Can KO's Running Count Be True Count Converted?

[Finn Dog]

Well thanks to all of you, I think I've finally got it :toast:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all I really need to remember from all of this is:

1. To forget about the key count completely.

2. To replace the key count with the running count equivalent number for a TC of +2 (from Brent's chart).

3. To not increase my bet till I've reached a TC of +2 (to compensate for KO being weak very early and very late in a 6D shoe).

4. To keep the pivot point unchanged: it remains static at a TC of +4 (a RC of 34 in my case with an IRC of 10).

5. And to wong out at the running count equivalent number for a TC of -1.20 (from Brent's chart).

Anything I missed?

Finally, a question from Brent's chart itself: I see he has two bet ramps referenced: one with a TC of 1.5 and one with a TC of 5--can anyone shed some light on these?

Thanks once again.

FD

 

[Finn Dog]

Well thanks to all of you, I think I've finally got it :toast:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all I really need to remember from all of this is:

1. To forget about the key count completely.

2. To replace the key count with the running count equivalent number for a TC of +2 (from Brent's chart).

3. To not increase my bet till I've reached a TC of +2 (to compensate for KO being weak very early and very late in a 6D shoe).

4. To keep the pivot point unchanged: it remains static at a TC of +4 (a RC of 34 in my case with an IRC of 10).

5. And to wong out at the running count equivalent number for a TC of -1.20 (from Brent's chart).

Anything I missed?

Finally, a question from Brent's chart itself: I see he has two bet ramps referenced: one with a TC of 1.5 and one with a TC of 5--can anyone shed some light on these?

Thanks once again.

FD

I'd like to apologize in advance to everyone for making this thread "fresh" once again! Because evidently, after posting the question above a while back, I got no takers! (Perhaps I should have left well-enough alone and just let it die of natural causes: namely, unpopularity.) But could I trouble you all to revisit this one last time please--just for my peace of mind?

Thanks very much in advance (once again)!

Best regards,

FD

 

[divorce certificate]

JohnD - The Hi-Lo and the full KO have virtually equal performance ratings, so it is just a case of which you are going to be more comfortable with.

From what I have read and heard, most starting counters are going with the KO because you are working from a running count and not having to make the true count conversion.

Note: Fred Renzey's Stage III Kiss Count has about the same ratings if you want to look into that one too.

 

[zengrifter]

JohnD - The Hi-Lo and the full KO have virtually equal performance ratings, so it is just a case of which you are going to be more comfortable with.

From what I have read and heard, most starting counters are going with the KO because you are working from a running count and not having to make the true count conversion.

Note: Fred Renzey's Stage III Kiss Count has about the same ratings if you want to look into that one too.

True-counted KO (TKO) is slightly stronger than HiLo. zg

 

[cpage727]

how does TKO stack up against UBZ2 in a 2 deck game?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

how does TKO stack up against UBZ2 in a 2 deck game?

Measurably less. UBZ is hard to beat for double deck.

 

[jozef88]

how does TKO stack up against UBZ2 in a 2 deck game?

that's hard...good luck...

 

[aslan]

Depending on the game you're playing you will probably raise your bet around a TC of -3 or -2.

What am I missing? Why would anyone want to raise their bet around a TC of -3 or -2? Just asking.

 

[boneuphtoner]

What am I missing? Why would anyone want to raise their bet around a TC of -3 or -2? Just asking.

If you use the system the way Brett described it in post #2, a TKO TC of -4 is a neutral deck, equivalent to a TC of 0 with a balanced count. With that in mind, a TKO TC of -3 is a positive count, when you would start raising your bet. And when you hit a TC of 0 you are at the pivot point (which also is the KO pivot point using the RC when your IRC is -4 X number of decks you are using), where you should be firing out maximum bets. I'm still not used to it.

Got it?

 

[aslan]

If you use the system the way Brett described it in post #2, a TKO TC of -4 is a neutral deck, equivalent to a TC of 0 with a balanced count. With that in mind, a TKO TC of -3 is a positive count, when you would start raising your bet. And when you hit a TC of 0 you are at the pivot point (which also is the KO pivot point using the RC when your IRC is -4 X number of decks you are using), where you should be firing out maximum bets. I'm still not used to it.

