Sun Runner: Playing Efficiency

[Sun Runner]

If this is better left to the BJ Beginner page, I'm sure someone will let me know!

I use KO, mostly because I play a 6D shoe, KO has a high BC, and I don't want to learn a boatfull of indexes.

My question regards playing efficency.

At qfit.com, the KO system is ESTIMATED to have a playing efficency of .54. Zen Count has a playing efficiency of .58.

Assuming the .04 differential is correct, what does that mean in terms of dollars?

Lets assume 100 hands per hour, $25 avg bet, and a 1% advantage. $25 per hour expected return.

I tried the gfit.com calculator/strategy analyzer -really slick. Happily for me after inputing all my personal parameters, it returned KO as the best sytem for me.

I would still like to know how to deal with changes in PE in measuring each system with another.

Thanks.

SR

[Clarke Cant]

. Zen Count
> has a playing efficiency of .58.

You got this from qfit.com? The estimate is more like .626 for the Zen from most sources. I think you clicked onto the wrong count. Could you have clicked on one of the variations of the unbalancd Zen count instead? Please check again!

BTW for running count mode the PE is about cut in half for unbalanced counts.

[Parker]

I consider Richard Reid's bjmath.com to be pretty much the "official" word regarding this sort of thing, and it lists KO at .553 and Zen at .627.

It also notes that unbalanced counts (such as KO) are true-counted in order to calculate PE.

A link to the appropriate chart will be found below. My only gripe about this chart is that it does not include the count I use, UBZII.

See, we can agree on something. :-)

> . Zen Count

> You got this from qfit.com? The estimate is
> more like .626 for the Zen from most
> sources. I think you clicked onto the wrong
> count. Could you have clicked on one of the
> variations of the unbalancd Zen count
> instead? Please check again!

> BTW for running count mode the PE is about
> cut in half for unbalanced counts.

System Rating Table

[Clarke Cant]

> My only gripe about this chart
> is that it does not include the count I use,
> UBZII.

> See, we can agree on something. :-)

And you know the procedure in my ms. (BJT) to find the PE and BE for the UBZ, all on your own if necessary. There are also 3 different counts that have been tagged Unbalanced Zen, since George C. first came up with the idea, too.

But some subjects still endup smoking (well you moderated the other post so you know what I mean), especially when...

[Leroy Jones]

Let's say that for some reason you have found a SD game with this set of rules: DA2, S17, No Resplit Aces, Dealer Peaks at Ace and 10, 65% penetration.

The casino knows its game is good and gives super-heat to player who spreads his bets. Therefore, you must flat bet.

You play black-chips heads up 100 hands per hour.

Win Rates of various systems:

KO Perefered: $14 per hour

KO Full indices for SD: $23 per hour

HiOptI Full indices: $34 per hour

Adv. OmegaII Full indices: $40 per hour

The numbers I got for Zen and UBZen were around $26, I still can't believe it! Maybe for the Zen count I had the settings wrong for the TC conversion, but I can't explain why UBZen also did around the same.

Leroy

[Leroy Jones]

I just simmed a KO-Lite of (my own design) for the Single Deck, and it earned around $21 per hour vs. the Full KO SD indices which earned $23 per hour. I just rounded all the indices to the nearest even integer. For example all indices at "-1", "0", and "1" I just rounded to "0". I didn't use "2" or "-2", but I did use "-4", "4", "6" and "8".

For me this makes the strategy decisions easier to master, and has a 50% greater win than using the preferred version alone (in this flat-bet setup).

Also, I made sure to make most of my rounding errors on the side of caution.

Leroy

[Hu$tleR]

Are you assuming that it is a flat bet of $100 per hour? The first thing that I notice is that Hi-opt 1 did better than the balanced Zen count. Hi-opt I is slightly better for insurance than the Zen count but it is close. This could be the reason that Zen was outperformed. Zen's betting correlation is better than Hi opt 1 but that is irrelevant since you do not deviate from basic strategy(flat betting). The playing efficiency of Zen is greater than hiopt but hiopt sidecounts aces so my theory is that when the pen is really good (39/52 cards) hi opt will outperform the Zen even more greatly due to playing efficiency. The correlation of when you double down on eleven deep into the deck, hiopt will be stronger than Zen. However another issue that this arises is whether Zen is the best count for handling hard doubling situations with totals of ten or less. Is it better than the RPC or any other ace-reckoned count or any other ace-neutral count for these situations? How about doubling on soft totals greater than 17?

