Will I regret learning KO instead of High-Low?

[schismist]

So, for background, I'm a new counter using KO, spreading 1-10 in a 6 Deck H17 DAS LS RSA game with 80% pen. and LL9 sidebet. Recently, I've been playing around with adjusting the "key count" according to the number of decks in play. This had been going quite well. (btw, could anybody give me an estimated expectation for this, ignoring the modified key count if necessary? thanks!)

Then, reading these boards, I realized that estimating the number of decks remaining to the nearest 1 deck was good enough for True Count conversion in High-Low in 6 decks. The reason I didn't learn High-Low is that I thought I'd have to multiply by numbers like 7/2. Dividing by an integer is easy! Maybe even easier than what I've been doing.

So, my question is: should I try switching to High-Low? I've been doing KO for 2 months now. Ignoring 7s now seems a little tricky. Also, for anyone that has switched counts, does it get easier or harder to switch after you're more experienced with your first system?

Also, do the indices for high-low basic stragegy deviations change for a H17 game compared to a S17 game? Thanks for your advice.

 

[zengrifter]

So, my question is: should I try switching to High-Low? I've been doing KO for 2 months now. Ignoring 7s now seems a little tricky. Also, for anyone that has switched counts, does it get easier or harder to switch after you're more experienced with your first system?

Also, do the indices for high-low basic stragegy deviations change for a H17 game compared to a S17 game? Thanks for your advice.

You could stay w/KO and graduate to TKO (true-counted KO), which has a microscopic improvement over HiLo.

The only indices that change between s17 and h17 are a few involving dealer A&6. zg

 

[ChefJJ]

So, for background, I'm a new counter using KO, spreading 1-10 in a 6 Deck H17 DAS LS RSA game with 80% pen. and LL9 sidebet. Recently, I've been playing around with adjusting the "key count" according to the number of decks in play. This had been going quite well. (btw, could anybody give me an estimated expectation for this, ignoring the modified key count if necessary? thanks!)

Then, reading these boards, I realized that estimating the number of decks remaining to the nearest 1 deck was good enough for True Count conversion in High-Low in 6 decks. The reason I didn't learn High-Low is that I thought I'd have to multiply by numbers like 7/2. Dividing by an integer is easy! Maybe even easier than what I've been doing.

So, my question is: should I try switching to High-Low? I've been doing KO for 2 months now. Ignoring 7s now seems a little tricky. Also, for anyone that has switched counts, does it get easier or harder to switch after you're more experienced with your first system?

Also, do the indices for high-low basic stragegy deviations change for a H17 game compared to a S17 game? Thanks for your advice.

I've switched from HiLo to KO and the transition was relatively easy...I imagine the opposite holds true. With the 7, there's only one number that gets counted differently, so at least all of those hours of practice & play counting will benefit you with whichever of the two systems you use. So, I'd say it is easy to switch...if you really want to. I prefer KO, but that's my opinion.

good luck

 

[Mimosine]

i use KO, but have been toying with learning UBZII

i've practiced counting down decks with a level two count, and it was much easier than i thought. first few tries i got it right in 35 seconds.

so you could switch, just practice at home a bit, and first trip to casino find a nice slow game.. you'll be fine.

but for me, just knowing a few early adjusted keycounts like those found here:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=6190

basically for 6D i use 3 wong out points, and 3 wongin/2X bet points for the first 3 decks. if i'm wonging into a table that has a higher min than my 1x unit, i wait for a TC = +1.5 then wong away and flat bet the rest of the shoe, unless it gets much better.

for me KO feels limited, but knowing how the rc and tc loosely correlate is enough for me to play a an even better game than KO preferred.

personally, i'd much rather memorize 6 or so wongout/2X points rather than do RC/TC conversion every hand. the rest of my play is by the "book."

 

[21forme]

I've been very happy with KO, moreso after adjusting the wong in/out points and bet ramping based on the number of decks played.

 

[ChefJJ]

I've been very happy with KO, moreso after adjusting the wong in/out points and bet ramping based on the number of decks played.

That's the next page in my playbook I'm looking to get in...that chart really helps. Even if it is looking after 2 decks have been played, and after 2 decks are left, understanding what range is "playable" seems like it will help in knowing to either get out or head to the bathroom.

good luck

 

[schismist]

Yes, that's what I've been doing: adjusting the key count according to the number of decks remaining. Then I figured if i'm adjusting the wong-out points and bet-ramping points according to the number of decks in play, I might as well be adjusting index plays according to the number of decks in play. For example, I think the reason his "KO Full" expectation numbers are not much higher than "KO Preferred" is that the indices are forced to be over an average over different shoe conditions, so you can't gain much ground over the Key, Pivot indices.

Then I realized that if I'm doing all this, I might as well just learn a true count system.

btw, Zengrifter, what is TKO? Does anyone have links to an explanation of it?

Thanks everyone.

 

[zengrifter]

btw, Zengrifter, what is TKO?

TKO = true-counted KO. Its the KO card values with departure indices calibrated for true-counting using those card values.

For example:

HiLo calibrated for a 1D true count provides a departure index of +3 for 12v2 (stand if the TC is +3 or higher).

TKO calibrated accordingly shows 12v2 = +7, presumeably the index is 4-points higher because of the 4-point imbalance due to the 7s.

Thus, to create a set of indices for TKO you simply start with HiLo indices and add 4 to each (a -2 index becomes a +2 index, etc.)

Someone jump in and correct me if I flubbed the conversion, I'm a neophyte. zg

 

[schismist]

Hmm... This is the way I've been thinking about it.

First of all, let me just start with an IRC of 0 and 6 decks.

If the KO running count is RC, The true high-low count would be approx.

TC = (RC-4*D)/(6-D)

where D is the number of decks played.

