I'm looking to "graduate" from KO. I was interested in UBZ2, but Uston SS caught my eye. The 99+% BC for SS is pretty tempting and i don't mind the difficulty, just takes time to get used to. However, UBZ2 is not far behind and has a much greater PE. What are everyone's thoughts on a comparison of the two? I don not hav ne of the QFIT software, but i would be interested in seeing how the two score against each other
UBZ2 vs. Uston SS
- Thread starter ace157
- Start date
zengrifter
Banned
UBZ is a little easier. Also, our very own BJINFO* has its collaborative open-source UBZ composite. zg
*aka WBPITTW
*aka WBPITTW
Mimosine
Well-Known Member
learning UBZII is far better than learning more indicies for KO.
You can play a VASTLY simplified UBZ index and still trounce KO. See thread and sims for UBZ "moron" where all index plays except insurance are at RC = 0. It still beats KO Preferred or FULL (can't remember).
You can play a VASTLY simplified UBZ index and still trounce KO. See thread and sims for UBZ "moron" where all index plays except insurance are at RC = 0. It still beats KO Preferred or FULL (can't remember).
Automatic Monkey
Banned
If you're looking to stay with an unbalanced count BRH-1 will probably outperform them both, particularly in shoe games.ace157 said:
System tags {A...10} are {-2,1,2,2,3,2,1,0,0,-2}
Thanks for the input guys.
Thanks for pointing out OS-UBZ ZG, and thanks Mimo for givn' me the quick rundown opposed to readn' the entire thread (even though i did afterwords).
Monkey, i'm havn' a lil trouble finding info on BRH, i can't seem to turn up much on Brett Harris' systems, can u point me in the right direction?
For some reason I had a liking for SS, but i'll do more research before switching so i can get a good feel for all 3 alternative systems, for the time being I'm fairly satisfied using a culmination of KO-Preferred and "The Ultimate Gambit"(Ian Anderson)
Thanks for pointing out OS-UBZ ZG, and thanks Mimo for givn' me the quick rundown opposed to readn' the entire thread (even though i did afterwords).
Monkey, i'm havn' a lil trouble finding info on BRH, i can't seem to turn up much on Brett Harris' systems, can u point me in the right direction?
For some reason I had a liking for SS, but i'll do more research before switching so i can get a good feel for all 3 alternative systems, for the time being I'm fairly satisfied using a culmination of KO-Preferred and "The Ultimate Gambit"(Ian Anderson)
The Debate Continues
So in lieu of more information to make my decision, i was playing around with CVData's Efficiency Calculator. I began taking the first step of Qfit(.com's) steps to creating a card counting system. I don't really want (dunno if i can) create my own, but possibly hybrid a couple systems and see what i come up with. Anyway, here are the results:
(BC/PE/IC)
UBZ2: 98.4/54.1/78
Uston SS: 99.5/55.4/72.8
BRH-1: 98.9/55.7/76.2
SS w/o 9 count: 99/54.7/76.4
UBZ2 (9=-1): 98.9/54.8/74.2
None of this is anything new, other than not counting 9s w/ SS or possibly counting 9s (as -1) with UBZ2. I just thought the comparison was interesting. Yes Monkey, BRH-1 seems to be a nice fit between the two. I did find it interesting that by simply adding a 9 count to UBZ2 it perfomred better and still remained the only Lvl 2 system in my comparison. When i attempted to make a compromised (between UBZ2 and SS) lvl 2 its efficiency failed horribly.
My own trials:
Trial 1: BC = 94.9, PE = 59, IC = 83.3
Tags 2 - A: 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 0, 0, -3, -2
Trial 2: 90.7, 62.3, 88
Tags: 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 0, 0, -3, -1
Trial 3: 92.2, 55.4, 82.9
Tags: 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, -3, -2
Trial 4: 98.1, 60.5, 81.3
Tags: 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -3, -2
Trial 5: 97, 60.3, 83.9
Tags: 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 0, 0, -3, -2
First off i apologize if i have "stolen" any other systems tags, i was jsut trying numbers based on calculations. I had never seen any other count with a negative three, but i thought i would make sense in a lvl 3 count since the weighted impact of all the 10s in a deck vs any other number is much MUCH higher (bcuz there r 16 rather than 4). I of course claculated what i would call each card value's "weighted impact" taking the card value's percent effect of removal and multiplying it by their weight in the deck (ie: 4/52 for everything except 10s). Based on this number i tried to place fitting card tags on the card values. The only trial that came close to performing next to the others would be trial 4, which sacrifices almost a whole percent in BC, but has a strong PE. Most of the trials had a whopping IC, but that is the leas important (in my opinoin) of the three efficiency stats. They all seemed to lack in the BC department but made up for it with a more than acceptable PE. However, we know that BC is the most important stat in shoe games. The only downside to trial 4 is that the tags are somewhat complicated compared to the supercharged performance of BRH-1, or if ur a stickler to ur system, remove 9s for SS or add them to UBZ2.
