Understanding the K-O System (in relation to Red 7)

[Dominik]

*DISCLAIMER: I'm not a card counting expert by any means, which is why I'm here asking for help.*

Since this is my first post I'll provide some background. I'm 18 and two years ago I did a project on blackjack for math class. The ultimate question we answered for our project was "Can you, in the long run, make money off the casino?" This question was basically just a segue way to a bunch of math stuff but the question actually intrigued me. A friend of mine was equally interested and after researching betting methods we came to our own conclusion that the minimal house edge when playing with basic strategy was unbeatable. This was confirmed from our research on different website so we resigned the idea that we could make money and made a vow to not use betting strategies as a way to make money at a casino. We'd just go there for fun. I've been to a casino twice (in Quebec) and the first time I won over 200 hundred dollars in less than 30 minutes using a modified Martingale system (min bet was 15). Needless to say I got EXTREMELY lucky. My friends told me that I had something here but I was more level headed and told I got ridiculously lucky. The second time I went was with my brother and I left even after about 20-30 mins using the same system (although I came within one bet of losing all my money, so I got lucky again).

Now, let me start talking about card counting. My aforementioned friend and I are kind of math nerds and all the expected value and probability stuff really interests us. We knew about card counting and knew that it gives you a bit of an advantage in the expected return. We also read that it requires tons of effort and that the effort required doesn't necessarily reflect the money you would make (assuming you did it perfectly). We didn't try it last year but this year we've decided to try it if even only once. Not to make money but just to see if we can pull it off and boast to our friends "Yeah I card counted!"

We already had some basic knowledge of card counting (hi-opt which led us to true counts, which led us to unbalanced methods) and are trying to decide the easiest one. He is partial to the Red 7 method and I like the K-O on. While we learned these systems and practiced (i.e. right now basically) we thought it important to dissect why these systems work. The casino by my house (literally a 10 minute walk) has a min bet 5 blackjack table with 6 decks. With the Red 7 system the IRC for 6 decks is -12 and when you get to 0 you change your betting. K-O on the other hand has an IRC of -20 and a key count of -4, so when you hit that you alter your betting.

For Red 7:
There are 132 'low' cards (cards from 2-6 and the red 7s) and 120 'high' cards (cards from 10-A). The whole concept is that when the shoe is rich in high cards its good for you so you bet big. So when 12 more low cards have been played then you're pretty much good. I get that. The unbalanced nature means you don't have to convert to a true count so that's why the difference between the IRC of -12 and key count of 0 is 12. Now, when comparing it to the K-O system...

For K-O:
There are 144 'low' cards (cards from 2-7) and 120 'high' cards (cards from 10-A). The difference here is 24 cards, so using the Red 7 as a model of unbalanced system with no need to convert to a true count, I expected the difference from the IRC and key count to be 24. However, I found that the IRC for a 6 deck shoe the IRC was -20 and the key count was -4, meaning a difference of 16. That tells you that when 16 more low cards have been played to bet bigger, yet there are 8 more low cards in the deck therefore its not good for you.

You see my conundrum now. I don't claim to know the K-O system better than its creators so I'm here to see where I've erred. Did I get my numbers wrong? Did I get bad information as to IRC or key counts? Am I wrong to compare the two systems analogously? Even if you just explained why the K-O system works without relation to the Red 7 system I'm sure that'd help me figure it out. Thanks in advance and sorry for the lengthy post but this really puzzles me.

P.S. I'm 'training' for August 8th, my 19th birthday. After that I'll be able to hit up the casino by my house and use what I've learned at the BJ table there. Like I said I'm not there to make money per se (I mean, I don't want to lose money either) I'm just there because stuff like this is a hobby and I've always thought it cool to be able to say "Yeah I card counted and got kicked out by some big casino bouncers." I'll keep everyone up to date.

 

[Brock Windsor]

Red 7 vs KO

*DISCLAIMER: I'm not a card counting expert by any means, which is why I'm here asking for help.*
.

