UBZ Open Source - Revisited

[Mr. White]

Opportunities have presented themselves to me that incentivized me to adopt the UBZ2 strategy.

Anyone who uses this count should of course be sure to check out: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=6996

By the end of the very long thread, two new sets of indices have been developed; one set is specific to number of decks, while the other one is a set of composite indices adaptable to any number of decks, albeit at the expense of a small amount of performance compared to the first one mentioned.

I have been working on an approach that would not sacrifice any performance but still yield a single set of indices useable for any game, and even deliver a count that would hold its own against balanced, level 2 counts. To do so, I used some "true fudging" and a method very similar to KO's "The Color of Blackjack", but of course adjusted for the half rank imbalance of UBZ, versus KO's full rank imbalance.

I worked on it a bit and produced a system. It's certainly nothing groundbreaking, but I've searched the interwebs for something like a UBZ/Color of Blackjack hybrid, and while I found posts of people asking about it, I never found any numbers that anyone ever actually produced. So - I thought I would humbly post what I have here for anyone who ever might search for it, and also in the hopes that I might get some constructive critique or suggestions for improvement. Plus, I thought the system produced very good results in sims, especially for a simple and predominately running count system.

The composite indices are grouped by where they fall in the spectrum of our advantage. The groupings are negative/neutral indices (cold), indices that fall between the pivot point and our max bet (warm), and index plays that are grouped near our max bet or just above (fire). They are as follows:

---------------------------------------------------------

S17/H17

Hard Stand			Hard Double			Soft Double			Split
12v2	Warm		8v5	Fire		A2v5	Cold		10/10v6	Fire
12v3	Warm		8v6	Warm		A4v4	Cold		10/10v5	Fire
12v4	Cold		9v2	Warm		A6v2	Fire		9/9v7	Warm (DAS)
12v5	Cold		9v3	Cold		A7v2	Cold
12v6	Cold/BS		9v7	Fire		A8v4	Fire
13v2	Cold		10vA	Fire/Warm		A8v5	Warm
13v3	Cold		11vA	Warm/Cold		A8v6	Warm/Cold
15v10	Fire					A9v6	Fire
15vA	BS/Fire
16v9	Fire
16v10	Cold
16vA	BS/Warm
Surrender
17vA	BS/Warm (Stop surrendering once warm)
16vA	Cold/BS
16v9	Cold
15vA	Warm/BS
15v10	Cold
15v9	Warm
14vA	Fire/Warm
14v10	Warm
8,8v10	Cold
7,7v10	Warm

IRCs for this system are as follows:

IRCS:	8d	6d	4d	2d	1d
	-7	1	9	17	21

The cold, warm, and fire thresholds are determined by trigger points that vary based on depth into the shoe. Using the given IRCs, the Cold/Warm/Fire statuses are equivalent to Zen TC's -1/4/9 respectively. "Warm" is also located at the pivot point of UBZ2, so it is always set at 25 in the system, regardless of depth into shoe.

That leaves us 12 threshold numbers to swallow. These 12 numbers are organized and predictable multiples of 5, thus memorization is quick and easy. Using this table allows the user to access asingle set of indices for all deck games, despite being a running count system.

Decks Remain Cold Warm Fire 6 -5 25 55 5 0 25 50 4 5 25 45 3 10 25 40 2 15 25 35 1 20 25 30

Shoe games: Insurance is taken if the RC is 36 with 5-6 decks remaining, 32 with 3-4, and 28 with 1-2.
Double Deck: Insurance is taken at 25
Single Deck: Insurance is taken at 24, the pivot

Finally, five betting thresholds are used:

1) Lowest bet at Cold
2) Initial ramp up at RC 22 (regardless of number of decks. This "key count" need not ever be adjusted. See Renzey's post 104 in the link above)
3) Bet increase at warm (always at 25, the pivot)
4) Bet increase at insurance threshold
5) Highest bet at Fire

-----------------------------------------------------


I ran sims for this system and then for other "benchmark" systems to see where it stacked up. It's referenced as "Pubz" in the following lists, for "Precision UBZ":

Sims were 2,000,000,000 rounds, S17, LS, DAS, RSA, $10-$150 spread 4.5/6 pen for 6 deck and $10-$60 1.25/2 spread for double deck: Optimal bet ramps as supplied by CVCX were used, except they had to be modified slightly for Pubz to recreate the five betting thresholds. I believe this realistic betting restriction put the count at a slight disadvantage compared to the unmodified optimal betting ramps used for the other counts, which are often likely not practical in live play.

Six Deck SCORES:
Pubz:...............44.23
UBZ Composite:.39.56
Zen Complete:..46.92
FELT Full:........45.90
Complete HiLo:..41.53
Color of BJ:......39.06

Double Deck SCORES:
Pubz:...............86.21
UBZ Composite:.77.70
Zen Complete:..90.38

Because Pubz only has just under 40 indices and Zen complete has around 80, I ran another sim to see how they compare on more equal footing with equal number of indices. These were H17/NS/DAS/RSA, 5 of 6 decks:

Zen (Reduced): 36.15
Pubz: 36.84

----------------------------------------------

It's late; I hope I presented everything clearly. If anyone has any tweaks or suggestions for improvement, I'd love to hear it. Hope this is useful to someone someday!