Next I'll run some sims and calculate some indexes and hopefully come up with something good. I don't have a problem with lvl 3 systems, and im not arguing with some of the VERY smart ppl who who have recommended UBZ2 over SS, i just want to find out for myself and see if there is a possible compromise to be had... though Brett Harris seems to have found one.
So in lieu of more information to make my decision, i was playing around with CVData's Efficiency Calculator. I began taking the first step of Qfit(.com's) steps to creating a card counting system. I don't really want (dunno if i can) create my own, but possibly hybrid a couple systems and see what i come up with. Anyway, here are the results:
(BC/PE/IC)
UBZ2: 98.4/54.1/78
Uston SS: 99.5/55.4/72.8
BRH-1: 98.9/55.7/76.2
SS w/o 9 count: 99/54.7/76.4
UBZ2 (9=-1): 98.9/54.8/74.2
None of this is anything new, other than not counting 9s w/ SS or possibly counting 9s (as -1) with UBZ2. I just thought the comparison was interesting. Yes Monkey, BRH-1 seems to be a nice fit between the two. I did find it interesting that by simply adding a 9 count to UBZ2 it perfomred better and still remained the only Lvl 2 system in my comparison. When i attempted to make a compromised (between UBZ2 and SS) lvl 2 its efficiency failed horribly.
My own trials:
Trial 1: BC = 94.9, PE = 59, IC = 83.3
Tags 2 - A: 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 0, 0, -3, -2
Trial 2: 90.7, 62.3, 88
Tags: 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 0, 0, -3, -1
Trial 3: 92.2, 55.4, 82.9
Tags: 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, -3, -2
Trial 4: 98.1, 60.5, 81.3
Tags: 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -3, -2
Trial 5: 97, 60.3, 83.9
Tags: 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 0, 0, -3, -2
First off i apologize if i have "stolen" any other systems tags, i was jsut trying numbers based on calculations. I had never seen any other count with a negative three, but i thought i would make sense in a lvl 3 count since the weighted impact of all the 10s in a deck vs any other number is much MUCH higher (bcuz there r 16 rather than 4). I of course claculated what i would call each card value's "weighted impact" taking the card value's percent effect of removal and multiplying it by their weight in the deck (ie: 4/52 for everything except 10s). Based on this number i tried to place fitting card tags on the card values. The only trial that came close to performing next to the others would be trial 4, which sacrifices almost a whole percent in BC, but has a strong PE. Most of the trials had a whopping IC, but that is the leas important (in my opinoin) of the three efficiency stats. They all seemed to lack in the BC department but made up for it with a more than acceptable PE. However, we know that BC is the most important stat in shoe games. The only downside to trial 4 is that the tags are somewhat complicated compared to the supercharged performance of BRH-1, or if ur a stickler to ur system, remove 9s for SS or add them to UBZ2.
Next I'll run some sims and calculate some indexes and hopefully come up with something good. I don't have a problem with lvl 3 systems, and im not arguing with some of the VERY smart ppl who who have recommended UBZ2 over SS, i just want to find out for myself and see if there is a possible compromise to be had... though Brett Harris seems to have found one.
Sim1 done
Using standard rules, DAS, S17, no surrender, 15:10 blackjack, 40 million roundsand a 1 - 15 bet spread i compared a few things.
Player 1 - Uston SS
Player 2 - UBZII Composite
Player 3 - Uston SS w/o 9s
Player 4 - UBZII Composite with 9 index of -1
Player 5 - Austin Trial 4 (see previous post)
Player 6 - BRH-1
The bad news is that my trial count system was an epic failure, with a 500 dollar BR, it yielded only $1.42 per hour and lost 118,130 units after 40 mill rounds, as well as a NEGATIVE cSCORE.
The good news, however, while SS-No9 has a NO of 60,418 it yielded a win rate of $16.99/hour and won over 1.4 million units through 40 mill rounds of play. BRH-1, SS, and UBZ2-C all yielded within $0.11/hour of each other. BRH-1 had the best SCORE and NO, followed by UBZ, and then SS in both categories.
THE NEXT STEP:
"Austin Trial 4" looks to be a wash, however simply not counting 9s with an SS system looks promising. Much more so than UBZII w/ a 9 count which performed terribly as well ($1.68/hr, Score 2.12, NO 470,734). I'll keep pushing the SS-No9 theory and explore a few more principles ... perhaps Trial 4 will not have been a complete loss.
Using standard rules, DAS, S17, no surrender, 15:10 blackjack, 40 million roundsand a 1 - 15 bet spread i compared a few things.
Player 1 - Uston SS
Player 2 - UBZII Composite
Player 3 - Uston SS w/o 9s
Player 4 - UBZII Composite with 9 index of -1
Player 5 - Austin Trial 4 (see previous post)
Player 6 - BRH-1
The bad news is that my trial count system was an epic failure, with a 500 dollar BR, it yielded only $1.42 per hour and lost 118,130 units after 40 mill rounds, as well as a NEGATIVE cSCORE.
The good news, however, while SS-No9 has a NO of 60,418 it yielded a win rate of $16.99/hour and won over 1.4 million units through 40 mill rounds of play. BRH-1, SS, and UBZ2-C all yielded within $0.11/hour of each other. BRH-1 had the best SCORE and NO, followed by UBZ, and then SS in both categories.
THE NEXT STEP:
"Austin Trial 4" looks to be a wash, however simply not counting 9s with an SS system looks promising. Much more so than UBZII w/ a 9 count which performed terribly as well ($1.68/hr, Score 2.12, NO 470,734). I'll keep pushing the SS-No9 theory and explore a few more principles ... perhaps Trial 4 will not have been a complete loss.
sim 2 done
tested some new ideas yet again. The control group (for lack of a better word) was the SS system. I kept all of the rules of the game the same EXCEPT i made sure that there were NO insurances, the reason being that i am not far along enough in my own system to declare when the player would have an advantage, so my system would b playing at a disadvantage.
New Systems:
The new ideas were an continuation of my (further) failing Trial 4 (now trial 4.2) which had the tags (2-A) 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 1, 0, 0, -3, -3. It was also recommended to me by BJI member Jack, Jackson to try (i guess its a) lvl 4 systems that i labeled JJ4 had the tags 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 0, -1, -3, -3. I also added a new trial of my own (T7) with the tags 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 0, -1, -3, -3.
Efficiency Results:
SSNo9 - BC 99, PE 54.7, IC 76.4
Trial 4.2 - 98.8, 54.9, 78.5
JJ4 - 99.7, 57.5, 75.2
T7 - 99.3, 55.9, 75.6
Sim Results:
this got sticky.... fast. SS had the best SCORE and NO followed by SSNo9, JJ4, and far, far behind were AT4.2 and T7. However, it was SSNo9 that yielded $7 more per hour than any of the competition.
Conclusion thus far:
Uston knew his s*** no doubt, but by simply removing the nine count, better results were yielded and it seems (to me) it would be a lil easier. If you really wanted to go off the deep end, JJ4 has 4 different tags AND counts 9s; but it also has results to back it up. I don't think the problem for me is having 3 or 4 tags (working w/ a lvl 3 or 4), I feel by not having to keep track of as many numbers helps.
Remaining Questions:
Would it really make a difference removing the 9 count for SS?
Is JJ4 worth a lil extra trouble if ur planning on using a lvl 3 already?
What would come out of a JJ4 w/o a 9 count?
Why to my made from scratch counts suffer when they test to be efficient but suck it up on sims?
tested some new ideas yet again. The control group (for lack of a better word) was the SS system. I kept all of the rules of the game the same EXCEPT i made sure that there were NO insurances, the reason being that i am not far along enough in my own system to declare when the player would have an advantage, so my system would b playing at a disadvantage.
