Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Praying Mantis: UBZ II or TKO?

  1. #11
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Awesome . . . Thanks!

    > Indeed.

    > Fascinating. All the level 2 true-counted
    > ace-reckoned systems are virtually
    > identical.

    > With full credit, of course. You'll be the
    > 21st century version of Julian Braun. :-)

    > Sounds good to me. As discussed in other
    > threads, my main concern is that equivalent
    > indices be used for all systems, in order to
    > give us a true comparison of system strength
    > rather than index strength.

    > Done. Actually, I would think that Don will
    > want to archive it, as it certainly provides
    > some hard numbers for a lot of discussions.

    > Now, if I just had a similar set of numbers
    > for a representative double deck game, say
    > 2D, H17, DOA, DAS, SPA1, SPL3, NS, 67% pen
    > (70/104), Catch-22 floored indices, heads-up
    > . . . :-)

    I can't help you here since I don't have data for SD or DD. I had already calculated those for 6D and that's why I posted them here.
    But now that you know how I did it it would very easy to run CVdata for any desired set of rules.
    Also, you can run RA-indices instead of EM-indices.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  2. #12
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Any Sims for SD and DD?

    > I KNEW you would come through. Have you done
    > any sims for SD and DD? Afterall, that's
    > where UBZ II is supposed to shine.

    > It's also the reason I am contemplating
    > switching. This really helps. Appreciate
    > your efforts, big time.

    You're welcome. Unfortunately, I don't have sims for SD and DD. Please, read the answer I gave to Parker.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  3. #13
    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

  4. #14
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Eye - opener post!

    Now that you?ve convinced me of the modern ways to side count aces and watching a couple of ?bastards? beating my Rolls Royce, next week I?ll start to side count aces for my poor Halves. A shame! :-)

    What?s important inside your post, is that there is something for everyone. Nice.

    Regards

    Zenfighter


  5. #15
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Some concerns

    I'm a bit surprised by some of these findings. On p. 172 of BJA3, we have a similar chart, but for surrender, with all the SCOREs appropriately much higher.

    What concerns me is not the absolute magnitude of the numbers, but the rankings, or relative findings. For example, in BJA3, for a 1-12 play-all spread, Halves outperforms Zen by a considerable margin, and you have quite the opposite. Frankly, I can't see how or why Halves would underperform Zen.

    For example, a CVCX comparison for your conditions, but with the I18, gives 35.76 For Halves and 32.03 for Zen, very much in line with the BJA3 charts (which allowed surrender, but which respect this hierarchy of ranking). I'm worried that something isn't right with what you've posted.

    As you peruse both charts, you will see some other, seemingly surprising, inconsistencies.

    Don

  6. #16
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: BJA3, p. 171, Tables 9.19 and 9.20

    Don't forget the SCORE chapter!!

    Don

  7. #17
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: BJA3, Chapter 9

    In addition to Cac's stellar efforts, you might want to consult the SCORE chapter of BJA3.

    How quickly we forget! :-)

    Don

  8. #18
    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

  9. #19
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Some concerns

    > I'm a bit surprised by some of these
    > findings. On p. 172 of BJA3, we have a
    > similar chart, but for surrender, with all
    > the SCOREs appropriately much higher.

    > What concerns me is not the absolute
    > magnitude of the numbers, but the rankings,
    > or relative findings. For example, in BJA3,
    > for a 1-12 play-all spread, Halves
    > outperforms Zen by a considerable margin,
    > and you have quite the opposite. Frankly, I
    > can't see how or why Halves would
    > underperform Zen.

    I don't have BJA3 right here but are we talking about the same conditions, same # of rounds, etc.? Zen is another system that does not count the nine and probably with 5/6 pen and C22 indices does beat Halves. Maybe Norman can run a sim using the same conditions and I will do my part too.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  10. #20
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Eye - opener post!

    > Now that you?ve convinced me of the modern
    > ways to side count aces and watching a
    > couple of ?bastards? beating my Rolls Royce,
    > next week I?ll start to side count aces for
    > my poor Halves. A shame! :-)

    > What?s important inside your post, is that
    > there is something for everyone. Nice.

    Thank you!

    Here is one for you:

     
    1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16 1-20
    Halves/A 12.39 30.64 40.45 46.43 50.47


    Cac

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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.