I must confess that I am not familiar with George C, prior to his posting here in the last few months and George C, I certainly mean no disrespect by that.
Based only on his posts here, it is quite apparent that Mr. C, knows of which he speaks. Based on the reception, he has gotten from our senior, greatly respected members, it is obvious that George C is quite respected. Those two indication lead me to believe that George C is indeed something special, a 'legend', as Ouchez says. (BTW, Ouchez, you welcomed him with at same respectful, 'legend' title twice now, once last year when George C first posted and again more recently. By the tone of your recent post, I suspect, you may have forgotten, but that's OK.)
Anyway George C, I have enjoyed your recent participation, enjoyed your comrades reminiscing about the good old days, before my time, and look forward to your continued participation.
Seems to me when you turn an unbalanced count into a true count system, you're defeating the biggest attraction to the unbalanced count, namely all decisions are made by running count. Why not simply use the balanced counterpart? The argument seems to be you make some additional EV. When I first developed the UBZ2, I had a flood of requests to turn it into a true count mode. John Auston indeed did it and found no noticeable gains doing a billion hands for each method.
I've been preaching for years that it's far more important to find a casino's weakness which earns far more EV. It might interest the group that many past blackjack players have moved to different ways of making money that provide some really big improvements over blackjack.Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
Thx to all for the kind words. I'm humbled by all of this. It sort of reminds me that a new generation of APs are gaining prominence which is a good thing.
I must confess that I am not familiar with George C, prior to his posting here in the last few months and George C, I certainly mean no disrespect by that.
Based only on his posts here, it is quite apparent that Mr. C, knows of which he speaks. Based on the reception, he has gotten from our senior, greatly respected members, it is obvious that George C is quite respected. Those two indication lead me to believe that George C is indeed something special, a 'legend', as Ouchez says. (BTW, Ouchez, you welcomed him with at same respectful, 'legend' title twice now, once last year when George C first posted and again more recently. By the tone of your recent post, I suspect, you may have forgotten, but that's OK.
Anyway George C, I have enjoyed your recent participation, enjoyed your comrades reminiscing about the good old days, before my time, and look forward to your continued participation.
George, I am no expert on unbalanced counts but a true counted unbalanced count still goes by RC. It just has the strike point move with penetration. In other words no TC conversions but you need to be able to make deck estimations and remember strike points for different depths into a shoe. I am sure there are practitioners that can correct me if my ignorance has caused me to speak in error.
That's indeed partially true. A lot of the KO practitioners using and referring to "TKO" are not actually TCing, but using the method you just described that is laid out more fully in the Color of Blackjack. There's also a work floating around the interwebs authored by Conrad Membrino called Truing the Red 7 which uses the same idea.
For a level 1 system, using an unbalanced count like TKO or TR7 gives a very solid performance boost over a count like HiLo. The player gains access to a superior set of tags while breaking the bonds of them having to be balanced. By doing this, the level-1 count user can gain about half the advantage difference between level 1 and level 2 systems. Not too shabby!
For a level 2 system, the gain is not there between, lets says, UBZ to Zen (although T-UBZ seems to always beat RPC tags, regardless of 1/2 or whole deck divisors, from any sim I've ever run or seen from others.) TUBZ performs probably just a hair shy of Zen, on paper, but very very very close, and certainly still "on par". In actual practice, I think (for many to most people) TUBZ would provide better results, due to the highly accurate pivot point being up where we're increasing our bets, versus at 0. This is a beneficial concept that is at work for both level 1 and level 2, and one that will not be seen in the sims.
Also, moving from RC to TC mode allows the user to move from 25 or so strategy variations to a full contingent of 40 or 60 or 80 or more, if you're a fanatic. (Not to mention, you don't have to memorize a DIFFERNENT set of index plays for each different number-of-deck game you might play, like you probably have to do with a RC system...) Diminishing returns or no, there's a lot of performance waiting to be mined past those first two dozen index plays....
Other ease of use considerations factor in as well (wonging, smaller and more manageable running counts, etc) all matters of preference, but very noticeable. Of course, the negative numbers would turn a lot of people off.
But, the biggest drawback -- there's not much support or reference material available to the "new counter" and unbalanced TCing. It can be confusing at first, even though it's actually very simple. Hence, I agree, they are probably better off using a more standardized balanced set of tags, if they are seeking a TC system. But for the user who wants to ease into things, starting with an unbalanced, RC system and easing into TC bets then TC index plays, unbalanced systems provides a wonderful, step by step progression as they gain more confidence and capability in their play.
And there is no reason for a RC-system user to ever say "I'm thinking of upgrading to a balanced count..." as one occasionally sees - what a waste of effort! Keep your tried-and-true tags, simply learn to TC them with a generated set of TC indices, and enjoy your "new" system, as powerful or more so than the one you were going to "upgrade" to, and with much less effort.
Last edited by Mr. White; 09-20-2013 at 09:47 AM.
"I did it for me..... I liked it. I was good at it...and I was...really...I was alive..."
^I hear he might know something about it :-)
Having all these incredible authors, researchers and legendary players on this board is like having the cast of Predator at your gym to provide pointers on your preacher curls...
Last edited by Mr. White; 09-20-2013 at 11:41 AM.
"I did it for me..... I liked it. I was good at it...and I was...really...I was alive..."
I hope I didn't make a fool of myself . I thought George was worse off than I when it comes to unbalanced systems. I am guessing he wrote a book on unbalanced Zen? At least I made it clear I was no expert and could easily be wrong. Renzy was quite gentle in correcting me when I did a similar mistake of schooling my superior because I didn't recognize the name at the Ken's forum. I think everyone got a good laugh out of that one.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks