New to Board, KO Question

[jackal228]

Been reading this board for months. this is my first post.

I am using the KO count system.

I understand the whole IRC and Key Count part of it.

I play a 6 deck game so the IRC is -20 and the Key Count is -4

What My questions are is:

Is there a bigger or smaller advantage fi your key count gets to -4 earlier or later in the shoe?

Also, I do not understand the "True Count" part fully...

Am I figuring this right?
1 deck used Running Count is -20 divided by 5 decks left = -4 (I have advantage)?
2 decks used Running Count is -16 divided by 4 decks left = -4 (I have the advantage)?
3 decks used Running count is -12 divided by 3 decks left = -4 (I have the advantage)?
4 decks used Running count is -8 divided by 2 decks left = -4 (I have the advantage)?

OR should I just stick to when my count gets to -4 regardless of decks used it is to my advantage?

Thanks
Jack

 

[Wookets]

As for the relative advantage of getting to your keycount at different times in the shoe, KO overestimates your advantage at the end of the shoe, and underestimates it in the beginning. This is due to the nature of unbalanced counts. This becomes evident when you have a HiLo player and a KO player at the same table because the HiLo will start ramping bets a bit earlier than the KO player.

 

[revrac]

Been reading this board for months. this is my first post.

I am using the KO count system.

I understand the whole IRC and Key Count part of it.

I play a 6 deck game so the IRC is -20 and the Key Count is -4

What My questions are is:

Is there a bigger or smaller advantage fi your key count gets to -4 earlier or later in the shoe?

Also, I do not understand the "True Count" part fully...

Am I figuring this right?
1 deck used Running Count is -20 divided by 5 decks left = -4 (I have advantage)?
2 decks used Running Count is -16 divided by 4 decks left = -4 (I have the advantage)?
3 decks used Running count is -12 divided by 3 decks left = -4 (I have the advantage)?
4 decks used Running count is -8 divided by 2 decks left = -4 (I have the advantage)?

OR should I just stick to when my count gets to -4 regardless of decks used it is to my advantage?

Thanks
Jack

Do NOT try to true count! The true count formula is not the same for KO as it is an unbalanced method and is more complicated to do on the spot than a balanced method. If you want to get more out of KO method then just adjust your key count based on number of decks played. Search around this site for Color of Blackjack (CoBJ) or TKO and you should be able to find all the answers you need. Additionally, you could just search my past posts as i've covered this topic in detail several times.

 

[johnnyb]

Been reading this board for months. this is my first post.

I am using the KO count system.

I understand the whole IRC and Key Count part of it.

I play a 6 deck game so the IRC is -20 and the Key Count is -4

What My questions are is:

Is there a bigger or smaller advantage fi your key count gets to -4 earlier or later in the shoe?

Also, I do not understand the "True Count" part fully...



Am I figuring this right?
1 deck used Running Count is -20 divided by 5 decks left = -4 (I have advantage)?
2 decks used Running Count is -16 divided by 4 decks left = -4 (I have the advantage)?
3 decks used Running count is -12 divided by 3 decks left = -4 (I have the advantage)?
4 decks used Running count is -8 divided by 2 decks left = -4 (I have the advantage)?

OR should I just stick to when my count gets to -4 regardless of decks used it is to my advantage?

Thanks
Jack

I was using KO at one point. Due to the nature of the count, being an imbalanced count, you therefore cannot convert to a true count. This is somewhat beneficial to the player because it takes away the necessity to estimate how many decks are left in the shoe. KO Preferred is a powerful method, but there are periods in a 6 deck shoe where the player would actually be overbetting at a count of -4, depending on the number of decks. Pay attention to the wong-out points given in the Knock-out Blackjack. These points allow you to exit if the count is not progressively getting better as decks are being dealt. If you feel as if you want a little more accuracy, read the book The Color of Blackjack by Daniel Dravot. He makes a true counted version of KO, maintaining the simplicity of the method. TC KO gives more betting opportunities and explains when there are actually overbetting moments at -4, depending on how many decks have been dealt. I have recently switched from KO Full to TKO, and I like the switch!

EDIT: TC KO and TKO are the same thing I spelled them a little differently

 

[revrac]

I was using KO at one point. Due to the nature of the count, being an imbalanced count, you therefore cannot convert to a true count. This is somewhat beneficial to the player because it takes away the necessity to estimate how many decks are left in the shoe. KO Preferred is a powerful method, but there are periods in a 6 deck shoe where the player would actually be overbetting at a count of -4, depending on the number of decks. Pay attention to the wong-out points given in the Knock-out Blackjack. These points allow you to exit if the count is not progressively getting better as decks are being dealt. If you feel as if you want a little more accuracy, read the book The Color of Blackjack by Daniel Dravot. He makes a true counted version of KO, maintaining the simplicity of the method. TC KO gives more betting opportunities and explains when there are actually overbetting moments at -4, depending on how many decks have been dealt. I have recently switched from KO Full to TKO, and I like the switch!

EDIT: TC KO and TKO are the same thing I spelled them a little differently

I wanted to make one minor comment about TKO. Using the CoBJ is NOT full TKO, rather it is using a true counted KO for BETTING purposes but to get to full TKO you have to also use it for playing decisions (i.e. index values).