With those two unbalanced systems there is a Pivot point where the True Count will be exact. With KO that pivot point is a True Count of +4 (which is also equal to the pivot point of 4 if your IRC is -20). With Red Seven it is a True Count of +2 (which occurs at the pivot point 0 if your IRC is -12) The authors of KO have used a key count (-4 in six deck) as an approximation of when you should start to raise your bet because if you always waited for the pivot point of +4 you would play far too few hands and your win rate would drop. Each count is most accurate at its pivot point and becomes less accurate the farther from that point you are.
I learned to count with KO but knowing what I do now and the types of games I typically have available I believe Red7 to be the better system in an apples to apples comparison.... Especially in Quebec where the penetration has a reputation for being dismal. If you prefer KO you should learn to true count it (TKO). This made my game stronger as I could add extra index plays and my betting was more accurate. I also believe counting all sevens improves PE a shade. The true count conversion charts for KO in six deck are posted on this site.
BW

 

[Dominik]

That makes some sense. I'm going to research pivot points to get the whole scoop. For now I'm going to practice with Red 7 and take your word for it. Thanks for the response.

Btw I don't think I'll be playing in Quebec anymore after I turn 19. I don't know what the penetration is at my local casino but my friends are going this weekend and they'll scope it out. Can't imagine it'll be too high as its a smaller casino with a smaller min bet but I don't know.

 

[aslan]

With those two unbalanced systems there is a Pivot point where the True Count will be exact. With KO that pivot point is a True Count of +4 (which is also equal to the pivot point of 4 if your IRC is -20). With Red Seven it is a True Count of +2 (which occurs at the pivot point 0 if your IRC is -12) The authors of KO have used a key count (-4 in six deck) as an approximation of when you should start to raise your bet because if you always waited for the pivot point of +4 you would play far too few hands and your win rate would drop. Each count is most accurate at its pivot point and becomes less accurate the farther from that point you are.
I learned to count with KO but knowing what I do now and the types of games I typically have available I believe Red7 to be the better system in an apples to apples comparison.... Especially in Quebec where the penetration has a reputation for being dismal. If you prefer KO you should learn to true count it (TKO). This made my game stronger as I could add extra index plays and my betting was more accurate. I also believe counting all sevens improves PE a shade. The true count conversion charts for KO in six deck are posted on this site.BW

Where are they posted on this site?

 

[21forme]

Here:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=6286

I've asked Sonny to Sticky it a few times, but he hasn't so instead, I bookmarked it.

 

[eps6724]

You might try the following:
Blackbelt in Blackjack by Snyder
Blackjack Bluebook by Rezney
Blackjack Attack by Schlesinger
Knockout Blackjack by Vancura and Fuches

The first is just an excellent all-around book with a brief overview of red7 (he came up with it), ko, hj-low and a host of other tidbits of general BJ info. (Snyder ain't called 'the Bishop' for nuttin'!). The second is a very good treatise on KISS III (the red7 with a different name, but MUCH more in depth-my personal favorite and the system I use) the third has a section which gives the math comparisons (SCORE) between red7, KO and hi-Low and the fourth is the book on KO.

As always in research, don't start reinventing the wheel. Just stand on Goodyear's shoulders and start there!

Luck!
-EPS

 

[Renzey]

Originally posted by Dominik:
"Even if you just explained why the K-O system works without relation to the Red 7 system I'm sure that'd help me figure it out. This really puzzles me".



Okay, when you unbalance a count system by tracking more low cards than high ones, it creates a mechanism that links the raw running count to the proportional high vs. low composition of the remaining cards. That proportional high vs. low composition is commonly referred to as the "true count", or "count-per-deck". To see this in action, let's look at the RED 7 Count first.

Rather than have the same number of low cards as high cards in its structure, the RED 7 tracks those two extra 7's in each deck. Now, if the cards get distributed evenly, your raw running count will naturally rise by two points for each deck that gets dealt out. If the first dealt deck contained four of every rank of card, your running count will have climbed from "-12" to "-10". If the first three decks came out completely intact and evenly, your running count would now be "-6". At both of these junctures, the house will have maintained its original advantage since in reality, there are just as many legitimate low cards in the remaining supply as high ones.

Now, when you're say, just one deck into a six deck shoe, your running count must rise 10 points over its normal amount to create a "+2 high-cards-per-deck" condition -- and that running count would be "zero". When you're three decks into the shoe, the running count must climb six points beyond normal to create the same +2 high cards per deck condition -- and that running count would again be "zero". In fact, anytime the running count is "zero", the remaining shoe contains two extra high cards per undealt deck.