Got it?

Nope. I have always been of the opinion that TC is TC. How can there be a TKO TC? It is not TC. How can they call it TC? Too confusing for me. I have a KO to TC spreadsheet, but to the best of my knowledge, when it says TC, it means TC.

 

[aslan]

TKO spreadsheet

View attachment Copy of TKO-clean.zip

Maybe you can open this.

 

[boneuphtoner]

Yes, I've seen that chart. If you are using this chart the way I think most people use it, I see this as a slightly more refined version of Dravot's Color of Blackjack. Are there charts for SD, DD, and eight decks?

If you are using KO full or KO Preferred are you adjusting your indices depending on the deck depth? If not, you are undoubtedly capturing some of the power of TKO through your bet variations according to the chart, but the absolute correct running count index will vary depending on the deck depth. In the printed version of Modern Blackjack (not available in the free one online), Norm shows how much of the power these fudging methods capture compared to full TKO. Some of the sims show up to 50% of the gain. But if you are not also fudging your indices as well as adjusting your key count, you won't be using real TKO.

I think use of these charts and fudged indices would be fine for an individual who plays one type of game almost exclusively. But when I go to Vegas, I play everything from SD to eight deckers, and although I'm no expert at deck estimation, there is no way I'd be willing to memorize all of those running count-deck depth permutations for four different kinds of games. For me, true counting would be easier, or I'd be content to use it in running count mode.

As with everything else, YMMV! :grin:

 

[boneuphtoner]

Nope. I have always been of the opinion that TC is TC. How can there be a TKO TC? It is not TC. How can they call it TC? Too confusing for me. I have a KO to TC spreadsheet, but to the best of my knowledge, when it says TC, it means TC.

I think I see where your confusion is. If you use the simpler formula on post #2 of your thread, what I said is correct. -4 TC of KO equals a TC of 0 with a balanced strategy. There is another method of true counting KO that was used to generate that chart you showed. And that formula is:

TC = RC-4(decks played)/decks remaining

As you can see, this is a more involved calculation, but it gives you positive numbers that would probably be more familiar to most folks. No way that I would employ that type of calculation at the tables, but that is just me.

But, I've tried using the simpler formula, and it just seems awkward to me. I find I have to true count much more often than I do with a balanced strategy. This is because if the running count is hovering close to zero, you don't really need to true count unless you get really deeply dealt game or are playing single deck. I don't need to think to stand on 16 v. 10 or 12 v. 4, or even 12 v. 6. The answer is usually obvious. Not so with true counted KO.

Better to keep it simple and use KO Preferred, perhaps KO full, and be done with it. Or use a balanced strategy....they seem easier to true count.

 

[aslan]

I think I see where your confusion is. If you use the simpler formula on post #2 of your thread, what I said is correct. -4 TC of KO equals a TC of 0 with a balanced strategy.

It's not my thread. The confusion is your use of the term TC. A running count (RC) of -4 equals a true count (TC) of 0. In other words, -4 RC of KO equals TC of 0 with a balanced strategy.

I don't use the chart to convert to TC, but to make myself aware that in the early going, KO is a bit conservative, while past +4 it becomes a bit overstated. But the overstatement should not result in over-betting, since anything at +4 or above calls for max bet anyway.

I like to know when I am in a relatively neutral true count because I sometimes use raised bets in neutral counts for camo. Also, it is useful to know those rare instances when a plus true count is reached in an early stage when KO conservatively indicates a low minus count, say, -11 with 5 decks remaining.

 

[boneuphtoner]

In other words, -4 RC of KO equals TC of 0 with a balanced strategy.

This is only true at the top of the shuffle, where your IRC is -4 X number of decks you are playing against. At any other point during play, a -4 RC could mean something very different. Using the simpler version of the KO true count formula (see post #2 of this thread), a -4 KO TC (not RC) will be equal to a TC of 0 with a balanced strategy.

