Why Is The Playing Efficiency Higher For Ko Than Hi-lo?

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

the betting correlation is 97% for both, and the playing efficiency is 51% for hi-lo and 55% for ko.. i thought hi-lo was better than ko? also if you could explain in detail what BC and PE are? i know the basic definition of each, but thats it..

[nightspirit]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

the betting correlation is 97% for both, and the playing efficiency is 51% for hi-lo and 55% for ko.. i thought hi-lo was better than ko? also if you could explain in detail what BC and PE are? i know the basic definition of each, but thats it..

from advantageplayer.com PE, BC, etc

from qfit.com Definitions

[Mimosine]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

the betting correlation is 97% for both, and the playing efficiency is 51% for hi-lo and 55% for ko.. i thought hi-lo was better than ko? also if you could explain in detail what BC and PE are? i know the basic definition of each, but thats it..

because KO is the BOMB™

[EyeHeartHalves]

Just kidding. This book is a love/hate relationship with me.

It seems that BC means betting correllation. 1.00 would be "perfect" or nearly so. KO is not listed. He lists what he calls three columns--"correlation"; "Vegas Gain"; and "Reno Gain." HI-LO is listed as .97, .82 (.85), and .64 (.66), respectively. First numbers are simulation yields and parenthesis are statistically predicted yields.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand Griffin but it seems to me that if KO has a slightly better playing efficiency (PE), I will guess (an educated one via Griffin) that the BC for KO would be slightly worse than that of Hi-Lo.

Can someone else chime in here. (I always feel like an idiot with this theoretical stuff.)

[ChefJJ]

Originally Posted by EyeHeartHalves

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand Griffin but it seems to me that if KO has a slightly better playing efficiency (PE), I will guess (an educated one via Griffin) that the BC for KO would be slightly worse than that of Hi-Lo.

Guy said that the BC is the same and BE is slightly higher with KO than HiLo, so you don't need to guess. Just like Mimosine said, KO is the bomb!

[EyeHeartHalves]

You guys are probably right. Was just p/o'd cause the dude stumped me. I forgot what was BC and PE and all that. Haven't read Griffin in a while but sure you guys are going to say there's another place to find the info. I don't even know why I even tried to defend Hi-Lo. I never even liked it. The only redeeming quality I think of when I think of Hi-Lo is that it's an easy count to learn for 6-deck games.

[RG1]

BC (how well you can estimate your advantage pre deal and vary your bets accordingly) and PE (how well the count accurately dictates changes to basis strategy) are slightly higher in KO than Hi-Lo because KO accounts for 7's and Hi-Lo does not.

I'm no KO expert but I think the advantage of Hi-Lo is the true count conversion. As being a balanced count and converting to a TC gives you a more accurate BC and PE throughout the shoe while KO being unbalanced, although slightly better on average fluctuates more.

In other words, from what I have read, and I have read very little on KO, Hi-Lo gives a more consistant read than KO, but the average read that KO gives is better. If that makes any sense?

It's kind of like having a steady $50 per hour EV with a $400 hourly standard deviation or a $52/hour EV with a $450/hour SD.

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

the betting correlation is 97% for both, and the playing efficiency is 51% for hi-lo and 55% for ko.. i thought hi-lo was better than ko? also if you could explain in detail what BC and PE are? i know the basic definition of each, but thats it..

Keep in mind that BC and PE don't predict win rate.

Keep in mind that PE is more important in 1-2 deck games and BE is more important in shoes.

Keep in mind the .51 is an overll blended number and that each index number representing when to depart fom BS, has it's own Playing Efficiency correlation attached to it and a bet based on TC at the time.

Keep in mind it's a theoretical number obtainable by a computer having perfect knowledge of each card remaining but not a human. Say a human can play well enough to gain 70% of that PE, 70% of the 0.04% difference makes the gap even narrower.

And I think (does anyone know) that .55 comes from Griffin? who just estimated it.

Also I imagine there are underlying assumptions in those numbers as to how many index numbers are played in some given game.

So, I believe, if one's goal is to win more money per hour or number of hands played, Hi-LO probably slightly outperforms KO in a lot of games with the same bankroll and risk. Not all games. And, not a difference that I'd really care that much about anyway.

[Automatic Monkey]

Just one thing to add, comparing the playing efficiency of an unbalanced system to that of a balanced system only applies when you are doing a true count conversion on the unbalanced system too. Most users of KO do not. This is because the playing indices of a running count system are only accurate when you are near the pivot point of that system (the point where the count is accurate for any number of decks.) Being the powerful 16 vs. 10 index is nowhere near the pivot point of any system, it is going to be inaccurate at any point other than very near the geometrical center of the shoe. This can be a significant problem in a deeply dealt 6D or 8D game, and this is one of the reasons I believe a balanced count is the right choice for shoe games.

[schismist]

Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey

Just one thing to add, comparing the playing efficiency of an unbalanced system to that of a balanced system only applies when you are doing a true count conversion on the unbalanced system too.

Yeah, I think the PE for KO listed above is based on a count w tags

2-7: +5/6
8-9: 0
T-A: -6/5...

Is that right?