That's the beauty of an unbalanced count. Its shortcoming is, although this particular unbalanced count will tell you with perfect accuracy when your running count is at +2 TC (zero RC), inaccuracy creeps in at running counts above and below "zero". At a running count of "+6" for example, your true count, or count-per-deck will be "+4 TC" if you're three decks into the shoe -- but "+6 TC" if you're 4.5 decks into that six deck shoe -- and only +3.3 TC" if your just 1.5 decks in. Yet, in all three cases your running count is "+6"! Still, notice that in all three cases you have a solid advantage and will already be betting your max. or near your max -- and will already be making most of your index play departures from basic strategy.

As for running counts below, but near the Key count such as "-2 RC", your true count will be "+1.5" if you're just 1.5 decks into the shoe, and it will be "+0.7 TC" if you're 4.5 decks into it. Actually, the best place to set your Key count with RED 7 is at "-1 RC", since that will always produce a true count between "+1.8" and "+1.3" -- a good enough condition to give the player a meaningful advantage.

Now for KO. It tracks four extra low cards per deck (all the 7's). As a result, the running count will on average, rise four points for each deck that's dealt -- and whenever it does exactly that, the house will have maintained its original advantage.
Because of KO's greater, four card "offset", its link between the running count and true count is a bit looser. Its authors picked "-4" as its Key count, I presume because about midway into the shoe or deck, "-4 RC" produces a true count of around "+1.5 TC". However, if you're only one deck into a six deck shoe, "-4 RC" equals a "+2.4 TC", while 4.5 decks in, it actually equals a "-1.3 TC"! Thus, KO's Key count is a looser, less accurate approximation of when you should begin ramping up your bets.

KO's strong side is that at very high counts, it ties its running count more closely to the true count than does RED 7. A KO running count of "+4" for example, will always be equal to a "4 TC" no matter where you are in the deck or shoe. That's the "Pivot", where KO is perfectly accurate, but strays in accuracy above and below "+4 RC". At a "+2 RC" for example, you'll have a "3.5 TC" if you're 1.5 decks into the shoe and a "+2.7 TC" if you're 4.5 decks in.

Hope all this helps -- I finished eating my lunch 15 minutes ago.

 

[rogue1]

Here's the proof!

One of the things I like about Blackjack Bluebook II is that Fred Renzey keeps it nice and simple-for guys like me. However I've always been aware that if Fred wanted to get real in depth (complicated?) he could!
Thanks for keeping the book simple Fred! If you hadn't I'd still be a positive progression player.

 

[nickname]

K-o

I've been playin blackjack fo over a year,although i learned the K-O counting system couple of month ago.Now when the count is high,let's say IRC is +4 and it's the end of the deck,so i bet big,but ironicly that's when i get killed.
What could i possibly do wrong?

 

[zengrifter]

Start with BlueBook and go with KISS-3. zg

You might try the following:
Blackbelt in Blackjack by Snyder
Blackjack Bluebook by Rezney
Blackjack Attack by Schlesinger
Knockout Blackjack by Vancura and Fuches

The first is just an excellent all-around book with a brief overview of red7 (he came up with it), ko, hj-low and a host of other tidbits of general BJ info. (Snyder ain't called 'the Bishop' for nuttin'!). The second is a very good treatise on KISS III (the red7 with a different name, but MUCH more in depth-my personal favorite and the system I use) the third has a section which gives the math comparisons (SCORE) between red7, KO and hi-Low and the fourth is the book on KO.

As always in research, don't start reinventing the wheel. Just stand on Goodyear's shoulders and start there!

Luck!
-EPS

 

[Canceler]

Now when the count is high,let's say IRC is +4 and it's the end of the deck,so i bet big,but ironicly that's when i get killed.
What could i possibly do wrong?

Terminology: IRC (Initial Running Count) refers only to where you start your count. Otherwise, it's the running count, or simply, the count.

You probably just had bad luck. Losing in high counts happens to all of us.

 

[charlieflip]

Terminology: IRC (Initial Running Count) refers only to where you start your count. Otherwise, it's the running count, or simply, the count.

You probably just had bad luck. Losing in high counts happens to all of us.

Wait, Im sorry if I'm understanding this badly, but in what situation would you want to start your count on other than 0?

 

[Canceler]

Wait, Im sorry if I'm understanding this badly, but in what situation would you want to start your count on other than 0?

If you're using an unbalanced count like KO, which has more low cards than high cards.

 

[charlieflip]

If you're using an unbalanced count like KO, which has more low cards than high cards.

I understand, I should've thought about that.