Deathclutch
Well-Known Member
KO will work just fine and is a respected count, although it's mainly for shoes. I wouldn't recommend it for double or single deck.fsscout said:
KO vs. Omega II
- Thread starter Deathclutch
- Start date
aslan
Well-Known Member
Why not? At plus four it is identical to plus four true count. The range within which a KO counter would begin betting more than the minimum bet is basically the same range as HiLo and other popular balanced counting systems. Also, KO plus three, the count at which one opts for insurance, is identical to true count plus three for all intents and purposes. If you are talking about more than the basic 18 indexes, I can see an advantage to a balanced count converted to true count. But do you need more that the Illustrious 18 to beat DD and SD games?Deathclutch said:
Deathclutch
Well-Known Member
In single and double deck the PE and IC are much more important than in multiple deck play. We saw a great example of this when we saw Hi Opt II with no ASC and its measly BC of .91 outperform Zen in DD and SD play due to the PE and IC differences. KO's PE is only .55 and the IC is only .78. This is also assuming you're true counting. If you're basing only on the RC then these numbers are actually worse. Also keep in mind that a lot of times in DD and SD it's play all. This makes your negative indices much more important, and unfortunately they are all but impossible without true counting the unbalanced count.aslan said:
Plus add in the fact that the count will do you basically no good in training you to true count. When I made the switch after months of unbalanced counting I felt like a complete beginner and I would have been better prepared playing a balanced to start out.
Deathclutch
Well-Known Member
All other numbers vary by depth. You'll have to use the KO true count formula. Once you do that though you can set up betting ramps by depth. For a similar concept find the thread I did on KISS III betting for the 6 deck shoe. It's the methed mentioned in Dravot's book and will greatly increase your accuracy. If your question isn't answered by the time I get home I'll dig up the formula for you.Finn Dog said:
Deathclutch
Well-Known Member
Alright Finn Dog here you go from The Color of Blackjack:Finn Dog said:
True count for KO is
RC-4(Decks Played) = TC
Decks Unplayed
^^^ I can't get that formatted right. It's decks played divided by decks unplayed.
Now if you want to see how to put that to use you can check out that book or you can check this thread here. http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=17058 You can skip the part about the side count, but pay close attention to the part about the warm betting ramp, max bet ramp, and insurance bet ramp. Good luck!
Finn Dog
Well-Known Member
Deathclutch:
Thank you very much for your help, however I also have the book, and am also aware of this table:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=116&d=1180298696
However, I was very intrigued by Aslan's point that:
Thanks to you both in advance,
FD
Thank you very much for your help, however I also have the book, and am also aware of this table:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=116&d=1180298696
However, I was very intrigued by Aslan's point that:
And was wondering how close is KO to Hi-Lo at these specific TC points: TC+2, TC+1, TC 0, TC-1, and TC-2? (That's what I can't figure out.)aslan said:
Thanks to you both in advance,
FD
Close in terms of what? How accurate the initial betting advantage (IBA) is at each TC, how accurate the index plays are, or how accurate insurance plays are?Finn Dog said:
They all might have different answers.
Based on the EOR of the 7 taken into account with TKO, I believe that TKO is more accurate than HiLo in terms of IBA, but for the index plays it would depend on the specific index.
Regarding insurance you just have to look at the IC in qfit's table on counting systems http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm
I believe what aslan was saying is the following (correct me I'm wrong, aslan): In KO, at RC +3 and +4, the TC = +3 and +4. This is confirmed in the excel table you linked to. Look at the RC of +3. After flooring, no matter how many decks are remaining, the TC is +3. Same with +4.
Last edited:
Deathclutch
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, I misunderstood the question you were asking. Assume_r is right in you just need to look at QFIT's chart and that will tell you how you can compare Hi-Lo at these TC's. KO will actually be slightly better than Hi Lo in all areas at the same TC. Hope that's a better answer to what you were asking.Finn Dog said:
Finn Dog
Well-Known Member
assume_R said:
My apologies for the confusion. I meant close in terms of how accurate the KO index plays are when converted to true count in comparison to Hi-Lo.Deathclutch said:
Aslan mentioned that:
That's why I was wondering about TC+2, TC+1, TC 0, TC-1, and TC-2 specifically.aslan said:
My confusion results from the fact when I look at the table, the only static number I see is at TC+4 (pivot).
