boneuphtoner
Well-Known Member
Folks,
I am one of the people who contributed to the UBZ-Open source document. My approach was to come up with 1 set of indices that could be played across SD-8 decks. I think I was successful at doing that with 25 very rounded indices.
I contributed to that thread because I was looking for something more powerful than KO. I have learned since I contributed to that thread that others have resorted to true counting KO, or at the very least, true fudging of KO for improved results. I was able to master the level II tags after a few weeks, and was quickly able to get my deck count down speed under 15 seconds. Still, I found when using UBZ that I wanted more information about how to bet and how to play my hands when I strayed from the pivot.
Enter true counting. Since I started counting about 5 years ago, I've been afraid of seriously attempting true counting, because it was supposedly so prone to errors. I've convinced myself that in a shoe, my count per deck (using whole decks as a divisor) is very powerful and going to half deck resolution just isn't necessary. Still, the conventional wisdom is that you HAD to switch to half deck resolution for SD and DD games. So I stayed away from balanced counts, until I ran the following sim. This sim used a 60 rounded index set (using mostly the ZG indices) for the Zen counting system. One of them, Zen-Ultimate, was ran using the conventional half deck resolution for DD and SD games. The other one, Zen-Ultimate Resolution, was run using WHOLE deck resolution rather than the more conventional half. That means that with just a few cards left in a SD or DD game, your true count divisor is still 1! I also included a few other strategy comparisons, including UBZ-II-Ultimate.
Please have a look at these charts.
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc145/boneuphtoner/zenultimate_resolution1.jpg
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc145/boneuphtoner/zenultimate_resolution2.jpg
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc145/boneuphtoner/zenultimate_resolution3.jpg
How do you interpret this? The most obvious interpretation for me is that increased resolution in pitch games affects performance to a degree, but only very slightly.
Any other insights, comments would be most appreciated.
I am one of the people who contributed to the UBZ-Open source document. My approach was to come up with 1 set of indices that could be played across SD-8 decks. I think I was successful at doing that with 25 very rounded indices.
I contributed to that thread because I was looking for something more powerful than KO. I have learned since I contributed to that thread that others have resorted to true counting KO, or at the very least, true fudging of KO for improved results. I was able to master the level II tags after a few weeks, and was quickly able to get my deck count down speed under 15 seconds. Still, I found when using UBZ that I wanted more information about how to bet and how to play my hands when I strayed from the pivot.
Enter true counting. Since I started counting about 5 years ago, I've been afraid of seriously attempting true counting, because it was supposedly so prone to errors. I've convinced myself that in a shoe, my count per deck (using whole decks as a divisor) is very powerful and going to half deck resolution just isn't necessary. Still, the conventional wisdom is that you HAD to switch to half deck resolution for SD and DD games. So I stayed away from balanced counts, until I ran the following sim. This sim used a 60 rounded index set (using mostly the ZG indices) for the Zen counting system. One of them, Zen-Ultimate, was ran using the conventional half deck resolution for DD and SD games. The other one, Zen-Ultimate Resolution, was run using WHOLE deck resolution rather than the more conventional half. That means that with just a few cards left in a SD or DD game, your true count divisor is still 1! I also included a few other strategy comparisons, including UBZ-II-Ultimate.
Please have a look at these charts.
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc145/boneuphtoner/zenultimate_resolution1.jpg
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc145/boneuphtoner/zenultimate_resolution2.jpg
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc145/boneuphtoner/zenultimate_resolution3.jpg
How do you interpret this? The most obvious interpretation for me is that increased resolution in pitch games affects performance to a degree, but only very slightly.
Any other insights, comments would be most appreciated.