Next Weekend in Vegas.
- Thread starter mdlbj
- Start date
Nothing is hard to remember, you just memorize a chart what's easier than that? You repeat everything maybe 20min a day for a week and then you have it in your head for a long time. If the only thing you need to do is to memorize more things and I don't see what's the problem, I just love it when I get this kind of exams at college, I don't even have to think about anything I just have to memorize things and rewrite exactly what I memorized without using my brain for anything else than copying exact definitions, etc. It's not like you have to keep track of side counts, this is mentally taxing, but memorizing things is not.
I read that MIT doesn't use indexes when they play because it slows them down too much. If they were using KO then they wouldn't have that problem. http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/interviewJC.htm
Last edited:
That is not entirely true. Even John said there was a separate checkout for index plays, there was also a slight deviation to the basic strategy chart for the BP because he only played positive shoes, what would you call that. Also remember the time line, by the time the mid 90's rolled around John wasn't actually playing anymore for the MIT team, and soon after it was Mike managing the team. They used indice plays whether you want to believe it or not. As for KO, its a fine way of counting if you play alone or recreational, but there are no professional teams or players that use KO full time. As for converting the true count, if you are struggling to keep the count while you estimate and convert, then you probably aren't as good as you think you are. Its all easy once you practice enough, its just that KO is easier quicker, big deal, if you want to stop there fine. Riding a tricycle is easier than riding a bicycle, but once you learn how to ride a bicycle its more fun and just as easy, and I doubt you'll be going back to the tricycle.
If the tricycle can go just as fast as the bicycle, I'll stay on the trike!
If there are 2 options that are equal in strength, you should take the easiest one. Ko and Hi-LO are even in strenth. Some games Hi-Lo is slightly better and vice versa. But essentially for straight counting they are the same. So only considering straight counting KO is better IMO.
Yes, Hi-Lo is better for other AP methods, but that's another story. Only regarding counting, KO is the way to go! No need to worry about extreme precision in deck estimation, there are none with KO and it still performs just as good as Hi-Lo.
I restate just to make it clear, Hi-Lo is better all around if you are doing multiple AP techniques, but for simply counting KO is a better system than Hi-Lo, no question.
If there are 2 options that are equal in strength, you should take the easiest one. Ko and Hi-LO are even in strenth. Some games Hi-Lo is slightly better and vice versa. But essentially for straight counting they are the same. So only considering straight counting KO is better IMO.
Yes, Hi-Lo is better for other AP methods, but that's another story. Only regarding counting, KO is the way to go! No need to worry about extreme precision in deck estimation, there are none with KO and it still performs just as good as Hi-Lo.
I restate just to make it clear, Hi-Lo is better all around if you are doing multiple AP techniques, but for simply counting KO is a better system than Hi-Lo, no question.
That's so silly. You don't have to be exceptionally accurate to play successfully and every simulation ever done has shown that. In fact it might take a lifetime of blackjack (1-2 million hands) for the difference between a player who plays perfectly and any normal but competent counter to become statistically significant.
Therefore in my honest opinion, the people running such a seminar and judging players in this way either do not understand the math (unlikely) or are taking advantage of the MIT mystique with other players. Sorry but I can't think of any nicer way to say it.
Besides, there is no way to simulate playing with real money at a real table. Losing at a real table involves the real pain of loss, and all you can lose at the MIT seminar is $895. I've lost more than that in one hand.
Therefore in my honest opinion, the people running such a seminar and judging players in this way either do not understand the math (unlikely) or are taking advantage of the MIT mystique with other players. Sorry but I can't think of any nicer way to say it.
Besides, there is no way to simulate playing with real money at a real table. Losing at a real table involves the real pain of loss, and all you can lose at the MIT seminar is $895. I've lost more than that in one hand.
I used to feel exactly as you do, but now I don't agree. In my part of the country you have to expect to be playing 8D games, and the errors that build up over 8 decks with an unbalanced count can be significant. The key to beating these games is getting in and out of the shoe at the right time, and while KO can tell you when to get into a shoe it is not nearly as good at telling you when to get out unless you are true counting it, which requires deck estimation anyway. There's also the matter of the mighty 16 vs. 10 index which you are going to be playing wrong everywhere but the middle of the shoe.