 

[aslan]

This is only true at the top of the shuffle, where your IRC is -4 X number of decks you are playing against. At any other point during play, a -4 RC could mean something very different. Using the simpler version of the KO true count formula (see post #2 of this thread), a -4 KO TC (not RC) will be equal to a TC of 0 with a balanced strategy.

I have no idea what KO TC means.

I did misspeak when I said that a KO of -4 would always equal a TC of 0. What is true is that a KO RC of +4 is always equal to a TC of +4.

As one backs up to -4, the built in lag of the KO running count in the early goings is evident. In a 6 deck game with 5 decks remaining, a KO RC of -4 would equal TC 2.4, with 4 decks remaining, a KO of -4 would equal TC 2, with 3 decks remaining, a KO RC of -4 would equal TC 1.33, and with 2 decks remaining, a KO RC of -4 would equal TC 0. This lag could result in under betting one's advantage.

Finally, when there is only one deck remaining, a situation not often encountered in six deck, a KO of -4 would equal a TC of -4, which could result in over betting to the extent that KO recommends betting two units and the true count indicates a single unit bet, or wong out. At one deck remaining, I simply drop down to the recommended betting range for single deck, that is, I reset my key count to +2, betting 1 unit at +1, 4 units at +2, 8 units at +3, and 10 units at +4 (all where 10 units is max bet). I think this is sound reasoning, since at one deck, KO RC equals TC, and since from this point on KO will lead, not lag, TC.

But in KO, so long as the count is +4 or above, it is comforting to know that the bet should be max bet, no matter what the number of decks remaining.

 

[Zero]

What is true is that a KO RC of +4 is always equal to a TC of +4.

I've read this in multiple places (I think it's even in KOBJ) and I'm still not quite getting it. Doesn't the caveat that this is assuming 7's are evenly distributed throughout the shoe apply? Perhaps my understanding of a "True Count" is off.
Example: 8D shoe. After 104 cards you have seen:
2-6: 44
7: 18
8-9: 16
T&A: 26
So you've seen a little over twice as many 7's as you would expect to see in 2 decks. Your KO RC would be 44+18-26-32=4. But the Hi-Lo RC would be 44-26=18. With 6 decks remaining that would give you a Hi-Lo TC of 18/6=3.

But in KO, so long as the count is +4 or above, it is comforting to know that the bet should be max bet, no matter what the number of decks remaining.

I use Hi-Lo and I don't think I'd be comfortable throwing out a max bet with a TC of 3.

Edit: OK, after searching through KOBJ a bit more I see on p. 96 it specifically refers to the "K-O true count" and not simply "true count". So my understanding of a true count is a bit flawed.
0

 

[aslan]

I've read this in multiple places (I think it's even in KOBJ) and I'm still not quite getting it. Doesn't the caveat that this is assuming 7's are evenly distributed throughout the shoe apply? Perhaps my understanding of a "True Count" is off.
Example: 8D shoe. After 104 cards you have seen:
2-6: 44
7: 18
8-9: 16
T&A: 26
So you've seen a little over twice as many 7's as you would expect to see in 2 decks. Your KO RC would be 44+18-26-32=4. But the Hi-Lo RC would be 44-26=18. With 6 decks remaining that would give you a Hi-Lo TC of 18/6=3.


I use Hi-Lo and I don't think I'd be comfortable throwing out a max bet with a TC of 3.

Edit: OK, after searching through KOBJ a bit more I see on p. 96 it specifically refers to the "K-O true count" and not simply "true count". So my understanding of a true count is a bit flawed.
0

In your edit, are you referring to your example, which really should be KO of 0 which is a true count of +3? You must, since in your next statement you say you wouldn't feel comfortable throwing out max bet with a tc of 3, which really should have been +4. It can really get confusing trying to jump back and forth between KO, TC, and Hi-Lo. :laugh:

I think in your calculation, you should subtract 28, not 32, since -28 [4-(4*8 decks)] is the KO IRC.

