UBZ2 question from bnoc848

[avs21]

Is CV Casino Verite? I have always depended on others for computer sims so I dont know what I am doing in that area. How would you go about running a sim to determine indices? I am going to order the program very soon.

I was also wondering, does CV allow you to practice the ZEN count? That would be one way for me to check my accuracy on my TC conversions and see if I am betting properly. I am basically looking for a program that I can play the ZEN count with, and have it let me know when I have made a playing or betting error.

Also I would appreciate any tips on deck estimation and doing TC conversions. It's obviously no problem to divide by a whole number, but does anyone have any tricks for dividing by numbers like 3.5, 1.5, .75, etc?

I've already asked a ton of questions, but since I am learning a new system I will have lots more, so thanks for all the help!

I just started using CV It's great for practicing your counting system. It tells you when you have made betting and playing errors for BS and indexes. It has very useful drills on testing your accuracy on BS deviations and a lot more. It has stuff on deck estimation also. The indexes for the different counting sytems come with CV.

 

[ScottH]

I just started using CV It's great for practicing your counting system. It tells you when you have made betting and playing errors for BS and indexes. It has very useful drills on testing your accuracy on BS deviations and a lot more. It has stuff on deck estimation also.

Great, I am going to order it right now!

 

[zengrifter]

To CV or NOT to CV...

Is CV Casino Verite? I have always depended on others for computer sims so I dont know what I am doing in that area. How would you go about running a sim to determine indices? I am going to order the program very soon.

I was also wondering, does CV allow you to practice the ZEN count? That would be one way for me to check my accuracy on my TC conversions and see if I am betting properly. I am basically looking for a program that I can play the ZEN count with, and have it let me know when I have made a playing or betting error.

Also I would appreciate any tips on deck estimation and doing TC conversions. It's obviously no problem to divide by a whole number, but does anyone have any tricks for dividing by numbers like 3.5, 1.5, .75, etc?

I've already asked a ton of questions, but since I am learning a new system I will have lots more, so thanks for all the help!

CV is great... BUT you do NOT need to sim your own indices! Consider first whether you will use 1/4D TC straight from the book.

A good compromise is 1/2D TC with book-ZEN indices x2.

Here are some 1DTC indices -
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm#comprehensivebs

Here is another set of 1DTC indices (chapter 11) -
http://www.bjrnet.com/archive/BlackjackTherapy.htm

Reread the Interview page 4-5 for which 60+ indices to learn, also.

As for dividing with fractions, Blackbelt offers several alternate methods. Basically I just "know" the TC close estimate. Its easy. zg

 

[ScottH]

CV is great... BUT you do NOT need to sim your own indices! Consider first whether you will use 1/4D TC straight from the book.

A good compromise is 1/2D TC with book-ZEN indices x2.

Here are some 1DTC indices -
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm#comprehensivebs

Here is another set of 1DTC indices (chapter 11) -
http://www.bjrnet.com/archive/BlackjackTherapy.htm

Reread the Interview page 4-5 for which 60+ indices to learn, also.

As for dividing with fractions, Blackbelt offers several alternate methods. Basically I just "know" the TC close estimate. Its easy. zg

It sounds like using 1/2D TC would work out fine. Since with 1 deck or more you estimate to the nearest 1/2 deck anyway. And for 3/4 of a deck, that is 1.5 half decks which gets multiplied by 2 which is the whole number 3.

I think what I will do is list all the possible TC conversions for RC -5 to +10 for a 2 deck game. That way I can sharpen my simple division skills and maybe I will eventually just "know" them like you do.

I know it is probably easier than I am making it seem. I am just overly paranoid about making mistakes in deck estimation or TC conversion. The reason I am paranoid is because I think that VERY FEW mistakes are acceptable, and would obviously prefer none. With an unbalanced system it's hard to make a mistake, but with a balanced system there is more room for error. But just like everything else, I'm sure deck estimation and TC conversions will be super easy like everything else becomes after practice.

I assume all betting and playing decisions are in whole TC numbers. So that brings me to the question, when do I round up or down? I've heard it's better to round down, but at some point it has to be better to round up, I would think. Is it just 0-.50 round down, and .51-.99 round up?

I think I am worrying about too much at once. I am trying to learn deck estimation, TC convertions, and the ZEN tags all at once. If I just take it one step at a time it will probably come easier. I am hoping to learn ZEN by the end of August, hopefully. If not, I guess that's alright too.

