This question has to do with the ko count or the other unblanced systems for that matter. With the hi-lo you got to take your running count convert it to the true count and all that. I want to understand how in an unbalanced system by just having 7 equal to 1 instead of 0 how does that make it so that you don't need to have a true count and its that much easier.
Another ko count question
- Thread starter oblate
- Start date
supercoolmancool
Well-Known Member
By making all 7s equal +1 KO is designed so that a +4 running count always equals a +4 true count if you were to do the true count corversion. But that means that for all other counts, since you don't do true count conversions, they will be off a little bit but the EV loss is insignificant because all that really matters is that you place your max bet at +4 and higher which is exactly what KO is designed to do.
Unbalanced Counts
When a count like KO uses its "straggler" (the 7) to unbalance things, the running count will rise if the cards come out evenly, rather than stay at zero. If one complete deck was dealt from a six deck shoe for example, the count will rise by 4 points even though five complete and intact decks remain and the true count is still "zero". This unbalaned feature does the handy chore of linking the running count to the approximate true count as play progresses.
Suppose for instance that two decks into that shoe, the running count has increased by 20 points. Since you're counting those four extra 7s in each deck, the count would've risen only 8 points if the true count was still "zero". But having risen 20 points, the shoe is 12 cards "rich" with four decks left. That's a true count of +3.
Now let's go three decks into the shoe and say the running count has still gone up a total of 20 points. If the true count were "even" or "zero", it would've gone up only 12 points. So now, the shoe is 8 cards rich with three decks left -- which is a +2.6 true count.
Finally, what if when you were four decks into the shoe the count had still risen 20 points total? With an even distribution of high and low cards, or a "zero" true count, it would've risen 16 points. So now the shoe is 4 cards rich with 2 decks left, or +2 true.
As you can see, there is some error in the association between the running count and true count, but far less than if you played a balanced count by the running count only. That's the purpose and function of an unbalanced count.
Unbalanced counts that use only a half rank of cards to unbalance their structure however, tie the running count and true count together somewhat tighter. With the KISS count for example, you unbalance your count structure by counting only the black deuces, but not the red ones. Now, if the true count stays "even", the running count will rise just 2 points for each deck that's dealt.
So say that two decks into that six deck shoe, the running count has risen by 14 points. If the true count were still "zero", it would've risen only 4 points. That makes the shoe 10 cards rich with four decks left -- a +2.5 true count.
Three decks into the shoe the count should've risen 6 points to keep the true count at "zero". But if it had again risen 14 points total, the shoe would be 8 cards rich with three decks left -- a +2.6 true count.
Finally, four decks into the shoe the count should've risen 8 points to keep the true count at "zero". But at that same +14, the shoe is 6 cards rich with two decks left, making the true count +3.0.
Notice that there was half as much error across the entire range.
When a count like KO uses its "straggler" (the 7) to unbalance things, the running count will rise if the cards come out evenly, rather than stay at zero. If one complete deck was dealt from a six deck shoe for example, the count will rise by 4 points even though five complete and intact decks remain and the true count is still "zero". This unbalaned feature does the handy chore of linking the running count to the approximate true count as play progresses.
Suppose for instance that two decks into that shoe, the running count has increased by 20 points. Since you're counting those four extra 7s in each deck, the count would've risen only 8 points if the true count was still "zero". But having risen 20 points, the shoe is 12 cards "rich" with four decks left. That's a true count of +3.
Now let's go three decks into the shoe and say the running count has still gone up a total of 20 points. If the true count were "even" or "zero", it would've gone up only 12 points. So now, the shoe is 8 cards rich with three decks left -- which is a +2.6 true count.
Finally, what if when you were four decks into the shoe the count had still risen 20 points total? With an even distribution of high and low cards, or a "zero" true count, it would've risen 16 points. So now the shoe is 4 cards rich with 2 decks left, or +2 true.
As you can see, there is some error in the association between the running count and true count, but far less than if you played a balanced count by the running count only. That's the purpose and function of an unbalanced count.
Unbalanced counts that use only a half rank of cards to unbalance their structure however, tie the running count and true count together somewhat tighter. With the KISS count for example, you unbalance your count structure by counting only the black deuces, but not the red ones. Now, if the true count stays "even", the running count will rise just 2 points for each deck that's dealt.
So say that two decks into that six deck shoe, the running count has risen by 14 points. If the true count were still "zero", it would've risen only 4 points. That makes the shoe 10 cards rich with four decks left -- a +2.5 true count.
Three decks into the shoe the count should've risen 6 points to keep the true count at "zero". But if it had again risen 14 points total, the shoe would be 8 cards rich with three decks left -- a +2.6 true count.
Finally, four decks into the shoe the count should've risen 8 points to keep the true count at "zero". But at that same +14, the shoe is 6 cards rich with two decks left, making the true count +3.0.
Notice that there was half as much error across the entire range.
Wonging In
Wonging into a shoe game is where the "half rank" unbalanced counts like KISS or Red 7 are more concise than KO. That's because KO is perfectly accurate at +4.0 true -- but rather inaccurate at lesser positive counts. KISS and Red 7 on the other hand are perfectly accurate at +2.0 true -- but moderately inaccurate at more positive counts.
With any counting system, you usually want to wong into a six deck shoe at around +1.5 true.
