Just search around on this site for color of blackjack or TKO (true counted KO) and you'll find all the information you'll need. Basically what is described in the book is that the issue with KO is you underbet early on and overbet late in the shoe as it is and unbalanced method and you are using a single key count.
Now color of blackjack describes how you can use a moving key count to make it more accurate. So for example, your key count on a 6 deck is +16 above your initial running count for KO. Well thats because 16 is an average. Really, with one deck played your key count should be +9 above IRC, two decks +12, 3 decks +15 etc. This helps mainly with shoe games but does help with double deck some as well (you can actually find the charts which show the amounts on the color of blackjack website without even ordering the book, but the book is fairly cheap and has a few interesting pieces that made it worth it to me.
Additionally, whats not discussed in that book but you may come to realize after getting comfortable with the method is that your index values such as doubling a 10 vs a dealer 10 also should vary according to the number of decks played to give the method another added boost. If you search this site you'll find the TKO chart which actually takes the KO count and converts it to a true count method similar to Hi-Lo and its easy to see why the count should be moving.
Now color of blackjack describes how you can use a moving key count to make it more accurate. So for example, your key count on a 6 deck is +16 above your initial running count for KO. Well thats because 16 is an average. Really, with one deck played your key count should be +9 above IRC, two decks +12, 3 decks +15 etc. This helps mainly with shoe games but does help with double deck some as well (you can actually find the charts which show the amounts on the color of blackjack website without even ordering the book, but the book is fairly cheap and has a few interesting pieces that made it worth it to me.
Additionally, whats not discussed in that book but you may come to realize after getting comfortable with the method is that your index values such as doubling a 10 vs a dealer 10 also should vary according to the number of decks played to give the method another added boost. If you search this site you'll find the TKO chart which actually takes the KO count and converts it to a true count method similar to Hi-Lo and its easy to see why the count should be moving.
The question that comes to mind is that if you need to add an extra step or method to make it as good as hi-lo, then why not just use hi-lo? 
I mean hi-lo is pretty basic and easy to learn and use? While, I use hi-lo, after experimenting with a higher level count, I am not advocating the use of it nor any specific count. Just wondering why you would add a step to get another count basically to the equivalent of hi-lo?
I joke about this ongoing debate about stength of count, level 1 vs higher, but the truth is, it really is minimal. The level of count is far down on the list of what is necessary to be successful.
At the top of the list is to locate good games. Beatable and playable and those terms are not the same. Conditions like rules, pentration, and a few other factors determine if the game is beatable. You can figure this out with simulations. But whether you can actually get the wagers down is what determines if it is playable. There are things you can do and work on to improve those chances.
If you have games available that are beatable and playable, most reasonable counts are going to produce similar results. The small difference in improvement in results is minimal. Simulations will show the difference to be in the 5-10% range. Actual results will most likely be lower. Time and effort is better spent improving other aspects of your game. Getting the bets down, getting out of some negative counts. Being more acurate with your count and deck estimation. Your 'act' including minimal cost camo.
Except for the highest level of players, playing only the best games, what count one uses is just way overrated. Pick a count that suits you. Learn to play it well and move on to other important factors that can really make a difference..
I mean hi-lo is pretty basic and easy to learn and use? While, I use hi-lo, after experimenting with a higher level count, I am not advocating the use of it nor any specific count. Just wondering why you would add a step to get another count basically to the equivalent of hi-lo?I joke about this ongoing debate about stength of count, level 1 vs higher, but the truth is, it really is minimal. The level of count is far down on the list of what is necessary to be successful.
At the top of the list is to locate good games. Beatable and playable and those terms are not the same. Conditions like rules, pentration, and a few other factors determine if the game is beatable. You can figure this out with simulations. But whether you can actually get the wagers down is what determines if it is playable. There are things you can do and work on to improve those chances.
If you have games available that are beatable and playable, most reasonable counts are going to produce similar results. The small difference in improvement in results is minimal. Simulations will show the difference to be in the 5-10% range. Actual results will most likely be lower. Time and effort is better spent improving other aspects of your game. Getting the bets down, getting out of some negative counts. Being more acurate with your count and deck estimation. Your 'act' including minimal cost camo.
Except for the highest level of players, playing only the best games, what count one uses is just way overrated. Pick a count that suits you. Learn to play it well and move on to other important factors that can really make a difference.
.
Last edited:
Easy Bias Correction?
What is the bias of KO?
Undervalue at the beginning and overvalue at the end of a shoe?
Is this the case for all unbalanced counts?
Easy fix
Bet a little more at the beginning and a little less at the end of a shoe. If you apply betting camo in the real world things are skewed anyway.,
Take a look at what TKO looks like based on shoe depth, then use KO and just fudge it. One would get most of the benefit without the extra work.
or
One key number for first half and another for second half of shoe.
What is the bias of KO?
Undervalue at the beginning and overvalue at the end of a shoe?
Is this the case for all unbalanced counts?
Easy fix
Bet a little more at the beginning and a little less at the end of a shoe. If you apply betting camo in the real world things are skewed anyway.,
Take a look at what TKO looks like based on shoe depth, then use KO and just fudge it. One would get most of the benefit without the extra work.
or
One key number for first half and another for second half of shoe.