However, I've noted that many of the KO RC index plays are almost spot on to the Illustrious 18 when you true count convert KO, particularly at TC+4 and TC+3 (which why I was wondering about TC+2 through TC-2).
What I'm getting at is it's beginning to look to me that the many of the true count index numbers in the Illustrious 18 and the Fab 4 could could be used in place of RC index numbers in KO Full by true count converting them first. In fact my mission is to convert all 22 plays--which would yield the ultimate TKO.
(Sorry if I've hijacked this thread, but this question was unresolved a few days back.)
Thanks again,
FD
Last edited:
Deathclutch
Well-Known Member
I forgot to respond to this, sorry Aslan. I only played around 5 sessions with KISS III but I really did not like it. It goes negative so often and I really felt helpless with no indices to help me and it would be all but impossible to wong. I won a little during that time, but the sample size is extremely small.aslan said:
The switch was good and I can make much better informed decisions now although it's hard to quantify the change in real results. The sims show q difference of about 1.5 units though.
Edit: I type like I'm illiterate on my phone. Please ignore grammatical and spelling mistakes.
Last edited:
aslan
Well-Known Member
I did find that shortcoming in KO, that is, when to wong out. So I went to the conversion chart for KO to true count and figured the KO wong out points. At six deck they are -22, -17, and -12 with one, two and three decks played as I recall,and assuming your IRC is -20.Deathclutch said:
Yeah, the TC conversion is useful for wonging, but also remember that in the original book they do have a chart for wong out points on page 120.aslan said:
After reviewing it, it looks like they recommend wonging out at TKO = -1.2 for all shoe games. In my opinion, one can wait until a little bit longer to wong out, but that's what the KO authors recommend as their wong out points.
Many additional factors to consider when wonging out obviously.
Just my additional 2cents that all in all, after learning and reading a lot on this forum, I'm starting to see the value in balanced systems and how much worth it it is to spend the extra effort to master a solid balanced system. Seems like most high-level AP's want to extra advantage TC conversions give anyway, and it might be worth it to master an established balanced system.
But honestly I don't mean to force my views on any1 else, and to each his/her own. I do thoroughly enjoy these discussions though
But honestly I don't mean to force my views on any1 else, and to each his/her own. I do thoroughly enjoy these discussions though
aslan
Well-Known Member
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I met a counter in Vegas last week and the only way we could talk was to continually convert KO to TC as we talked since he only knew hi-lo. I was amazed that he had been doing it for over 18 years and had stunning results playing only in shoe games. He explained some of the bennies to shoe games, which I would rather not discuss them here, although I am sure it has been discussed elsewhere in the Forum. Frankly, I don't see why we share any insights into beating the house in a public forum. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.assume_R said:Just my additional 2cents that all in all, after learning and reading a lot on this forum, I'm starting to see the value in balanced systems and how much worth it it is to spend the extra effort to master a solid balanced system. Seems like most high-level AP's want to extra advantage TC conversions give anyway, and it might be worth it to master an established balanced system.
But honestly I don't mean to force my views on any1 else, and to each his/her own. I do thoroughly enjoy these discussions though
But I digress. I believe a balanced count is more flexible and more accurate. The only thing that has put me off is the TC conversion necessary. But that should be minimal effort in DD and SD I imagine.
Last edited:
Deathclutch
Well-Known Member
My problem wasn't knowing when to wong out, but the fact that most places were very small so there was nowhere to go if you continually wong.aslan said:
Deathclutch
Well-Known Member
It's almost easier in shoe games if you only true to the nearest whole deck. Multiply your index number by decks remaining and if it equals your running count use the play. So everything is multiplied by 1-8 (if you play that many decks.) Of course it gets more complicated the more exact you get (multiply by 4/23, anyone have an easier way of doing those???) Single and double use some different ones like RC multiply by 5, divide by 4. Things like that.aslan said: