Thinking of switching from KO to HiLo - pros or cons?

2

21forme

Well-Known Member
I've used KO for a few years and been happy with the results, playing 6 and 8D shoes. I've used my own variation of TKO, true counting it, to compensate for the missed opportunities early in the shoe and avoid its overestimation of edge late in the shoe.

I'm considering switching for 2 reasons:
1. I learned HiLo for Spanish 21. It would make the card values the same for both Sp21 and BJ (7 is +1 in KO and 0 in HiLo.)

2. Now that I'm regularly playing with a partner, it would be easier to pass/convert the TC back and forth. For example, when he passes me a TC, I have to "reverse engineer" the TC back into a RC for KO, which varies based on how many decks have been played. It's a bit cumbersome to do. For example, if he signals TC = +1, in 6D, my KO IRC is -3, so RC = 9, etc.

Any thoughts?
 
blackjack avenger

blackjack avenger

Well-Known Member
Answered Your Own Question?

I have no experience with KO. I spent some time using Hi Lo.

Pro:
There is a lot of additional information on Hi Lo which can suppelement it.
It is probably the most used count so it is probably easier to team up with others.

Con:
Hi Lo is probably the preferred count of surveliance.
You have to actually take time to change, if this takes away from playing it costs money.

Perhaps you should consider which will make the most money on a effort/reward ratio.
 
Sonny

Sonny

Well-Known Member
If you’re playing with a partner then you will definitely want to use the same system. That way you can pass the RC instead of the TC, which will be faster and more accurate. It will also allow you to use the same bet spread, index numbers, etc. It makes practicing and checkouts a lot easier too. That’s the reason I switched from Zen to HiLo.

-Sonny-
 
E

EyeHeartHalves

Well-Known Member
Sonny's right.

If you're going to use Hi-Lo with a partner/teammate and wish to signal a count, you should be communicating the RC, not the TC. Then let the listener figure out the TC. I know it sounds hard but the MIT Team made it seem easy. The used key code words in sentences for different RCs. For example, 'eggs' could mean +12, 'witches' could mean 13, etc. However, I wouldn't recommend using the exact words in Bringing Down the House.

As for your system consideration, my opinion should be obvious. I experimented with KO for a week or two before using Hi-Lo for a week or two in casinos. Then I used Halves for the last couple of years. Most people who try Halves end up going back to Hi-Lo. After a couple years, it is just as natural as Hi-Lo. (i.e.: I only glance at the table for a fraction of a second and then carry on a conversation. Sometimes, I can even count hit and D cards blindly by memorizing what another player's hand total was and then listening to the pronouncements of the dealer.) There's no going back for me but if I did, I'd go to Hi-Lo for six and eight deck and I'd only consider an unbalanced system for DD.
 
2

21forme

Well-Known Member
Sonny said:
If you’re playing with a partner then you will definitely want to use the same system. That way you can pass the RC instead of the TC, which will be faster and more accurate. It will also allow you to use the same bet spread, index numbers, etc. It makes practicing and checkouts a lot easier too. That’s the reason I switched from Zen to HiLo.

-Sonny-
Click to expand...
My partner doesn't use HiLo. He uses RAPC. It's been working fine talking in TC.
 
E

EyeHeartHalves

Well-Known Member
Yes,

If I knew RAPC as well as I know Halves and you were my teammate, I would either switch to Hi-Lo when we're at the same table or I'd want you to learn RAPC or better yet, the Ten-Count. Assuming he his proficient (which may be a bad assumption) w./ RAPC, he is an extremely valuable player. If I were him, I'd be ruluctant to split 50/50 but I'm not him.

It just really seems like reverse-engineering TC into RC has a lot of room for errors. And if the TCs aren't even equal to begin with (i.e.: one is a level 4, multi-parameter and one is a level 1, single parameter), it seems like that margin of error would be compounded. If this is "the way it has to be," here are my suggestions:

If you wong-in to his table, let him communicate bets, decision points and a wong-out point to you. His RAPC information is far superior to your's. If he wongs-in to your table, communicate your Hi-Lo to him and let him reverse engineer a TC into whatever system he wants. If you both play at the same table from the top, again, let him communicate bets, BS deviations and a wong-out point. However, in this scenario you should be using the Ten-Count system.
 
E

EyeHeartHalves

Well-Known Member
Yes,

That actually seems more reasonable. It is extremely hard to find all the BS deviation point numbers for the real RAPC. I never had the patience to use multi-parameter to begin with but when I searched for RAPC decision matrices to no avail, I completely abandoned the idea of RAPC.

Yes, teammates using RPC and Hi-Lo is much more plausible do you at least see how using the same system (whatever it is) might be the most efficient thing to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top