I used the same number of indices for both system. If I compare 26 indices for one system I need to do the same to the other. Alright, even if I am wrong I don't think that HI-OPT II with ace side count will out perform UBZII-True in a significant margin. Maybe HI-OPT with Ace side count does out perform UBZII-True slightly with four players but I doubt it will be significant.Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash
Last edited by seriousplayer; 12-28-2016 at 01:56 PM.
I am talking about UBZII-True NOT UBZII in running count mode. The simulation you show me are for UBZII in running count mode. I've attached my simulation. I will let the experts tell me what is wrong with it. Both uses the same number of indices in the same game.
See look at how close UBZII-True perform to Hi-OPT II with Ace side count. UBZII-True uses true count indices and true count for betting.
P.S. Question: What indices were use for Zen Count to do the simulation in "Modern Blackjack"? Because in Casino Verite some indices were missing for the Zen Count.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 12-28-2016 at 03:14 PM.
I always do count comparison's with full indices to avoid a bias that could be called cherry picking by some. At least that way each count performs to its full potential.
Of course using fewer indices than are used to determine PE will cut into the gain PE indicates.
Alright, let me go do some full index generation for UBZII-True and then do another comparison against Hi-OPT II with Ace side count. Unless you can find the full true counted indices for UBZII-True. Just to clarify things I didn't say UBZII-True will outperform Hi-OPT2 with Ace side count. What I am saying is that Hi-OPT II will out perform other Ace Reckon strategies but not by a whole lot.
I am not sure what you are trying to do. I said Hiopt2/ASC about the top not at the top. Everyone agrees with that. Personally I think it is almost always the top count for the conditions being simmed but that is not what I said. Hilo and Hiopt2/ASC are just about the low and hi extremes. Note I use the term about again.
The discussion was not about cover plays, what causes one to be backed off, playing within the casino/boss's comfort, etc. If we're going to go down that road, then discuss that stuff without making it seem like the count system one uses has any significance. I agree, you shouldn't be playing like a damn robot and playing exactly with the count.
You claim, or at least insinuate, there is a massive difference between HILO and HO2 w/ASC. You also make it seem like the HO2 player will be playing vastly different than the HILO player in when to ramp and playing decisions. I can damn near guarantee you they don't care about your hitting/standing/splitting/doubling accurately, as long as it's within reason. You doing bizarre plays, if anything will cause more attention than less.
Both players, if played like robots, would be playing nearly identically -- raising their bets and decreasing their bets at or around the same time. I'm not talking about esoteric shoe combinations where all the 2's, 3's, and A's are depleted or a situation that you will very rarely see or will never see.
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
I also agree that Hiopt2/ASC is at about the top. I just want to see how far other counts perform from Hi-OPT II with Ace Side count. It leaves me a question for myself Hi-OPT 2 out perform all the other count system but by how much? That is what I am trying to find out.
You see bizarre plays as plays your count doesn't agree with. To me it is plays my count says to make that are not expected given either my bet size or the play. At good games the Hiopt2 player will make a decent win rate at a spread no Hilo player would attempt. That is how you play within tolerances. There are times Hilo is pressing their bets believing a nice advantage exists when Hiopt2/ASC has abandoned the deck as hopelessly negative. The point is how do you make playing worthwhile while being tolerated. If you don't see that a count far different from the ones the catchers use that can bet within the tolerances is the ticket for being tolerated I just don't know what to say. If I was using the count the catchers are using to try to catch me I would expect a backoff almost every time I played. Especially if playing within tolerances meant the win rate wasn't worth playing.
This is simply not true. Every time I play with another counter there is only vague similarities to the way we bet. I played with a level 3 count user and he always raised his bet before I did and while I was still raising my bet he was lowering his. I don't know which was doing it more accurately but I know we didn't do it in unison and I made more money betting less which meant I was exposing myself to less potential for swings and less chance of violating tolerances. I played with Hilo counters many times and the bet very differently than I did. Quite often they were upping their bets when my count said the house had a big edge. Also I was often betting aggressively when they were min betting. The correlation where both counts agreed was rare. The same was true for playing decisions. You are deluding yourself if you believe that bets would move in unison. Every count lumps very different situations into the same betting bin for their count. They bet by the average of the situations that are lumped together. Why would you believe that if you have a rainbow of deck compositions for each true count where your count has one color for all the deck compositions in each TC and my count has a rainbow of a bunch of different counts from your specific deck composition in my betting bins that bets would move similarly. My $50 betting bin has deck composition colors from your min bet to your max bet. Your move from red bin to blue bin could start in almost any bin for me and end in almost any other bin. Lets say the low cards removed favor the 4 and 5 so my count is predicting a much higher edge than yours. Then a round hits that evens things out some like T,3,3,T,2,6,T, 2,3,3,6,T,T,T. My RC just went down by four where your RC just went up by 2. With 2 decks left you upped your bet while I dropped mine by 2 betting bins. Then the next round is 7,4,T,5,5,7,2,3,4,T,7,7,T,T,T. Your RC went up 1 while mine went up 4. Your bet stays the same while mine goes up 2 or 3 betting bins. Many rounds see similar moves for both counts but just as often. Hilo has all the cards 2-6 weighted the same as the T's. Hiopt2/ASC has 60% of the Hilo low cards as well as the 7 weighted half the T tag weight and only the 4 and 5 weighted the same as the T. Don't you see what a difference that makes? Most of the time you are overweighting the low cards which affects your bet moves most of the time. With lots of decks left to be dealt the difference is muted but when it counts, close to the shuffle when we are often betting big and the deck composition is usually really out of whack especially if we are betting big, the difference becomes quite significant.
Here's the point: you feel like the above SHOULD be true; you would LIKE it to be true, and it may even be logical to you that it is true, but you have absolutely no mathematical proof whatsoever that it is. And, you keep on citing your personal experiences at the table with other counters as "proof," which is just plain silly.
Trying to demonstrate rigorously what you are describing is probably doable with simulation, and you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. Mine is that the dramatic effects that you are describing happen VERY RARELY and that, for the great majority of the time, differences in perceived edge and betting patterns would not be anywhere near as frequent as you suggest. And the evidence I offer to support my opinion is that, if they were, the differences in SCOREs would be dramatically higher than they actually are.
Yet again, when we get the final verdict on the superiority of Tarzan Count over, say, Hi-Opt II, where Tarzan could make the same kind of claims that you are making now -- namely, how many differences he observes compared to the Hi-Opt player -- you are going to see how little difference there is, ultimately. So, if there are so many dramatic divergences in counts, bets, plays, etc., why would all of this not translate into HUGE differences in SCOREs? The simplest of answers is because the differences you imagine simply don't exist to anywhere near the extent that you think they do. And until you can demonstrate conclusively and rigorously that they do, saying it 1,000 times simply won't make it so.
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks