best counting system
- Thread starter hi roller
- Start date
zengrifter
Banned
The games are tougher than in the 80s, and Uston himself said in'85 that the UAPC "is obsolete".
The best count today - balanced w/ TC adjustment - is ZEN; The best unbalanced with no TC adustment is Unbalanced-Zen. zg
The best count today - balanced w/ TC adjustment - is ZEN; The best unbalanced with no TC adustment is Unbalanced-Zen. zg
nightspirit
Well-Known Member
For Zen-Count get a copy of Blackbelt in Blackjack by Arnold Snyder (you should buy it anyway 
)
or check out his website COMPLETE ZEN COUNT INDICES FOR THE TRUE COUNT METHOD.
For Unbalanced Zen buy a copy of George C. UBZ2 and if you like you can attend at the BJI Open-Source-Project started by Mimosine here. Every support is welcomed!! :grin:
)or check out his website COMPLETE ZEN COUNT INDICES FOR THE TRUE COUNT METHOD.
For Unbalanced Zen buy a copy of George C. UBZ2 and if you like you can attend at the BJI Open-Source-Project started by Mimosine here. Every support is welcomed!! :grin:
Last edited:
zengrifter
Banned
While he should get Snyder's book he absolutely does not need that or GeorgeC's book to get the systems - those are available here from us. zgnightspirit said:For Zen-Count get a copy of Blackbelt in Blackjack by Arnold Snyder (you should buy it anyway
or check out his website COMPLETE ZEN COUNT INDICES FOR THE TRUE COUNT METHOD.
For Unbalanced Zen buy a copy of George C. UBZ2 and if you like you can attend at the BJI Open-Source-Projekt started by Mimosine here. Every support is welcomed!! :grin:
nightspirit
Well-Known Member
If somebody want to learn a new counting system, he should always read the original version published by the autor. So you got always a printed reference, which allready has been proved. That's just my opinion.zengrifter said:
As far as I know the indices by George C. haven't been published here so far. The copyright should be respected.
zengrifter
Banned
The current published version of ZEN has been proven - proven inferior.nightspirit said:
AND Mimosine's UBZ is superior to George C's version.
And in general the published versions of systems are NOT the superior versions - not RPC, ZEN, AO2, KO, HiLo, etc.
However, I did say in this thread that he should have that book (Blackbelt). In fact, no serious aspiring counter would
be without a half-dozen of the top books. zg
Last edited:
nightspirit
Well-Known Member
Yes, i know that sometimes there is a lot room for improvements. Especially for unbalanced systems with rounded index matrixes. And AutomaticMonkey has proven that even the RPC can be refined and improved for specific conditions. But i meant that if you want to learn a system in the majority of cases its indispensable to read the book of the autor. It can contain information which is useful for the understanding of the system (e.g. KO).zengrifter said:
I agree!zengrifter said:
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
curious
Why is it in your belief, to believe that we dont get the superior versions? Do you believe this is intentional??
And have you ever seen a modified version of the A02??
I was to say the least a bit surprised and curious when you first mentioned that A02 was flawed. How do you know this, if you never played the system?? Because i use it and i have had to make some betting and tc adjustments.
.
Why is it in your belief, to believe that we dont get the superior versions? Do you believe this is intentional??
And have you ever seen a modified version of the A02??
I was to say the least a bit surprised and curious when you first mentioned that A02 was flawed. How do you know this, if you never played the system?? Because i use it and i have had to make some betting and tc adjustments.
zengrifter
Banned
OK, but don't learn HiLoLITE or ZEN as provided in the book - just ask us when you are ready. We may ultimately put you on Mentor or UBZ or even KO, it will depend on our assesment drawn from your continued discussion here. zghi roller said:
Let's not sell KO short ("even KO" LOL). KO is quite powerful and has another big thing going for it, it is a Level 1 count. I'm not yet convinced that UBZ is superior to True Count KO, or TKO. I've also not seen anything to refute that a customized KO, incorporating additional indices, can't outperform anything currently under study with UBZ.
Not knocking UBZ, but sometimes I think KO gets a bad rap because it is so simple. For many people, a Level 1 count is a huge advantage in simplicity compared to a Level 2. UBZ looks like it can outperform straight KO, but barely. Once again, I think customized TKO holds a lot of promise.
There is another thread going on about rounding indices. I don't know a lot about UBZ, but apparently it uses multiple individual index values based on the discussion. That's another strike against UBZ. So now the thread goes on about rounding indices, just like that simple 'ol KO system does. LOL again.
Maybe the better approach is to refine KO rather than try to make UBZ better by making it more like KO. I guess I should be posting this on the other thread.
Not knocking UBZ, but sometimes I think KO gets a bad rap because it is so simple. For many people, a Level 1 count is a huge advantage in simplicity compared to a Level 2. UBZ looks like it can outperform straight KO, but barely. Once again, I think customized TKO holds a lot of promise.
There is another thread going on about rounding indices. I don't know a lot about UBZ, but apparently it uses multiple individual index values based on the discussion. That's another strike against UBZ. So now the thread goes on about rounding indices, just like that simple 'ol KO system does. LOL again.
Maybe the better approach is to refine KO rather than try to make UBZ better by making it more like KO. I guess I should be posting this on the other thread.
nightspirit
Well-Known Member
Well, finally a critical mind! I found the UBZ-OS-project a little boring in the last time, now thats a input I wanted to see all the time!Knox said:
With CVData it should be possible to sim TKO, but we have to set a strategy that changed by deck depth. I believe I read somewhere that BJRM allready contains a sim of TKO, maybe another member who got this software can say something about it.
Here is comparision of SCORE (Archive copy) for different systems by Cacarulo. As you can see, like you supposed, TKO outperforms UBZ2 when bigger spreads are applied. Now, then comes the question, what is easier to learn, a new level 2 system or TC'ing the system someone allready knows? It depends of the personal liking i think.
Well, to the index rounding. I haven't read George C's UBZ2 book but i think he didn't used rounded indices, also he doesn't gave much information about the key count and so on like Mimosine said. Now Mimo as a KO-user considered to switch to a stronger system with the same ease of use, that was his intention I think.
I wouldn't it see as a "strike against UBZ to use rounded indices" simply because there are no exact static indices for unbalanced count. They are already always a estimation and a compromise, because a unbalanced systems works best in the middle of the deck and near the pivot. The more we deviate the more accuracy we lose. Not to mention the assumption we make when we design the indices like penetration, number of players at the the table and so on.. I know you know that already. But if we would compare rounded against "exact" indices there wouldn't be much difference.
Again, enter Cacarulo Let me say something about TKO (Archive copy)
You made a good point when suggest to refine KO instead of making UBZ easier. I would like to make a other point, on the one hand, when we switch to another system we spend a lot time practicing the new count etc., so to improve the system we already feel comfortable with garuantees us more time at the table in the casino where we make money, not at home in the kitchen.
On the other hand, when we are able to apply a level 2 system with the same precision like a level 1 system, we could bring more money on the table with the same risk or apply lower spreads therefore enjoy less heat and more longevity.
But in our example here i share your opinion for the most part. I would rather spend the time TC KO than to learn a new system. Who knows if we ever realize the difference in real life.
Last edited:
Good comments, thanks.
I think it is natural for those that know a certain system well to have a bias towards that system. Changing systems is a big deal. The results you linked suggest that TKO may have a higher betting correlation but a lower PE. But of course, betting correlation is worth more than playing efficiency, as most of the gain comes from varying your bets not index play. The bet spreads at which TKO outperformed UBZ were pretty high though, an important consideration.
I think what we are pursuing may ultimately end up being a 10% or so increase in EV. Is that worth it? Once I work up to the black chip level, that could mean an extra $10 per hour. That sounds worthwhile to me if the extra effort required is well within my excess brain capacity, which I am thinking it is. However, it is important to keep the "big picture" in mind.
TKO is quite easy to employ for bet variation on 6D shoes. I've already done that. I'm wondering about its implications on my preferred DD games and the very occassional good SD game that I encounter.
I should be simming in the not to distant future, so let's continue to compare notes. If we have one group working UBZ and another exploring TKO that only benefits the community as a whole.
I think it is natural for those that know a certain system well to have a bias towards that system. Changing systems is a big deal. The results you linked suggest that TKO may have a higher betting correlation but a lower PE. But of course, betting correlation is worth more than playing efficiency, as most of the gain comes from varying your bets not index play. The bet spreads at which TKO outperformed UBZ were pretty high though, an important consideration.
I think what we are pursuing may ultimately end up being a 10% or so increase in EV. Is that worth it? Once I work up to the black chip level, that could mean an extra $10 per hour. That sounds worthwhile to me if the extra effort required is well within my excess brain capacity, which I am thinking it is. However, it is important to keep the "big picture" in mind.
TKO is quite easy to employ for bet variation on 6D shoes. I've already done that. I'm wondering about its implications on my preferred DD games and the very occassional good SD game that I encounter.
I should be simming in the not to distant future, so let's continue to compare notes. If we have one group working UBZ and another exploring TKO that only benefits the community as a whole.
Hi Jack,
From reading your post it is clear that you don't use simulation software and blindly believe the numbers given by the authors are superior. I can guarantee you in the Bryson book I had "Blackjack for Blood" that the A02 with those numbers were not the best indexes. Hi-Opt II with SBA Risk Averse numbers is several %'s stronger. Well, I guess you can't argue with faith.
Good luck.
Beast
From reading your post it is clear that you don't use simulation software and blindly believe the numbers given by the authors are superior. I can guarantee you in the Bryson book I had "Blackjack for Blood" that the A02 with those numbers were not the best indexes. Hi-Opt II with SBA Risk Averse numbers is several %'s stronger. Well, I guess you can't argue with faith.
Good luck.
Beast
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
Beast said:
Hi beast,
No, i dont believe their surperior, that it was i made adjustments and made them surperior!
nightspirit
Well-Known Member
I second that! KO offers like no other count the opportunity to upgrade your count from an easy learnable RC-system to the most powerful Level 1 system, which hold it's own even against a level 2 system. And when you are able to handle it, then go for it! An increase by 10% is not to be sneezed at all. It adds up about the hours you play with it.Knox said:
Too bad, that Fuchs and Vancura wasn't really aware about the power of TKO when they published it. They only included the wongout points in their second edition, instead they could have easily expand KO, from Rookie over Preferred to Pro, by going more in detail about TKO. A good idea could be, to expand the UBZ-OS-Project that way, too.
Sure, we will compare notes. I really like your method of TC'ing KO, easy to understand and easy to employ! I'm curious about your sims and looking forward to see the results!