BadCop: UBZ2 Indice

[BadCop]

I just recently purchased George C. UBZ2, but noticed in the 2-4-6 deck strategy table there is no indice number for 13 vs 3. I am not sure if this was a proper omission or just a typing error. Can someone please help me out with this?

[Parker]

> I just recently purchased George C. UBZ2,
> but noticed in the 2-4-6 deck strategy table
> there is no indice number for 13 vs 3. I am
> not sure if this was a proper omission or
> just a typing error. Can someone please help
> me out with this?

If you look at Chapter 5 of Don's Blackjack Attack, you will see that 13 vs 3 is number 18 of the I-18.

Since George left it off in both of the editions that I have, I conclude that it is not a typo - he simply didn't feel that it was important enough to include in the 2-4-6 matrix, and I would agree.

Not only is it not worth a lot, but it would not be a very accurate index if you had it, since UBZII does not count the 8 at all - a rather important card when you are holding a 13 and looking at a 3 upcard.

[BadCop]

> If you look at Chapter 5 of Don's Blackjack
> Attack, you will see that 13 vs 3 is number
> 18 of the I-18.

> Since George left it off in both of the
> editions that I have, I conclude that it is
> not a typo - he simply didn't feel that it
> was important enough to include in the 2-4-6
> matrix, and I would agree.

> Not only is it not worth a lot, but it would
> not be a very accurate index if you had it,
> since UBZII does not count the 8 at all - a
> rather important card when you are holding a
> 13 and looking at a 3 upcard.

Thanks alot for the reply. I noticed that 13 vs 3 was the last of the I-18, but just wanted to double check.

I was also wondering if you knew what the percentage gain was for adding the additional departures from basis strategy, listed on page 2-12 of UBZ2 (Single Deck)?

[pat]

> Thanks alot for the reply. I noticed that 13
> vs 3 was the last of the I-18, but just
> wanted to double check.

> I was also wondering if you knew what the
> percentage gain was for adding the
> additional departures from basis strategy,
> listed on page 2-12 of UBZ2 (Single Deck)?
and bought a index simulater.i use about 30 index numbers.i never was a fan of just using 18 of them.i understand the concept of i18,but if you play 3 or 4 days a week,you can add more index numbers to the hands you feel come up enough.i play dd irc -4,so its more important to have more.here are more numbers for dd 13vs 2,3 -3-5 8vs 5,6 +7+5 9 vs7 +8

[paranoid android]

Using SBA, I generated full indices (more than are on page 2-12 of the UBZ2 manual) for UBZ2 in single deck game. The SCORE I got from simulations was 111 for 1 deck, 1 other player to the right, H17, 31/52 penetration. This is quite an improvement over using just the I-18 which I believe gives a SCORE of 82 for the same rules.

Using full indices but playing basic strategy for 13 vs 3 resulted in a SCORE of 109.

BTW: the index for 9 vs 7 on p. 2-12 is wrong (at least in my copy). It should be 7 rather than 3. RA indices for 10 vs 10, and 10 vs A were also absent. George C. was good about filling in the blanks via email though.

> Thanks alot for the reply. I noticed that 13
> vs 3 was the last of the I-18, but just
> wanted to double check.

> I was also wondering if you knew what the
> percentage gain was for adding the
> additional departures from basis strategy,
> listed on page 2-12 of UBZ2 (Single Deck)?

[paranoid android]

> Not only is it not worth a lot, but it would
> not be a very accurate index if you had it,
> since UBZII does not count the 8 at all - a
> rather important card when you are holding a
> 13 and looking at a 3 upcard.

Hi-Lo doesn't count the 8 either but still makes the I-18 for that count. I'm guessing it doesn't add much in 4-8 deck games, but is probably worth something in 2 deck games.

PS: any chance I could get past the moderation? I've been posting for several months now. Thanks.

[BadCop]

> Using SBA, I generated full indices (more
> than are on page 2-12 of the UBZ2 manual)
> for UBZ2 in single deck game. The SCORE I
> got from simulations was 111 for 1 deck, 1
> other player to the right, H17, 31/52
> penetration. This is quite an improvement
> over using just the I-18 which I believe
> gives a SCORE of 82 for the same rules.

> Using full indices but playing basic
> strategy for 13 vs 3 resulted in a SCORE of
> 109.

> BTW: the index for 9 vs 7 on p. 2-12 is
> wrong (at least in my copy). It should be 7
> rather than 3. RA indices for 10 vs 10, and
> 10 vs A were also absent. George C. was good
> about filling in the blanks via email
> though.

Thanks for the help. I am new to this and still need to figure out how to generate full indices for various games. Just practicing now with whatever I read in George C.'s book.