New Systems:
The new ideas were an continuation of my (further) failing Trial 4 (now trial 4.2) which had the tags (2-A) 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 1, 0, 0, -3, -3. It was also recommended to me by BJI member Jack, Jackson to try (i guess its a) lvl 4 systems that i labeled JJ4 had the tags 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 0, -1, -3, -3. I also added a new trial of my own (T7) with the tags 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 0, -1, -3, -3.
Efficiency Results:
SSNo9 - BC 99, PE 54.7, IC 76.4
Trial 4.2 - 98.8, 54.9, 78.5
JJ4 - 99.7, 57.5, 75.2
T7 - 99.3, 55.9, 75.6
Sim Results:
this got sticky.... fast. SS had the best SCORE and NO followed by SSNo9, JJ4, and far, far behind were AT4.2 and T7. However, it was SSNo9 that yielded $7 more per hour than any of the competition.
Conclusion thus far:
Uston knew his s*** no doubt, but by simply removing the nine count, better results were yielded and it seems (to me) it would be a lil easier. If you really wanted to go off the deep end, JJ4 has 4 different tags AND counts 9s; but it also has results to back it up. I don't think the problem for me is having 3 or 4 tags (working w/ a lvl 3 or 4), I feel by not having to keep track of as many numbers helps.
Remaining Questions:
Would it really make a difference removing the 9 count for SS?
Is JJ4 worth a lil extra trouble if ur planning on using a lvl 3 already?
What would come out of a JJ4 w/o a 9 count?
Why to my made from scratch counts suffer when they test to be efficient but suck it up on sims?
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Just keep one thing in mind now. When you start adding to the unbalance of unbalanced systems you'll need to use it only in true count mode. Otherwise the difference in betting correlation between the beginning and the end of the shoe becomes too large and you end up heaving too much money out there at the end of the shoe with no advantage. But if you are true count adjusting it, you can make the system tags whatever you want.
Your SSno9 surely earned quite a bit of money, but how about the SCORE? Doing things like that raises the standard deviation so when you take into account your risk of ruin, it will actually earn less money than the other existing systems.
Your SSno9 surely earned quite a bit of money, but how about the SCORE? Doing things like that raises the standard deviation so when you take into account your risk of ruin, it will actually earn less money than the other existing systems.
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
Using the multi-strategy feature, and the tool bar in CVdata, I was able to ChapetXit! w/CVCX for optimal betting. 50 million rnds, 6D,S17,DAS,75%,1-12(100hnds-perhr)10$unit. Basic strategy only! CVCX Data!
Here are "my" results for 6 counts, listed by tags used(A-X)
WR:
RoR:%
Score:
1)-212232100-2(brh-1)
19.00
23.2%
13.85
2)-22223210-1-3(acecount)
18.81
23.9%
13.46
3)-22223210-1-2(UstonSS)
18.72
27.7%
12.02
4)-112222100-2(Ubz2)
18.42
26.2%
12.34
5)-222232100-2(SS-9)
19.44
24.1%
13.82
6)-11222210-1-2(Ubz2+9)*balanced
18.53
26.4%
12.32
Good luck!
Here are "my" results for 6 counts, listed by tags used(A-X)
WR:
RoR:%
Score:
1)-212232100-2(brh-1)
19.00
23.2%
13.85
2)-22223210-1-3(acecount)
18.81
23.9%
13.46
3)-22223210-1-2(UstonSS)
18.72
27.7%
12.02
4)-112222100-2(Ubz2)
18.42
26.2%
12.34
5)-222232100-2(SS-9)
19.44
24.1%
13.82
6)-11222210-1-2(Ubz2+9)*balanced
18.53
26.4%
12.32
Good luck!
Last edited:
I'll keep that in mind Monkey... the score was low and the ROR was a bit more than i would want, but about the same as the other systems, i'll keep working and playing around with a few numbers and c what i come up with. I don't recall the NO score off the top of my head, but i get what ur saying. The potential to earn more than one SD above the mean also (i think) produces the same potential to LOOSE one SD below the mean. Did i get that right?Automatic Monkey said:
FLASH1296 said:
I'm a fan of unbalanced counts and when i made SS without the 9 it made sense to have UBZ2 w/ the nine, i didnt check to c if it was balanced or not lol... silly me:grin:
Last edited:
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
Just dont take anything, for granted. It was my first time running sims with unbalanced counts and using the "Chapter X it!" feature in CVdata .ace157 said:
Im pretty new at running sims, even though ive had CV for awhile. Im gonna spend a little more time checking it out tonight, in the hopes of becoming a litte more efficient.
