Switch from KO Hard to Justify

[aslan]

I've been looking for a good reason to switch from KO to Hi-lo or other count. Actually, as I study the KO to true count chart it seems like KO is conservative if nothing else. The key count for beginning to ramp up one's betting comes late when fewer decks have been played and the pivot point of +4 comes at a true count of +4, although early if one is used to a more conservative +5 before going to max bet. I'm now beginning to believe again that improvement over KO will be very modest if not nonexistent in most real-life play of 6-deck games where positive counts are likely to come 3 decks or more into the shoe. They didn't tell me when I learned KO that I would most likely remain a KO player for life. Can KO be used in team play effectively? That's about the only preteext I can find for making a switch.

[21forme]

I agree with you. I've thought about switching, and every time I do, I can't come up with a good reason to switch.

I sometimes play on a "mini-team" with one other. We share bankroll and split profits/losses when we play together. He uses a different count. It works fine, but depends on what kind of team play you mean.

[blackchipjim]

I don't know at what point a person would switch from one to the other on systems. Would you wait until you get your butt kicked time after time and finally switch in disgust or what. I have to consider the system and the person using it. I myself like the system and I just started to use the tko version. I cannot really comment on the ko system even though I've used it for a little over year. I think personnally it will take me a little while longer and more tweaking to go full bust out on it. All in All I like it and it fits my style of play and level of play. blackchipjim

[Canceler]

I wonder about these people who agonize over whether one system is microscopically better than another one. Specifically, I wonder if they always bet enough during the high counts. If they don’t, then all this theoretical BS (not basic strategy) is worthless.

Not trying to sound superior here; I’m guilty myself.

[sagefr0g]

in choosing a blackjack counting system certain attributes were key for me.
ease of use, effectiveness, popularity and would it engender an understanding of what the heck it was that your doing in the first place.
hi/lo fit the bill in all of these areas.
the one attribute that all of the systems seem to be cursed with is the requirement that the user maintains a "count" lol..... of course that is the case after all we are talking card counting here .
but it is the maintaining of some sort of count that i personally find the most disagreeable about any of the systems. that in a nutshell is the reason i've become so obsessed with working out a way to manage the 'fuzzy' count.
the goal started out to try and develope skill in being able to recognize when an advantage exists. that really isn't very difficult. the biggest challenge at this point is accurate bet sizing for the percieved advantage.
the biggest step forward that i've realized for an easy way to maintain a realization of just where you are advantage wise (at least your perception of said advantage) with out maintaining a count is simply knowing what level of betting you have decided to allow according to a percieved advantage. but there is a problem with that. problem being that in the first place what you are really doing with the fuzzy count is trying to as skillfully as you can to mimic what a orthodox hi/lo count simulation that affords an advantage does.
within such a simulation exists a range of RC's that yield a TC according to how many decks are left to be dealt. there in lay the problem for fuzzy counting because what happens is you get 'lost' in that range of RC's for which you would not get 'lost' in if you were maintaining an acurrate RC in the first place lol . so thats sort of where i'm at right now with the fuzzy count is trying to find an easy way to overcome this range of RC's that complicate the fuzzy count's effectiveness. looking for an epifany that will beat that lol. it's kind of fun in an exasperating way

[RJT]

Originally Posted by aslan

Can KO be used in team play effectively? That's about the only preteext I can find for making a switch.

Yes KO can and has been used effectively for team play, the only reason to switch is if you wanted to pursue some form of shuffle tracking.

RJT.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by 21forme

I agree with you. I've thought about switching, and every time I do, I can't come up with a good reason to switch.

I sometimes play on a "mini-team" with one other. We share bankroll and split profits/losses when we play together. He uses a different count. It works fine, but depends on what kind of team play you mean.

Two or more persons counting/backcounting/flatbetting at different tables and signaling in a BP is what I had in mind.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by Canceler

I wonder about these people who agonize over whether one system is microscopically better than another one. Specifically, I wonder if they always bet enough during the high counts. If they don’t, then all this theoretical BS (not basic strategy) is worthless.

Not trying to sound superior here; I’m guilty myself.

I have a greater problem keeping my bets down to recommended levels during high counts. Encounters with negative variance is helping me correct this bad habit.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

...that in a nutshell is the reason i've become so obsessed with working out a way to manage the 'fuzzy' count....

I've never had a real handle on what constitutes a fuzzy count. Sometimes, in the excitement of hitting multiple blackjacks at high counts I've actually lost count and then I'm flying pretty much by guesstimation to a point. That's about as fuzzy as I've ever gotten. If it gets too far away from me, I retreat to flatbetting at a lower or minimum level. Have you come up with any hard and fast guidelines for fuzzy betting yet, or is this still just as fuzzy as the concept? LOL I'm laughing with you, not at you. I'm always looking for an easier way to do things myself.

[21forme]

Originally Posted by aslan

Two or more persons counting/backcounting/flatbetting at different tables and signaling in a BP is what I had in mind.

No reason why it shouldn't work with any successful counting system.