of the shoe? Using UBZ11 for 2D, I always wonder whether the running count is more accurate toward the end of the shoes. If it so, is it more benefitial to bet one unit more than max bet when the count call for max bet toward the end of the shoe and one less than max bet early in the shoe?
If you dont make ANY mistakes,your strategy is fine.
If you do make mistakes (even a few) you might be in big trouble by the time you get to the end of the shoe.
The UBZII is an unbalanced count, which pivots 4 points per deck about normal. It is similar to KO in this respect.
Now unbalanced counters usually play and bet only by running count, and not by true count. At the pivot, you are accurate no matter where you are in the pack. When you are away from the pivot, then your running count only gives you a rough approximation of what is going on. It is subject to errors at both ends of the pack.
Let us take an example, from double deck play. At the start, we are 8 points below pivot. Suppose we have counted a while and our running count is 4 points below pivot, which is 4 points above our IRC.
If you are at near beginning of a double deck, then we are 4 points above normal, and you have a true count of +2 above normal. We have an advantage, and we should make positive deviations from BS (more standing and doubling.)
If you in the middle of a double deck, then you are at normal composition. The house has a slight advantage, and we play pretty close to BS.
If we the is only 0.5 deck left, then normal composition is 2 running points below pivot. We are 2 running points below that. Our true count is 2 points below normal, which gives us a true count of -4 below normal.
SO look at how the same running count translates into true counts: +2 at the beginning, 0 in the middle, -4 at the end. (These are relative to "normal composition".) Whatever strategy you associate with this running count, it will be wrong someplace.
Generally speaking, most unbalanced strategy tables take the middle of the pack as their base. SO you probably treat a RC of piovt-4 as "normal" composition, or close to it. Note that you will be under-betting in the beginning of the pack, and over-betting at the end of the pack.
More advanced players are aware of this effect, and adjust their RC indexes through the pack to compensate for it. I think they call this "true fudging", but I think I will let a practitioner of this technique comment further.
if you get inside one deck your edge does become bigger. i would bet an extra unit if you had the bankroll to suffer a bigger swing.
whether you count accurately or not is not the question. if your not counting accurately you won't capitolise on the extra edge .
since I bet one less unit at the first half of the 2D and bet one more unit at the second half, I thought it would pan out and doesn't affect the fluctuation too much. By the way does the gain worth the trouble of doing this? I thought the sd would goes down because I put more money out when I have a bigger advantage.
I searched the web for more info regarding true fudging but I couldn't find any more info. Please share more info on fudging if you could. In addition, please confirm that I understand your post correctly. If the running count call for max bet than it's ok for me to bet one unit above max bet at the first half of 2D and one unit less than max bet at second half of 2D. Thanks.
The pivot point is the one stable point in the running count system. That is, when you are at the pivot RC, your true count is the same, no matter where you are in the pack.
Now if you put out you Max Bet at pivot, then you would do that throughout the pack. (There is something called the floating advantage, which I am ignoring because it is relatively small.)
The beauty of unbalanced systems is that they give you an easy way to determine where to put out you big bets.
If you put out your Max Bet at above the pivot, then things will be the opposite of what you said. You would bet more deep in the pack, and less early in the pack, when your RC is above the pivot.
Parker and/or Bootlegger may be able to help you with true fudging. They have more experience than me with this. Maybe you should put up a top level post asking for help with unbalanced true counting/fudging.
Playing an unbalanced count against the AC monsters, I developed some approximations that may be what MathProf means by "true fudging."
I play the Red 7, which is unbalanced by 2 points per deck. At the pivot (twice the number of decks in play, i.e., a running count of 16 if you're playing an 8-decker), the player has gained about 1% over the initial situation. In AC, you start with a house advantage of just under half a percent, so at the pivot you're up by about half a percent. I would Wong in with $50 at this RC.
The problem I faced was what to do if the RC went down. The Wonging is heaty enough without sitting out every time a few tens appear, then jumping back in if the count rebounds. On the other hand, to keep playing when you're below pivot could be costly, because you could be at negative expectation, depending on where in the shoe you are. I wanted a rough guideline for the situations where the RC was below pivot.
The first issue was to identify negative expectation situations. If the house starts out half a percent ahead, then a Red 7 player is at roughly an even game when the running count equals the number of decks in play (8 in an 8-decker) plus the number of decks in the discard rack. (Explanation if you don't want to take my word for it: Let c be the Red 7 running count, n the number of decks in play, and d the number of decks in the discards. A High-Low counter, who wouldn't be counting the red 7's, would have a running count that's lower than yours by the number of red 7's seen, which will be, on average, 2 per deck. So you estimate the High-Low running count as c-2d. The High-Low true count would be (c-2d)/(n-d). Each High-Low true count point is worth about half a percent to the player, so your current percentage advantage, taking account of the initial 0.5% house edge, is ((c-2d)/(n-d))*0.5 - 0.5. Set that expression as equal to zero, to find the break-even point, and it simplifies to c=n+d.)
You don't have to go through the math every time. Just remember that you're approximately at break-even if c=n+d. If your RC is at that level, then bets you make to hold your place at the table have zero expectation. The only price you pay is the increase in your variance.
Using similar reasoning, I calculated the "safe at quarters" level, where I was below pivot and didn't want to go to $50 but had enough of an advantage that I was happy to bet $25. Rounded off for ease of use, the guideline I developed for 8-deckers was: With less than 2 decks in the discards, 13; with 3 or 4 decks in the discards, 14; with 5 or 6 decks in the discards, 15.
MathProf pointed out that a RC above the pivot is more valuable (i.e., shows a higher advantage) when it arises late in the shoe. A quirk of unbalanced systems is that a RC below the pivot is more valuable early in the shoe. Consider my "safe at quarters" example, where the pivot is 16: If the RC is 14, that's enough of an advantage for quarter betting near the beginning of the shoe, but if you've seen five decks or more, your advantage is so small that you don't meet that threshold.
The following generalization is true for all the standard unbalanced counts and for any number of decks: At the pivot, your edge is always the same, regardless of how many cards have been dealt. If you're not at pivot, the impact of the difference from pivot (positive or negative) is magnified as the number of undealt cards dwindles.
The approximation c=n+d assumes a one-level count, unbalanced by two per deck, and a starting house advantage of 0.5%. For other counting systems or other game conditions, the fudging formula would be different. If you want to go beyond these crude guidelines, there's a much more extensive discussion of use of a true-count equivalent in Blackbelt in Blackjack, by Arnold Snyder (2nd edition), available for sale at this very site (click here). It's keyed to the Red 7, but it will acquaint you with the principles of adjusting for deck penetration while using an unbalanced count.
