About ace side count

**seriousplayer** · 05-22-2017, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Tthree

So the real question is, how much did it outperform UBZ2? You are going through a lot of trouble to use KO as the betting count and UBZ2 as the playing count. It would be a lot simpler just to use UBZ2 for everything and only keep 1 count. Is the gain worth the effort? I know the answer to that varies by the individual but I think people would be interested in the comparison of your approach and UBZ2.

Here is the results that Tthree requested:

UBZII with full indices
UBZII.jpg

Combined UBZII

Combined UBZII.jpg

**Frank Galvin** · 05-22-2017, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by moses

Seriousplayer. Nice work. A couple of questions or observation. 83% pen? The increase in SCORE is impressive. But $5 an hour and the difference in profit makes me wonder if it's worth it. I'd be curious to see the SIM for the tags I listed.

Moses, $5 per hour increase, based upon a $5 minimum bet. How many $5 tables are you playing at the Peppermill, the Atlantis, Grand Sierra, etc.?????? So, for you to take this into account, you need to multiply most of these dollar amounts by 2 (if $10 min bets) or 5 (if $25 min bets). Yeah I know, you don't bet less than purple, so forget the previous examples.

**seriousplayer** · 05-22-2017, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Tthree

A 22% improvement in win rate is impressive but are you sure you set them to run the same. I see 100% backcounting on one sim but not the other and different trip BR's along with different RoR's. Forgive me for not being familiar with the software but my system requires custom software to sim it and I have gotten quite used to that over the years that I have been refining my approach.

A fair comparison has rules, pen, RoR, spread and BR set the same and each approach bets its own optimal ramp. Basically everything is the same so all gain shows up as increased EV rather than changes in RoR or some other stat. With gain and loss showing up in different stats rather than just one stat assessing the potential gain for the system is not possible. You can compare different ways of using the two systems as you did but that is not a system comparison. The fair comparison has everything the same with both systems betting their own optimal ramp. That allows all gain/loss to show up in exactly one statistic, win rate.

The UBZII simulation I ran using CVCX and the two parameter UBZII I use CVDATA. I am not sure why it said 100% backcounting. What I did was did a standard simulation in CVDATA then I set the shuffle point, rules, playing strategy to be UBZII and betting to be the inverse of my secondary count on betting side count along with the betting strategy. Then I hit start sim after the simulation is completed I hit "Call CVCX" to determine the optimal bet for the count system. Then it displayed "Backcounting 100%". I don't know why. Maybe Norm can answer that question. Well, both systems betting their own optimal ramp the ROR happens to be different I don't think there is anything we can do about that.

I set the bankroll for both simulation at $3000 but set different trip bankroll which I don't think will affect the overall results. I was just looking for SCORE and N0. But anyways the penetration is 1 deck cut off for both simulation. The rule used for both simulation is six deck S17,DAS,LS. The spread is the same 1-16 bet spread for both simulations.

I fixed the trip bankroll to match the second simulation.

UBZII.jpg

**ferenc11** · 05-23-2017, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by seriousplayer

I will copy and paste the results when I get home from work. I simulated with the game six deck S17, DAS, LS with one deck cut off. The results outperforms halves, Omega II with ace side and Hi-Opt II with ace side count. You can do the simulation yourself as well. I generated full UBZ2 indices and the results outperforms UBZ2 significantly.

I am looking forward to your results to be honest. Lately i have been experiencing some bad results applying KO full. (i know it is part of the game but i am getting impatient). I feel like being stuck getting nowhere, neither forward nor backward.

Sent from my LG-H955 using Tapatalk

**ferenc11** · 05-23-2017, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Norm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5uge20zpF8

Hahahahahaha

Sent from my LG-H955 using Tapatalk

**ferenc11** · 05-23-2017, 01:49 AM

I have a question regarding HI OPT II. I would be very much honoured if ZenMaster replied but of course anyone can jump in.

When applying HI OPT II (i really hope you will understand the question or i can express my question clearly) do you experience wild swings as well just as the same way as using KO?
Or just by playing HI OPT II do you feel "safer" expecting positive and profitable situations?

The reason why i am asking this because i am definetely losing faith in KO and i feel that my mind has opened up for something else or bigger to absorb.

Thank You

**seriousplayer** · 05-23-2017, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by ferenc11

I am looking forward to your results to be honest. Lately i have been experiencing some bad results applying KO full. (i know it is part of the game but i am getting impatient). I feel like being stuck getting nowhere, neither forward nor backward.

Sent from my LG-H955 using Tapatalk

My results are as honest as it can be.

**seriousplayer** · 05-23-2017, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by ferenc11

I have a question regarding HI OPT II. I would be very much honoured if ZenMaster replied but of course anyone can jump in.

When applying HI OPT II (i really hope you will understand the question or i can express my question clearly) do you experience wild swings as well just as the same way as using KO?
Or just by playing HI OPT II do you feel "safer" expecting positive and profitable situations?

The reason why i am asking this because i am definetely losing faith in KO and i feel that my mind has opened up for something else or bigger to absorb.

Thank You

Regardless of which count system you use you will experience wild swings.

**ferenc11** · 05-23-2017, 04:05 AM

I am sure it is. But i have a flaw in my game that's 100 percent certain. Pain in the ass not being able to find the solution...

Sent from my LG-H955 using Tapatalk

**Tarzan** · 05-23-2017, 04:58 AM

Knowing what's going on with the (A) is important. Counting the (A) the same thing as a {T} doesn't pan out well when doubling 11. Let's say you have a roughly neutral count, consisting of a large number of surplus (A), 11vs9, and if not for the quantity of (A) in the remainder of the deck, the TC would be more to the tune of -5. Playing decision should be to hit rather than double. When I was first learning to play, I counted the (A) in with the {T}, used Hi-Lo. 30 or so years later, I look at the (A) and {T} as being worlds apart. I believe an (A) side count is important enough to impact the long haul.

**ferenc11** · 05-23-2017, 06:27 AM

You count surplus or deficit Aces per deck? Would it be worthwhile learning that for shoe games?

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 05-23-2017, 06:48 AM

You count Aces per Quarter Deck

.. and those wild swings are only partially tamed by Hi-Opt II

BlackJack is a game of very high volatility. Swings of fortune

are part and parcel of how we play; ergo we have BIG bankrolls.

**Frank Galvin** · 05-23-2017, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash

You count Aces per Quarter Deck

.. and those wild swings are only partially tamed by Hi-Opt II

BlackJack is a game of very high volatility. Swings of fortune

are part and parcel of how we play; ergo we have BIG bankrolls.

The wild swings of fortune is the "part" I could do without, and the BIG bankrolls is the "parcel" that we all wish we either started with, or end up owning!