 

[MrSmith]

1) You appear to be confusing the True Count and the Running Count with respect to the Key Count. The Key Count is the point where you have the advantage with respect to the running count. The key count is what you need to reach with the RC NOT the TC. If you have an IRC of -20 then when the RC reaches -4 (key count) you have an advantage....sorta( See #2 below). TC is used to determine your actual advantage at certain points in the shoe. Any positive TC reflects an advantage after you take into account the HE(house edge).

2) If you are merely using the Key Count as a betting strategy then you have a bigger advantage earlier to mid in the shoe. You actually have a slight disadvantage at RC-4 after 4 decks or more have been played. After 4 decks have been played you need the RC to climb before you have an advantage. See the formula below.

3) Here is an example the might help. I start with an IRC of Zero and calculate TC with the following formula:

TC = [RC - 4(Decks Played)]/Decks Unplayed

* This formula only works with an IRC of Zero. You must adjust the RC if your IRC starts anywhere but Zero.

Therefore, if YOU start with an IRC of -20 the following is a corrected calculation for your questions/scenarios.

Scenario #1: TC = [0 - 4(1)]/5 OR TC = -.8
Scenario #2: TC = [4 - 4(2)]/4 OR TC = -1
Scenario #3: TC = [8 - 4(3)]/3 OR TC = -1.333
Scenario #4: TC = [12 - 4(4)]/2 OR TC = -2

As you can see above the short answer is no. You do not have an advantage in any of the above scenarios.

During gameplay I do not perform TC conversions using KO. If you do the math you start to have an advantage at RC9(RC -11 for your IRC-20) with 1 deck played taking into account house edge(HE). RC12(RC-8 for you) with 2 decks played. RC 15(RC-5 for you) with 3 decks played. RC18(RC-2 for you) with 4 decks played. I remember these points and bet accordingly.

The system I use is based on the book "The Color of Blackjack" by Daniel Dravot. I highly suggest you pickup his book.

I also suggest you read Knockout Blackjack by Vancura and Fuchs. Everything will make much more sense to you after reading these books.

 

[WannabeCounter]

I was using KO at one point. Due to the nature of the count, being an imbalanced count, you therefore cannot convert to a true count. This is somewhat beneficial to the player because it takes away the necessity to estimate how many decks are left in the shoe. KO Preferred is a powerful method, but there are periods in a 6 deck shoe where the player would actually be overbetting at a count of -4, depending on the number of decks. Pay attention to the wong-out points given in the Knock-out Blackjack. These points allow you to exit if the count is not progressively getting better as decks are being dealt. If you feel as if you want a little more accuracy, read the book The Color of Blackjack by Daniel Dravot. He makes a true counted version of KO, maintaining the simplicity of the method. TC KO gives more betting opportunities and explains when there are actually overbetting moments at -4, depending on how many decks have been dealt. I have recently switched from KO Full to TKO, and I like the switch!

EDIT: TC KO and TKO are the same thing I spelled them a little differently

This is slightly off-topic but...
In the event that someone doesn't have the option to "table-hop" and must "play-all" then would learning TKO remove some of the risk involved with doing so?

 

[MrSmith]

This is slightly off-topic but...
In the event that someone doesn't have the option to "table-hop" and must "play-all" then would learning TKO remove some of the risk involved with doing so?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the only way TKO could remove "some" of the risk is to use indicies for extreme negative counts. Your best option is going to be to avoid extreme negative counts because the HE increases too much.

I think a better strategy would be to simply start sitting out hands when the count gets too negative. Fake a phone call. Go to the bathroom. Act superstitious about the "flow" of the cards and sit out a few. That way you're not losing your spot but you can avoid as many negative count hands as possible. As with anything, the situation and your "act" will dictate what you can and cannot get away with.

 

[WannabeCounter]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the only way TKO could remove "some" of the risk is to use indicies for extreme negative counts. Your best option is going to be to avoid extreme negative counts because the HE increases too much.

I think a better strategy would be to simply start sitting out hands when the count gets too negative. Fake a phone call. Go to the bathroom. Act superstitious about the "flow" of the cards and sit out a few. That way you're not losing your spot but you can avoid as many negative count hands as possible. As with anything, the situation and your "act" will dictate what you can and cannot get away with.

That I could probably do. But wonging in and playing only with an advantage is not going to be feasible.
Maybe carrying a packet of cigs around would be a good act.

 

[jackal228]

Thanks for all the helpful replies.

I bought Color of Blackjack and am going through it now.

Hope I can be a good contributor to this board.

 

[johnnyb]

This is slightly off-topic but...
In the event that someone doesn't have the option to "table-hop" and must "play-all" then would learning TKO remove some of the risk involved with doing so?

As much as sitting out or tablehopping would be beneficial to the player at the wong-out points according to how many decks are in the discard tray, if you were in a "play-all" situation then learning TKO would be helpful. Like I said before, TKO gives you a little more accuracy in betting and in knowing when you are playing advantageously! So yes, there is some risk removed, whereas in the regular KO Full method you simply bet according to the running count and pay attention to little else.

 

[johnnyb]

Thanks for all the helpful replies.

I bought Color of Blackjack and am going through it now.

Hope I can be a good contributor to this board.

You'll like it once you memorize the betting ramps and are able to estimate decks with ease! Practice, practice, and more practice.