 

[k_c]

In your edit, are you referring to your example, which really should be KO of 0 which is a true count of +3? You must, since in your next statement you say you wouldn't feel comfortable throwing out max bet with a tc of 3, which really should have been +4. It can really get confusing trying to jump back and forth between KO, TC, and Hi-Lo. :laugh:

I think in your calculation, you should subtract 28, not 32, since -28 [4-(4*8 decks)] is the KO IRC.

If you take a deep breath, it's really not that difficult.

True count for ANY count is (typically) running count per deck. In other words running count by itself just measures the imbalance beteween plus and minus cards. True count measures the density, or how concentrated, running count is.
If you have a running count of +4 with 1/2 deck left then true count = +8
If you have a running count of +4 with 1 deck left then true count = +4
If you have a running count of +4 with 6 decks left then true count = +.67

Confusion arises when true counting KO because unlike Hi-Lo there are an unequal number of high and low cards to begin with. Therefore Hi-Lo's natural initial running count = 0 whereas KO's natural initial running count = -4*decks because there are 4 four more low cards than high per deck.

Basically KO can be true counted in exactly the same way as Hi-Lo if the initial running is set equal to its natural initial running count of -4*decks. In comparison Hi-Lo's natural initial running count = 0*decks.

Once initial running count is established just adjust the count as normal and divide by decks remaining in either case to get true count.

Looking at Zero's example
Example: 8D shoe. After 104 cards you have seen:
2-6: 44
7: 18
8-9: 16
T&A: 26

I prefer to tag low cards as minus and high cards as plus because I look at what remains in the shoe rather than what has been removed. If you do that then running count can be derived for whatever the shoe comp is. So Zero's example of a partially dealt 8 decks shoe above would give this shoe comp:
2-6: 116
7: 14
8-9: 48
T&A: 134

There are 312 cards left = 6 decks
Hi-Lo's RC = 116*(-1)+62*(0)+134*(+1) = +18 (18 more low than high removed)
KO's RC = 130*(-1)+48*(0)+134*(+1) = +4 (36 more low than high removed)

Hi-Lo's TC = +18/6 = +3 (per deck RC = +3 compared with starting per deck RC = 0)
KO's TC = +4/6 = +.7 (per deck RC = +.7 compared with starting per deck RC = -4)

Which count does a better job of estimating EV in this case? I input the composition in the image and computed an EV of ~+1.2% using basic strategy. You make the call.

 

[aslan]

K_C

Thanks for you analysis.

If by KO TC you mean the count that KO will give you through it's "automatic" adjustment for being unbalanced, I see your point. What I am talking about is converting KO RC to absolute TC, the same TC that you would get through HI-Lo and perfect deck estimation.

I would not be willing to use what you term the "natural" IRC for KO, because I am most of all interested in the pivot point, the point where I will have max bet out, being exactly what the absolute TC is. That is why for me the KO IRC is best set to 4-(4*#decks), or -28 instead of -4*#decks or -32. Without calculation, I then know that KO RC intersects TC at +4 in all scenarios up to one deck remaining.

In a game, it would be way too difficult to be adjusting KO RC to absolute TC. Heck, there would be no reason not to switch to Hi-Lo. I find it comforting with KO that in most cases it is right on target TC-wise as one approaches the cut card, and when it is far from the cut card, KO's RC is quite conservative. Knowing this, I can begin raising my bet as early as KO RC -11 in a 6-deck game with 5 decks remaining. This is good to know. I only have the one spreadsheet of KO RC conversion to TC for 6 deck, and would like to obtain spreadsheets for 8-deck. I'm guessing a spread sheet for double deck would be the same as the 6 deck chart for 2 and 1 decks remaining. I'm also guessing I can expand the spreadsheet in the other direction using the same formulas for the 8 deck game. I just haven't had time to do it yet. I believe I put the URL for the KO to TC conversion in a previous post in this thread.

I hope I made sense. I have to go now to a block party. Thanks again for explaining the relation of KO to the HiLo count and TC.