Systems Archive 1

[ Read Responses | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]

Re: 4 Deck Zen/UBZ11/K-O

Posted by double-parlay on Friday, 19 December 1997, at 2:57 p.m., in response to Re: 4 Deck Zen/UBZ/K-O, posted by T-Hopper on Friday, 19 December 1997, at 11:11 a.m.

Thanks for directing me to Grinder's place, T-hopper, I found a very useful comparison of the three systems there which I shall summarise for anyone who might be interested.

It seems that under the following games conditions, UBZ11 does best, followed by ZEN and then KO.

Game conditions:

6 deck, 75% pen, head on, hole card, S17, D any, DAS, NRSA, NS, split any tens, BS 1x1u-2x6u.

Game. %adv..

UBZII 0.622%
ZEN.. 0.617%
KO... 0.604%

As you can see, KO only falls short of UBZ11 by 0.018%. However, in England, insurance is only offered if the dealer has an ace and the player has blackjack which wipes out most of the advantage of the insurance bet. This hurts UBZ11 most and KO least and we arrive at the following comparison:

Game. %adv.. -%ins. %adj adv

UBZ11 0.622% 0.079% 0.543%
ZEN.. 0.617% 0.076% 0.541%
KO... 0.604% 0.072% 0.532%

Moreover, with the other restrictive rules around in England, such as no soft doubling, no splitting of tens, and less doubling against tens and aces due to no hole card, strategies with a higher PE (UBZ11 and ZEN) will suffer comparatively more than ones with lower PE (KO), making the advantages even more closely matched.

As a suprise bonus, the SD's turn out as follows:

Game. SD..

UBZ11 3.06
ZEN.. 2.81
KO... 2.81

The overall results match well with articles by John Austin in 'Green Chip: Card Counting' over on bj21, where he compares RPC with URPC, and finds differences of only hundredths of a percent. And this is when the RPC counter is making perfect TC conversions to the exact half deck (no mean feat I reckon when part way through a six deck shoe) and making no mistakes with the divisions! While I am sure that this is attainable for the mental giants out there that I admire so much, it is quite daunting for mere mortals like me.

I was also very impressed with the insight of Jack O'Spades who posted as follows:

"In the 60's there was Thorp's ten-count which was presumed only worth applying to single deck games. In the 70's came Revere, Uston, Wong & other counts which were advertised as ideal for any number of decks. Then in the late 80's, others introduced unbalanced counts which applied either a TC or RC for strategy adjustments. By this time counters were beginning to specialize based on where they played (shoes or handheld).

And now with K-O and other unbalanced RC-only counts, we see a totally different animal playing shoes, as compared to those playing handheld games. Imagine two counters sitting down to discuss blackjack. One player counts single decks with a balanced count, aces on the side, lots of indices,
play-all, and a 1-4 betting spread. The other plays 6-deck shoes, unbalanced, I-18, RC-based indices, and table hops with a 1-16 spread! They're both applying the best strategy based on the table conditions they attack."

So, in summary, I can see no advantage in investing my time in developing my TC conversion skills for such a small advantage. If I find I have any brain cells left over at the table, I would be better off using them to converse with the pit crew to allow a wider spread, and/or use a side or secondary count to increase my edge.

PS. T-hop, is your book going to be available in England?




The Systems Archive 1 is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.060398.