 

[ScottH]

I use 1D TC

1/2D TC = RC/1/2Ds, etc.

There is NO difference in accuracy when done correctly. zg

Theoretically there is no difference in accuracy, BUT when working with only whole number index and betting numbers it seems that there is a difference. There wouldn't be a difference if you used fractions, but everything is in whole numbers so rounding loses a little bit of accuracy. It seems like 1/2D TC is a little more accurate than 1/4D TC, and 1D TC is a little more accurate than 1/2D TC. It seems that way because there would be less rounding error.

If I happen to be right about this, this is the question I have about it. It is regarding granuity scales. I know that you recommend using wider granuity scales, but should you still use a wide granuity scale when using 1/2D TC?

If you look at the index numbers for 1/4D TC you see that most indexes are between -1 and +3. Using a wide granuity scale would be very innaccurate it would seem.

So should I not use a wide granuity scale using 1/2D TC, OR should I just learn 1D TC and use a wide granuity scale? What do you think? I'm trying to find out as much as possible about the different TC options before I commit to learning the one I will ultimately choose.

 

[zengrifter]

Theoretically there is no difference in accuracy, BUT when working with only whole number index and betting numbers it seems that there is a difference. There wouldn't be a difference if you used fractions, but everything is in whole numbers so rounding loses a little bit of accuracy. It seems like 1/2D TC is a little more accurate than 1/4D TC, and 1D TC is a little more accurate than 1/2D TC. It seems that way because there would be less rounding error.

If I happen to be right about this, this is the question I have about it. It is regarding granuity scales. I know that you recommend using wider granuity scales, but should you still use a wide granuity scale when using 1/2D TC?

If you look at the index numbers for 1/4D TC you see that most indexes are between -1 and +3. Using a wide granuity scale would be very innaccurate it would seem.

So should I not use a wide granuity scale using 1/2D TC, OR should I just learn 1D TC and use a wide granuity scale? What do you think? I'm trying to find out as much as possible about the different TC options before I commit to learning the one I will ultimately choose.

When you use a 1D TC and divide by remaining decks, fractions are involved - for example RC +12 with 1.5 decks remaining = +8, etc. Or, below 1D remaining: .75D remains MULTIPLY RC x 1.5, or .5D remains multiply RC x 2, etc.

Can you readily tell me what the TC is when RC = 7 and 3.5D remains? Its no mor difficult than that.

You are correct that IF you use the 1/4DTC approach the index granularity is already wide and simple. zg

 

[ScottH]

When you use a 1D TC and divide by remaining decks, fractions are involved - for example RC +12 with 1.5 decks remaining = +8, etc. Or, below 1D remaining: .75D remains MULTIPLY RC x 1.5, or .5D remains multiply RC x 2, etc.

I meant that fractions aren't used in the final answer. Since 1/2D and 1/4D TC have a smaller spread of numbers (I'm not sure if that is the best way to say it) , the won't be quite as accurate as 1D TC.

Can you readily tell me what the TC is when RC = 7 and 3.5D remains? Its no mor difficult than that.

I see your point. I think I am going to learn 1D TC, and will still think about what granuity scale I will use. Do you even use a granuity scale, or did you just learn the exact numbers? I suppose you learned the exact numbers a long time ago and found no reason to change.

 

[zengrifter]

I meant that fractions aren't used in the final answer. Since 1/2D and 1/4D TC have a smaller spread of numbers (I'm not sure if that is the best way to say it) , the won't be quite as accurate as 1D TC.

They ARE just as accurate.

I see your point. I think I am going to learn 1D TC, and will still think about what granuity scale I will use. Do you even use a granuity scale, or did you just learn the exact numbers? I suppose you learned the exact numbers a long time ago and found no reason to change.

Long ago I used the exact numbers, but after I was away for awhile and had to relearn them I simplified them in ways described in the interview. As mentioned, with 1DTC all numbers between +1 and -1 can be reduced to 0. Even more dramatically, if you take the ZEN 1/4D #s and multiply them x4 you will see dramatically reduced granularity that are nonetheless equally powerfull yets simpler.

GeoC, for example, plays ZEN with 1DTC#s consisting entirely of
+15+10+5-0-5. zg

 

[ScottH]

They ARE just as accurate.