Using KO and starting off at its recommended "-20" initial running count, if you're one deck in, a +1.5 true count would be a -8 running count. Two decks in, a +1.5 true count would be a -6 running count.
Using KISS for comparison, your startup initial running count is "positive 9". When you get to "19", your true count is +1.5 whether you're one deck or two decks into the shoe. Red 7 bears the same inherently more accurate characteristics because +1.5 true is so close to their perfectly accurate pivots of +2.0 true.
In fact, even four decks into the shoe with the likes of KISS, a running count of "19" is still a true count of +1.0. Where with KO, those "wong-in" counts of "-6" and "-8" will equal true counts of -1.0 and -2.0 respectively when you're four decks in.
The flip side is, KO is moderately more accurate when you're running count is quite high. For example, with a KO running count of "3", your true count will be +3.7 if you're two decks in -- and +3.5 if you're four decks into the six deck shoe.
With a KISS running count of, "25", your true count will be +3.0 if you're two decks in -- and +4.0 if you're four decks in.
All in all, there is more inaccuracy with KO at "wong-in" or "initial ramp-up" counts than there is with KISS or Red 7 at "max bet" counts. I'm guessing that's why both KISS III and Red 7 just barely edge out KO in performance if all three are equally equipped with the same basic accessories -- in spite of KO having slightly better BC and PE numbers.
A final note; With all the hornblowing about the KISS count, I have to give credit to Arnold Snyder for coming up with the Red 7 concept 25 years ago, from which the KISS count was derived. It wasn't known what a smooth, potent system the Red 7 was until blackjack analysis software evaluated it many years later. That's what led me to pick up the ball and evolve that basic concept further with a full table of individually assigned index numbers, the easy "true fudging" option and optional half point counting for increased performance.
Wonging into a shoe game is where the "half rank" unbalanced counts like KISS or Red 7 are more concise than KO. That's because KO is perfectly accurate at +4.0 true -- but rather inaccurate at lesser positive counts. KISS and Red 7 on the other hand are perfectly accurate at +2.0 true -- but moderately inaccurate at more positive counts.
With any counting system, you usually want to wong into a six deck shoe at around +1.5 true.
Using KO and starting off at its recommended "-20" initial running count, if you're one deck in, a +1.5 true count would be a -8 running count. Two decks in, a +1.5 true count would be a -6 running count.
Using KISS for comparison, your startup initial running count is "positive 9". When you get to "19", your true count is +1.5 whether you're one deck or two decks into the shoe. Red 7 bears the same inherently more accurate characteristics because +1.5 true is so close to their perfectly accurate pivots of +2.0 true.
In fact, even four decks into the shoe with the likes of KISS, a running count of "19" is still a true count of +1.0. Where with KO, those "wong-in" counts of "-6" and "-8" will equal true counts of -1.0 and -2.0 respectively when you're four decks in.
The flip side is, KO is moderately more accurate when you're running count is quite high. For example, with a KO running count of "3", your true count will be +3.7 if you're two decks in -- and +3.5 if you're four decks into the six deck shoe.
With a KISS running count of, "25", your true count will be +3.0 if you're two decks in -- and +4.0 if you're four decks in.
All in all, there is more inaccuracy with KO at "wong-in" or "initial ramp-up" counts than there is with KISS or Red 7 at "max bet" counts. I'm guessing that's why both KISS III and Red 7 just barely edge out KO in performance if all three are equally equipped with the same basic accessories -- in spite of KO having slightly better BC and PE numbers.
A final note; With all the hornblowing about the KISS count, I have to give credit to Arnold Snyder for coming up with the Red 7 concept 25 years ago, from which the KISS count was derived. It wasn't known what a smooth, potent system the Red 7 was until blackjack analysis software evaluated it many years later. That's what led me to pick up the ball and evolve that basic concept further with a full table of individually assigned index numbers, the easy "true fudging" option and optional half point counting for increased performance.
Under Early / Over-Late
Only KO substantially underestimates your advantage early and overestimates it late, due to its high pivot (+4.0 true). That will cause you to miss some betting advantages early and bet multiple units into disadvantages late (unless you're true counting it). Red 7, KISS and UBZ with their lower pivots (+2.0 true), link a given running count much more closely to the key count (around +1.5 true), making wong-ins and initial ramp-ups quite an accurate move.
As for advantages at +1, +2 and +3 true, all counting systems, balanced or unbalanced provide about the same at the same. In shoe play with typical rules (S17, DAS), you can figure that +1 true = +0.15%; +2 true = +0.70% and +3 = +1.25% -- assuming you're using say, I18 for basic strategy departures.
Only KO substantially underestimates your advantage early and overestimates it late, due to its high pivot (+4.0 true). That will cause you to miss some betting advantages early and bet multiple units into disadvantages late (unless you're true counting it). Red 7, KISS and UBZ with their lower pivots (+2.0 true), link a given running count much more closely to the key count (around +1.5 true), making wong-ins and initial ramp-ups quite an accurate move.
As for advantages at +1, +2 and +3 true, all counting systems, balanced or unbalanced provide about the same at the same. In shoe play with typical rules (S17, DAS), you can figure that +1 true = +0.15%; +2 true = +0.70% and +3 = +1.25% -- assuming you're using say, I18 for basic strategy departures.
