Any downsides to adding 30 to KO counting?

I've read most of the book (haven't read on to the advanced stuff yet)

But I was wondering, because there is no division involved, can't I just add 30 to the total count and go from there? I've been playing mostly a 6 deck game and I just thought it be easier to count starting from say 6 instead of -24

I have been using Red Sevens which is very similar to KO. The running count for 6 decks with Red Sevens begins at -12. I begin at 8 so my pivot point will be 20 and seldom experience a negative count. Arnold Snyder recommended doing such things if one want to avoid counting negatives.

It does not matter where you begin the count in such unbalanced systems as long as you make the adjustment to your betting based on the new number you have created for your pivot. In your case 30 and not 0.

I read KO when trying to decide on a system to use and chose Red sevens, and I can't remember but assume that if you begin at -24 that count takes you to 0 which is your pivot and represents the place where you have overcome the house edge and are at even play.

Yup, correct.

The IRC of KO was chosen so that certain counts (such as +4) correspond with known counts at other systems, but as it's unbalanced it truly does not matter where you start. Just make sure not to forget to add 30 to EVERYTHING (index plays, insurance, betting ramps, etc.)

You can use whatever number you like. As Assume_R said, just make sure you add it to everything.

FD

converting

I start the count at 0 and adjust the index numbers and betting from there. It also makes understanding the color of blackjack theory by Dravot easier to implement into your play. That is just my oppinion for ease of use with KO. Good luck!

That actually makes the most sense--but for anyone who has trouble with negative numbers, adding 30 for an IRC of +10 (as kmac11 was asking) sure does the trick--as you're rarely in negative territory--and if you are, you know to get out of Dodge quick.

FD