K-O and other systems

[newbie]

Why not just use your own card counting system and start your count at -20 for a 6 deck shoe and use the unbalanced count of the K-O for betting instead of learning the K-O knockout all over again. I don't see why it wouldn't work. Will it or not? No sense learning a new count if you are familiar with one already. They all seem the same. They end at zero and start at zero. So just start your own system at -20 for 6 decks or -4 for 2 decks. Right? Will it work?

 

[supercoolmancool]

Why not just use your own card counting system and start your count at -20 for a 6 deck shoe and use the unbalanced count of the K-O for betting instead of learning the K-O knockout all over again. I don't see it wouldn't work. Will it or not? No sense learning a new count if you are familiar with one already. They all seem the same. They end at zero and start at zero. So just start your own system at -20 for 6 decks or -4 for 2 decks. Right? Will it work?

It could work but it all depends on the tags. I mean there is a chance.

 

[nc-tom]

Why not just use your own card counting system and start your count at -20 for a 6 deck shoe and use the unbalanced count of the K-O for betting instead of learning the K-O knockout all over again. I don't see why it wouldn't work. Will it or not? No sense learning a new count if you are familiar with one already. They all seem the same. They end at zero and start at zero. So just start your own system at -20 for 6 decks or -4 for 2 decks. Right? Will it work?

Newbe you seem to have a lot of energy for the game but it seems you keep looking for ways to reinvent the wheel. Keep in mind as you explore this game more that it is easier to find perfection in what exists than to find perfection in what does not exist.

 

[sagefr0g]

Newbe you seem to have a lot of energy for the game but it seems you keep looking for ways to reinvent the wheel. Keep in mind as you explore this game more that it is easier to find perfection in what exists than to find perfection in what does not exist.

exactly rignt nc-tom. i think i spent the first six months trying to re-invent the wheel myself . i think it's good to have an enquiring mind and be on the look out for improvement in advantage play but one has to be able to shut that sort of mental gymnastics off when sitting at the tables. that is it's the wise thing to apply the proven methods whilest playing.

 

[golfnut101]

simplicity

sometimes it takes genius to see the obvious

 

[EasyRhino]

Newb, I use KO, but personally, I didn't like starting off a shoe in negative numbers. Additionally, I had initial trouble mentally lowering the count when I saw [/i] high cards.

So my own personal variant of KO (with 6 decks) starts at +15, and then works its way negative. Key count is negative 1. Counts for modifying play are also adjusted.

It all works fine, and it's still KO (they even print a section on the book on customizing it). The biggest disadvantage is that it is impossible for me to share any information with another counter using this system, since everything's upside down.

 

[newbie]

Newb, I use KO, but personally, I didn't like starting off a shoe in negative numbers. Additionally, I had initial trouble mentally lowering the count when I saw [/i] high cards.

So my own personal variant of KO (with 6 decks) starts at +15, and then works its way negative. Key count is negative 1. Counts for modifying play are also adjusted.

It all works fine, and it's still KO (they even print a section on the book on customizing it). The biggest disadvantage is that it is impossible for me to share any information with another counter using this system, since everything's upside down.

Hello, thank you for sharing. I was thinking that why not start out at 0, then when the count reaches +20 then start raising the bet. But as long as the count is below 20 or negative, then stay with a single chip bet minimum.

It's just a thought. I really shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel, but it might throw the eye in the sky off, since they are looking for what the book says to do. But after reading this post they will know anyways. So it won't matter either way.

 

[EasyRhino]

If the casino is looking for a KO bettor, they'll find it no matter where the initial and key counts are, because the spread between is always the same.

Incidentally, while the authors' initial determinations of IRC's and key counts seemed kind of arbitrary, the advantage of their setup is that every count has implements strategy modifications at the same running count, which makes memorizing that aspect easier.

Personally, since I only play 6d games now, that doesn't matter to me.