Solving the above equation for RC when D is an integer and TC=3 gives

Decks Played
1 2 3 4
RC 19 20 21 22

(This happens to be a pretty simple case. The spread between the indices gets larger the farther you are away from the pivot of 24.)

So, I propose hitting 12v2 and declining insurance when RC < above
and standing 12v2 and taking insurance when RC>= above.

My goal is to try to consolidate index plays into a few categories like this, and maybe force one category to coincide with wong in points.

This would be much easier for me than dividing by fractional decks for a balanced system, but probably harder than dividing by integer decks.

btw, that spreadsheet is pretty cool. Nothin like some conditional formatting..

 

[schismist]

The only indices that change between s17 and h17 are a few involving dealer A&6. zg

So, probably 11vA is 0 (down from +1), and 10vA is +3 (down from +4), or something like that?

I never understood why you double 11 v A, A7 v 2, and A8 v 6 for 6D H17 basic strategy.

 

[zengrifter]

So, probably 11vA is 0 (down from +1), and 10vA is +3 (down from +4), or something like that?

And hit/stand differences for both A&6. zg

 

[Brock Windsor]

Hmm... This is the way I've been thinking about it.

First of all, let me just start with an IRC of 0 and 6 decks.

If the KO running count is RC, The true high-low count would be approx.

TC = (RC-4*D)/(6-D)

where D is the number of decks played.

Solving the above equation for RC when D is an integer and TC=3 gives

Decks Played
1 2 3 4
RC 19 20 21 22

QUOTE]

I switched to TKO from KO and use a similar method to calculate TC though play 8decks. I printed a chart on the back of a basic strategy card that shows the exact True Counts (1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 6) that coincide to the RC with the matching deck estimation to the nearest half deck. (Pretty easy to remember a TC of 4 since it's the pivot so I left it off) I use IRC of 0, HiLo indicies, and the BRH betting ramp for full wong instead of the recommended KO spread. Also printed more index plays on the back of the card, really utilize every inch of space. A line in the chart would look like this:

Decks Remaining TC1 TC1.5 TC2 TC3 TC5 TC6
4 20 22 24 28 36 40

The additional index plays are colour coded to the TC as is the bet ramp.
Keep in mind I play low stakes so don't get any heat, my thinking is that as I increase my BR with more play I'll have memorized the chart on the back and won't need to flip it over to see what my TC is with a running count of 26 and 3 decks to play should I move to higher stakes. I would definitely recommend TKO over Hi-Lo. Counting the sevens really seems to increase PE and I think there is even a tiny BC improvement. I partner with a Hi-Lo counter and always gripe when he calls me in then the dealer has a 7 under his two up card while Im standing 12v2. He'll say "neutral cards, what can you do?" I say "count them"
BW

 

[21forme]

Brock - If you don't mind, please scan the index side of your card and post it as an attachment. I'd be most interested to see it. Thanks.

 

[zengrifter]

I use IRC of 0, HiLo indicies, and the BRH betting ramp for full wong instead of the recommended KO spread.

It seems to me that you would still need IRC to be based on #starting decks -and- the indices to be recalibrated for the KO tags imbalance.

Lets see the BRH wong ramp. zg

 

[Mimosine]

I never understood why you double 11 v A, A7 v 2, and A8 v 6 for 6D H17 basic strategy.

quoting Fred Renzey's BJ Bluebook II:

the reason you double with H17:
generally the dealer has a chance to make better hands in a H17 game vs. a S17 game, hence the bigger house edge, BUT in some cases the dealer will also bust an otherwise PAT hand. For these reasons, these three deviations from S17 BS become advantageous in a H17 game.

 

[schismist]

an idea

Couldn't I just subtract 4 from the running count after each deck and then do true count conversion? (or subtract 2 after every half deck, or 1 after every quarter deck for DD, SD games)

That seems easy enough, and will probably outperform regular KO, or even other more memorizy versions of TKO.

 

[schismist]

Holy crap, this system is gold.

Just got back from the cardroom. Won $550+ spreading $10-100. After each deck, just subtract 4 from the RC, and then divide by the new number of decks remaining from then until the next deck is gone, and repeat. Just use high low indices.

The great thing about this is that, in positive counts, the over-estimation of the number of decks remaining is offset by the over-estimation of the running count (via the sevens), so it's pretty accurate, I think. And pretty easy, too, because you can just commit to dividing by the same number until you realign the running count after a deck, making index plays easier, probably (I don't know for sure because I've never used high low).

I would guess it out-performs high low with 1 deck TC resolution significantly.

 

[Mimosine]

I would guess it out-performs high low with 1 deck TC resolution significantly.

i wouldn't get carried away. i think the best you could hope for is a 1-2% gain on either hi/lo or KO ---- MAX.

 

[21forme]

i wouldn't get carried away. i think the best you could hope for is a 1-2% gain on either hi/lo or KO ---- MAX.

Agreed. The sims comparing the two show them just about dead even.

 

[schismist]

Huh?

i wouldn't get carried away. i think the best you could hope for is a 1-2% gain on either hi/lo or KO ---- MAX.

I don't get it. Here are a couple of reasonable situations.

Let's say 4 decks are gone and we're at the KO key count. With KO preferred, you raise your bet, but the high-low true count is approximately only zero. With the above system, you would not raise your bet.

Let's say 1 deck is gone, and we're just below the KO key count. With KO preferred, you still bet minimum, but the high-low true count is approximately +2, meaning you should have tripled your min bet in shoe, which you would do with the above system.

Obviously, I'm not attributing my upswing to this improvement, but...

KO is about even with High-low even with these flaws, right? You're saying these situations would only increase expectation from about 0.62 to 0.626? You gotta be kidding me...