TKO is by no means necessary, but an extremely easy way to add a boost to your expected value. I would do as other suggested and get KO down perfectly first, but once you start using it and its second nature you may want to do more.
I personally had googled around and found the KO book and has used it a couple times in the casino and it didn't make sense to me that the KC should be the same and it kind of bothered me to where i started searching around and thats when I found this site. Someone noted the book and it made perfect sense because thats what I was feeling something was just slightly off. It won't make a huge difference but if you become proficient with it and enjoy counting and doing a little more its a VERY simple change. I mean, how much harder is it to remember 1 number that increases by say 3 every deck versus just 1 number thats the same the whole time?
Edit: I just wanted to make sure you know when i'm talking about TKO i'm not actually talking about doing a true count conversion while your at the table, this would defeat the purpose of having a simple running count (sorry if this wasn't clear). The true count conversion is done before hand and then you just have a range of numbers in mind like early on you double at +9 but late in the shoe you double at +5.
I personally had googled around and found the KO book and has used it a couple times in the casino and it didn't make sense to me that the KC should be the same and it kind of bothered me to where i started searching around and thats when I found this site. Someone noted the book and it made perfect sense because thats what I was feeling something was just slightly off. It won't make a huge difference but if you become proficient with it and enjoy counting and doing a little more its a VERY simple change. I mean, how much harder is it to remember 1 number that increases by say 3 every deck versus just 1 number thats the same the whole time?
Edit: I just wanted to make sure you know when i'm talking about TKO i'm not actually talking about doing a true count conversion while your at the table, this would defeat the purpose of having a simple running count (sorry if this wasn't clear). The true count conversion is done before hand and then you just have a range of numbers in mind like early on you double at +9 but late in the shoe you double at +5.
Last edited:
kewljason said:
The question that comes to mind is that if you need to add an extra step or method to make it as good as hi-lo, then why not just use hi-lo? I mean hi-lo is pretty basic and easy to learn and use? While, I use hi-lo, after experimenting with a higher level count, I am not advocating the use of it nor any specific count. Just wondering why you would add a step to get another count basically to the equivalent of hi-lo?
I joke about this ongoing debate about stength of count, level 1 vs higher, but the truth is, it really is minimal. The level of count is far down on the list of what is necessary to be successful.
At the top of the list is to locate good games. Beatable and playable and those terms are not the same. Conditions like rules, pentration, and a few other factors determine if the game is beatable. You can figure this out with simulations. But whether you can actually get the wagers down is what determines if it is playable. There are things you can do and work on to improve those chances.
If you have games available that are beatable and playable, most reasonable counts are going to produce similar results. The small difference in improvement in results is minimal. Simulations will show the difference to be in the 5-10% range. Actual results will most likely be lower. Time and effort is better spent improving other aspects of your game. Getting the bets down, getting out of some negative counts. Being more acurate with your count and deck estimation. Your 'act' including minimal cost camo.
Except for the highest level of players, playing only the best games, what count one uses is just way overrated. Pick a count that suits you. Learn to play it well and move on to other important factors that can really make a difference..
I mean hi-lo is pretty basic and easy to learn and use? While, I use hi-lo, after experimenting with a higher level count, I am not advocating the use of it nor any specific count. Just wondering why you would add a step to get another count basically to the equivalent of hi-lo?I joke about this ongoing debate about stength of count, level 1 vs higher, but the truth is, it really is minimal. The level of count is far down on the list of what is necessary to be successful.
At the top of the list is to locate good games. Beatable and playable and those terms are not the same. Conditions like rules, pentration, and a few other factors determine if the game is beatable. You can figure this out with simulations. But whether you can actually get the wagers down is what determines if it is playable. There are things you can do and work on to improve those chances.
If you have games available that are beatable and playable, most reasonable counts are going to produce similar results. The small difference in improvement in results is minimal. Simulations will show the difference to be in the 5-10% range. Actual results will most likely be lower. Time and effort is better spent improving other aspects of your game. Getting the bets down, getting out of some negative counts. Being more acurate with your count and deck estimation. Your 'act' including minimal cost camo.
Except for the highest level of players, playing only the best games, what count one uses is just way overrated. Pick a count that suits you. Learn to play it well and move on to other important factors that can really make a difference.
.
I agree one could simply learn Hi-Lo as they are quite comparable but I believe KO with this addition is still a bit easier. The reason i personally added the extra step i wrote about in the post above this in another response.
Also, I feel that this addition is so incredibly simple that it should of been included in the book as the FULL version and that its not really an addition, its just doing it correctly. It really requires almost zero extra work once you know how to use KO, most everything moves by the exact same number per number of decks played, you really just remember the first number for the first deck and know it increases or decreases by X per deck.
I've now recently moved to a level 2 and I agree with most all of your post, i don't know how much it really matters and that the 10% gain is worth it when so many other factors have such a large influence. I do think the move to using TKO is definitely worth it once you've mastered KO though due to its simplicity.