[Leroy Jones]

I went back and rechecked my setup for the Zen Full Indices test I ran and I do believe I had screwed up the TC conversion.

I just ran Zen again under the same conditions and it performed at $38 per hour betting black chips.

This could be represented as 0.38 units. So a green chipper could earn $9.50 per hour flat-betting, Woopee!! Don't even ask me about the DI because it sucks. But at least now we have some data of what the playing efficiency means in $$$. Not much.

Flat betting KO-Pref makes 0.14 units while the toughest strategies make 0.4 units. And I doubt any human would be able to make that much.

BTW: If a KO-pref and a Zen player could actually spread 1-2 units with heavy cover in this game the KO player would make close to 1 unit per hour (0.9), and the Full Indice Zen player would make a little over 1 unit (1.2).

Leroy

[Richard Reid]

> I consider Richard Reid's bjmath.com to be
> pretty much the "official" word
> regarding this sort of thing, and it lists
> KO at .553 and Zen at .627.

> It also notes that unbalanced counts (such
> as KO) are true-counted in order to
> calculate PE.

> A link to the appropriate chart will be
> found below. My only gripe about this chart
> is that it does not include the count I use,
> UBZII.

> See, we can agree on something. :-)

Parker:

Thanks for the endorsement. I didn't know you wanted the UBZ II added to the chart. All you had to do was ask. I've never read this board before. In any case, per your indirect request, I've added it now.

No more griping, okay

Sincerely,
Richard Reid

[Sun Runner]

> Let's say that for some reason you have
> found a SD game with this set of rules: DA2,
> S17, No Resplit Aces, Dealer Peaks at Ace
> and 10, 65% penetration.

Let's say we stick with the original assumption; I can play 6D, S17, DAT, DAS, 75% pen, marginal heat, all day long -I can play SD or DD maybe three times a year.

I use KO Pref'd because of the higher BC, ease of use, etc.

Would you have the time to run the same sims under these conditions?

Thanks Leroy.

SR

[Sun Runner]

> You got this from qfit.com?

Yes.

QFIT.com states the following:

"Unb. Zen 11" ... PE .57
"Zen Count" ... PE .59

It also states that these are estimates -as an unbalanced count does not inherently have a PE value [a lesson I learned several months ago, right Norm? ]

None the less -for those of us having to play predominantly a 6D game -thankfully one with good rules, 75%+ pen and little heat -my question still is this:

What is the real value of switching from KO to the Zen count? With the BC being similar, what is the real value, to me, in the increased PE?

Also, is an unbalanced count system true counted simply the same way as a balanced count system?

Thanks for the patience and help.

SR

[Don Schlesinger]

> What is the real value of switching from KO
> to the Zen count? With the BC being similar,
> what is the real value, to me, in the
> increased PE?

Why not just try Norm's BJ SCORE calculator with the counts and spreads of your choice, and then compare. There is no one answer to questions such as these. The answers depend on many variables.

> Also, is an unbalanced count system true
> counted simply the same way as a balanced
> count system?

Yes.

> Thanks for the patience and help.

You're welcome.

Don

[Leroy Jones]

> Let's say we stick with the original
> assumption; I can play 6D, S17, DAT, DAS,
> 75% pen, marginal heat, all day long -I can
> play SD or DD maybe three times a year.

Once we start adding decks to the shoe, strategy changes don't matter much apart from Don's I18. The only reason to learn advanced strategy changes is if you can play SD and DD games. From what I showed in my last post, even then, most of your profit will come from your betting efficiency.

> I use KO Pref'd because of the higher BC,
> ease of use, etc.

Stick with KO pref for shoe games.

Leroy