1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
UBZ Open Source - Revisited
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...)
Last edited by Mr. White; 11-07-2013 at 02:00 AM.
Reason: Edited a typo in Pubz 6d SCORE, I had shorted it a little. and fixed insurance rule
"I did it for me..... I liked it. I was good at it...and I was...really...I was alive..."
Bookmarks