Hopefully I can attach each of the optimal betting strategies, to the specified count, and run the multi-strategy feature.
Wooooooooooow
HOUSTON (or should i say Uston [terrible pun]) we might have a winner
I only have the trial of CVData, so these results are iffy, but i ran a sim using SS-9, 1-15 bet spread, and a 1/2 deck TC (at the suggestion of Monkey), 200 mill rounds, no insurance and no indexes
SS-9:
BC 99.0
PE 54.7
IC 76.4
WR (100hands/hr) 10.25
SD 42.17
SCORE 23.62
NO 42,343
Simple ROR @ $1000 = 0.00%; @ $100 = 1.95%
If someone could dbl check this on the full version of CVData that would be great. Even if these numbers are only close, they are PHENOMENAL. The only downside is that one usually chooses an unbalanced count so they DONT have to make a TC conversion. The TC may make SS-9 harder than the removal of 9s make it easier.
HOUSTON (or should i say Uston [terrible pun]) we might have a winner
I only have the trial of CVData, so these results are iffy, but i ran a sim using SS-9, 1-15 bet spread, and a 1/2 deck TC (at the suggestion of Monkey), 200 mill rounds, no insurance and no indexes
SS-9:
BC 99.0
PE 54.7
IC 76.4
WR (100hands/hr) 10.25
SD 42.17
SCORE 23.62
NO 42,343
Simple ROR @ $1000 = 0.00%; @ $100 = 1.95%
If someone could dbl check this on the full version of CVData that would be great. Even if these numbers are only close, they are PHENOMENAL. The only downside is that one usually chooses an unbalanced count so they DONT have to make a TC conversion. The TC may make SS-9 harder than the removal of 9s make it easier.
Sims please
I just recalled the disclaimer on the trial version of CVCX, thus nullifying most of my numbers, would someone mind running a sim for me? Firstly I would like for someone to run an index sim to create proper indexes designed specifically for SS-9. I would also like to know the SCORE, RoR, NO, and WR for the following:
SS-9 (with created indexes)
SS-9 (with full indexes)
SS-9 (w/ A side count)
SS-9A (Tags A-X 0 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 -2; Ace side count)
SS-9 (with TC conversion)
Please post the results here whoeva gets around to it. Thank You
I just recalled the disclaimer on the trial version of CVCX, thus nullifying most of my numbers, would someone mind running a sim for me? Firstly I would like for someone to run an index sim to create proper indexes designed specifically for SS-9. I would also like to know the SCORE, RoR, NO, and WR for the following:
SS-9 (with created indexes)
SS-9 (with full indexes)
SS-9 (w/ A side count)
SS-9A (Tags A-X 0 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 -2; Ace side count)
SS-9 (with TC conversion)
Please post the results here whoeva gets around to it. Thank You
Brett_Harris
Member
What exactly are you trying to do?
Ace,
Dropping the 9 from the SS fixes the insurance problem, but buggers up the BC. The '2' shouldn't be counted as +2, it simply isn't worth that much in the standard Griffin EOR's.
Cheers,
Brett.
Ace,
Dropping the 9 from the SS fixes the insurance problem, but buggers up the BC. The '2' shouldn't be counted as +2, it simply isn't worth that much in the standard Griffin EOR's.
Cheers,
Brett.
I tested the efficiency of SS-9 and it still had a BC of 99.0 though that was on the trial of CVdata so it could b off. When i calculated the "worth" of the 2s i found them to be just a bit lower than the 3s. I took the effect of removal (.4) and multiplied it by the chances of getting a 2 (4/52) for a result of 0.03076 which was closer to the 3s (tagged as 2; result of 0.033076) than it was to the 7s (tagged as 1; result of 0.02308). What calculation did you use to figure out what tags should go w/ what? if you don't mind me askingBrett_Harris said:
zengrifter
Banned
BTW, the Uston SS was developed under contract to Uston by... Arnold Snyder. zg