Systems Archive 1

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

I Don't Understand This Thread

Posted by John Auston on Monday, 19 January 1998, at 7:16 a.m., in response to UBZII vs KO, posted by Lounge Lizard on Sunday, 4 January 1998, at 10:41 p.m.

I'm sure that Ken and Olaf will agree that there is probably
not a single set of apples-to-apples game conditions whereby
K-O will outperform UBZII.

This is not to denegrate K-O, which is a remarkably powerful
level-1 system, but simply to say that the level-2 UBZII
is superior in performance.

The only relevant question then, IMO, is whether the effort
required to keep a level-2 unbalanced running count is
'worth' the extra gain. This will be an decision that
varies by individual and is mainly influenced by $$ unit size
and 'how ones mind works'.

I have used both systems, and while nothing compares with
the ease of K-O's card cancellations, UBZII also is very
easy, once practiced, and also has many cancellations.

I used to put things in terms of: 'which is the better place
for pivot to be - hi-lo +4 (K-O), or hi-lo +2 (UBZII)?'
Now that I have developed deck-depth-adjusted versions
of both K-O and UBZII, this no longer matters to me.
I have not yet been able to accurately sim the results
of my deck-depth-adjusted techniques, but my educated
guess is that the gain for UBZII will increase, as the
'penalty' for inaccuracy at the higher bets is mitigated,
allowing the level-2 nature of the count to dominate, rather
than being diluted by having to 'make up the loss' of the
big bet inaccuracy.

So, again, it comes down to one's opinion of the relative
extra difficuly of a level-2 running count versus a level-1
running count.

IMO, both K-O and UBZII are outstanding counts that collectively
drive a stake through the heart of the 'true count' and the
'side count', though I'm sure T-Hop will respectively

John Auston



The Systems Archive 1 is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.060398.