
    bfb

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

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.