Long ago I used the exact numbers, but after I was away for awhile and had to relearn them I simplified them in ways described in the interview. As mentioned, with 1DTC all numbers between +1 and -1 can be reduced to 0. Even more dramatically, if you take the ZEN 1/4D #s and multiply them x4 you will see dramatically reduced granularity that are nonetheless equally powerfull yets simpler.

GeoC, for example, plays ZEN with 1DTC#s consisting entirely of
+15+10+5-0-5. zg

The reason I think 1/4D TC is less accurate is in your response. The 1/4D TC numbers are a little bit less accurate then that EXACT numbers because the granuity scale is already "built in" for the 1/4D TC.

So basically using 1/4D TC without increasing the granuity is just like using 1D TC with a large granuity. I'm not saying the 1/4D TC numbers are innaccuarate, I'm just saying they are a LITTLE bit less accurate, with an emphasis on little.

I know that knowing this isn't very important, but it's an interesting disccussion point.

 

[zengrifter]

So basically using 1/4D TC without increasing the granuity is just like using 1D TC with a large granuity. I'm not saying the 1/4D TC numbers are innaccuarate, I'm just saying they are a LITTLE bit less accurate, with an emphasis on little.

If you run a 1DTC billion hand sim with precise 1DTC#s and then a 1DTC billion hand sim with 1/4DTC#s x4 you will find that the difference in result is insignificant.

A good compromise, as previously mentioned, might be 1/2DTC with the Blackbelt#s x2.

On the other hand Snyder makes a good case for the 1/4D approach for ZEN.

And, I say its strictly a personal preferrence.

I started with the 1/2D approach ala Revere, and I have thought about using a 1/3D TC approach, but I'm comfortable with the 1D after all these years. zg

 

[ScottH]

If you run a 1DTC billion hand sim with precise 1DTC#s and then a 1DTC billion hand sim with 1/4DTC#s x4 you will find that the difference in result is insignificant.

A good compromise, as previously mentioned, might be 1/2DTC with the Blackbelt#s x2.

On the other hand Snyder makes a good case for the 1/4D approach for ZEN.

And, I say its strictly a personal preferrence.

I started with the 1/2D approach ala Revere, and I have thought about using a 1/3D TC approach, but I'm comfortable with the 1D after all these years. zg

Why would 1/2D TC be a good compromise again? I just want to hear your reasoning. I should make a decision soon so I can start learning!

 

[zengrifter]

Why would 1/2D TC be a good compromise again? I just want to hear your reasoning.

Compromise between ease of division and granularity of indices. Go back and thorughly understand Snyder's reasoning for 1/4D "true-edge" approach also. Try each approach on paper, for 6D & 2D. Then decided. zg

 

[ScottH]

Compromise between ease of division and granularity of indices. Go back and thorughly understand Snyder's reasoning for 1/4D "true-edge" approach also. Try each approach on paper, for 6D & 2D. Then decided. zg

With 1D TC I can use a wide granuity, and with 1/4D TC I obviously can't use any granuity. Where does 1/2D TC stand?

 

[zengrifter]

With 1D TC I can use a wide granuity, and with 1/4D TC I obviously can't use any granuity.

Not needed, already inherent.

Where does 1/2D TC stand?

In the middle - use true-edge ZEN#s x2. zg

 

[SystemsTrader]

Is anybody on here currently using UBZ, I would like to know how you find using UBZ? I am seriously considering upgrading from my level one system. I will order the book this week. I know Scott and BNOC you guys have been considering it and wonder if you have made the switch? I have in the past switched from different level ones with ease but I am concerned with the large adjustments going from a level 1 to a level 2 and I am worried about the time to adjust and perhaps an increase in errors. Also what is the difference between UBZ1 and UBZ2?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Is anybody on here currently using UBZ, I would like to know how you find using UBZ? I am seriously considering upgrading from my level one system. I will order the book this week. I know Scott and BNOC you guys have been considering it and wonder if you have made the switch? I have in the past switched from different level ones with ease but I am concerned with the large adjustments going from a level 1 to a level 2 and I am worried about the time to adjust and perhaps an increase in errors. Also what is the difference between UBZ1 and UBZ2?

Yes, I use it but only on SD and DD games where true counting isn't terribly valuable and where playing efficiency starts to become more important. The only difference between counting it and the RPC I usually use on shoe games is the value of the ace, so switching between the two systems is no trouble at all.

I've never read the book but I'd strongly recommend using CVData or another simulator to generate your own indices and spreads for the conditions you will actually be playing in. You will need different indices for different numbers of decks.