(I hope all the formatting carried over correctly on the tables...it looks right on my screen but I'm getting some screwy occurances...)

[seriousplayer]

Your work looks good could I request that you run sims for 5 billions hand to make it more accurate?

[bvlgari]

Are these indices also usable for ENHC?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I suggest that Serious Player would do well to avoid pulling a completely random

number like "5 billion" out of his *** and ask for the Standard Error on the Sim results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error

[Mr. White]

All the 6d sims listed between $0.11 to $0.13 as found in Std Err section - Win/Hour in the right hand portion of the CVCX results bar at the bottom. Specifically, Pubz had $0.11. Double deck sims listed $0.08.

[George C]

When I first developed the UBZ2, I dubbed it the simplest most powerful strategy devised. I really think it should stay the way I devised it many years ago. There have been a number of people that did a TKO version of it but John Auston did some sims doing a comparison of my complete strategy as found in my booklet for 2Ds vs a TKO version. After a billion rounds of each sim, if I remember correctly there was a slight bump up with the TKO version at the 3rd decimal place. KISS or use Snyder's balanced Zen. If you play for high stakes you'll have enough to worry about with the pit.

There are ways to knock the hell out of slight gains of this type by seeking out a casino's weakness. Just my 2 cents.

[ZenKinG]

I agree with George, and I used to also be obsessed at which count to use. Once you start to play more, you start to notice how dumb it really is. Just pick a count. I can imagine when you go high stakes, the last thing you care about is which count to use, because at that level, lke george said you got bigger things to worry about. Of course for a shoe game pick an ace reckoned simple count with a good BC, especially when you go high stakes you want your mind with as less work as possible so you can focus on more important things that will let you play longer. All counts get the money, and the differences that some counts provide will only be seen long down the road anyway.

[seriousplayer]

When I first developed the UBZ2, I dubbed it the simplest most powerful strategy devised. I really think it should stay the way I devised it many years ago. There have been a number of people that did a TKO version of it but John Auston did some sims doing a comparison of my complete strategy as found in my booklet for 2Ds vs a TKO version. After a billion rounds of each sim, if I remember correctly there was a slight bump up with the TKO version at the 3rd decimal place. KISS or use Snyder's balanced Zen. If you play for high stakes you'll have enough to worry about with the pit.

There are ways to knock the hell out of slight gains of this type by seeking out a casino's weakness. Just my 2 cents.

Question for George C:

Was the simulation comparing full TKO version to complete strategies of UBZII? In others words, it is using exact deck estimation to convert to TC? Is the TKO version of UBZII simulated as for betting or index deviations or both? What I am saying is if you simulate TKO verison of UBZII with composite index and only used it for betting and not index deviation according to the TC it won't make any significants compare to UBZII-Full. This samething happen with the Color of Blackjack verison of TKO. TKO in Color of Blackjack is used mostly for betting and not precise index deviation according to TC. I believe that if one used both the concepts in Color of Blackjack for betting and index deviation according to the TC the result might be a bit higher. I hope you don't find this question confronting because that is not my purpose.

[Mr. White]

When I first developed the UBZ2....Just my 2 cents.

I hope my post did not come off as insolent in any way. I tried very carefully to avoid any implication, subtle or otherwise, of one count's superiority over another count in my post, and I hope I succeeded. I originally even shied away from posting any SCOREs, but felt I had to validate my post by showing where it fit in with some known benchmarks. The sims were NOT meant to rate systems against the other, competition style, as each one has a much different number of indices and thus are not good "side-by-side" comparisons.

Each player will face their own playing conditions; for one group, simplicity will be key, and on the other end of the spectrum, massive complexity will be an appropriate path. And then there's everything in between. I have found the above posted system to be almost effortless to apply at the table, and am very pleased with it's apparent strength and the fact that I can play different deck games with but a single set of indices. However, I also have a specific playing situation where using UBZ2 in its pure running count form will be a necessity, and I will do so with a confident smile on my face.

Nothing but utmost respect for Mr. C and the original UBZ2

[kripton]

Great work Mr. White ...and of course the legendary Mr. George C.

[Mr. White]

^^^Thanks Kripton

Are these indices also usable for ENHC?

I'm sorry, I have no experience with ENHC. I believe you mainly just drop the doubles versus As and Xs, but again, I don't know.

It should be very easy to figure out. Look at your ENHC indices for whatever system you use, and compare them to the ones above. If the "fire" indices are close to your max bet, the "warm" indices are grouped near your TC2 (for level 1) or TC4 (for level 2), and the cold indices are grouped near 0 or just below -- then you're on the right track.

[George C]

It was an apples to apples comparison. I think john used the Nifty-Fifty indices that I developed for Snyder's Zen and same for UBZ2. The software he used wasn't able to split betting and playing no's. Of minor interest, I first developed a 3-level UBZ that outperformed the UBZ2. Michael Dalton and Snyder both sold it but I think both sites are now down.

The earlier opinions that I posted are just my 2 cents. What's good for me my not necessarily be right for someone else.

[bvlgari]

Do you still know the tags, Mr George C? Perhaps it is time to switch to UBZ3.