Well, maybe someone can run some sims and see the "real" difference between the two in this situation. I understand there are a few theoretical shortcomings to KO, but all of the simulations show it to be really close to Hi-Lo, sometimes better, even with those considered.
But to determine which one is "better" you do have to consider the most common game you'll be playing. So in your situation, playing 8D games, you might be right that Hi-Lo is better. In my area there is no such thing as an 8D game, so for me it's a different story.
I guess to conclude I can say you cant just say one system is better than the other. In blackjack, as in many other things, it all depends on many factors. All you can do is see which system is better for what you are trying to accomplish.
But to determine which one is "better" you do have to consider the most common game you'll be playing. So in your situation, playing 8D games, you might be right that Hi-Lo is better. In my area there is no such thing as an 8D game, so for me it's a different story.
I guess to conclude I can say you cant just say one system is better than the other. In blackjack, as in many other things, it all depends on many factors. All you can do is see which system is better for what you are trying to accomplish.
KO has a significantly higher Betting effeciency so it should be at least as good as hi lo in shoe games where betting effeciency is more important. Hi Lo is only better in 1 and 2 deck games.
With KO there is a pivot point which tells you when you have an advantage and when you don't. Also there is an exit strategy too. So you can Wong just the same. Everyone that counts with hi lo does it because of the mistique, because they want to! It makes them feel good. You use emotion to make your decision to use Hi Lo and then logic to try and justify it. Well it doesn't work buddy.
With KO there is a pivot point which tells you when you have an advantage and when you don't. Also there is an exit strategy too. So you can Wong just the same. Everyone that counts with hi lo does it because of the mistique, because they want to! It makes them feel good. You use emotion to make your decision to use Hi Lo and then logic to try and justify it. Well it doesn't work buddy.
The word "better" is such a subjective word. For me, for example, High-Low is much better than KO for simply counting.
People are often intimidated by Hi-Low and other balanced counts because of the True Count conversion. This conversion is a lot less overwhelming than most people think: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=26925#post26925
I strongly endorse a balanced count, because it offers a less skewed picture of whether the count is high or low.
KO on the other hand, is not the all-powerful system that some people believe is God's gift for lazy counters. It has a few quirks: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=28304#post28304
People are often intimidated by Hi-Low and other balanced counts because of the True Count conversion. This conversion is a lot less overwhelming than most people think: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=26925#post26925
I strongly endorse a balanced count, because it offers a less skewed picture of whether the count is high or low.
KO on the other hand, is not the all-powerful system that some people believe is God's gift for lazy counters. It has a few quirks: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=28304#post28304
If I understand correctly, they refund the seminar money ($900) to the people who pass that test in one try. They strive for perfection because they are part of the notorious MIT team. I'm sure they understand that people shouldn't slap themseves silly when 100% accuracy is not achieved.
Could you imagine how much money they would lose if they would still refund the money but use an easy test instead?
Could you imagine how much money they would lose if they would still refund the money but use an easy test instead?
I really dont care how bad of a picture KO paints, the EV is the same as Hi-Lo, and that's all that really matters in the end. Someone playing Hi-Lo will be getting a "better picture" of the count, but if 2 people were to play a lifetime of counting each, one with KO and one with Hi-Lo, they would make the same $$$.
If a count were to come out easier than KO but just as powerful I would suggest switching to that count as well. Not because I'm lazy, but because it's just smart to work less for the same wage! It's like at work. I would rather it be slow than busy. I make the same amount of money regardless. Does that make me lazy becuase I'd rather work less for the same amount?
If a count were to come out easier than KO but just as powerful I would suggest switching to that count as well. Not because I'm lazy, but because it's just smart to work less for the same wage! It's like at work. I would rather it be slow than busy. I make the same amount of money regardless. Does that make me lazy becuase I'd rather work less for the same amount?
I used a poor choice of words. It came across as if I were implying that KO was for lazy people only, and I apologize for calling you such a name.
In my opinion, the better system is in the eye of the beholder. A person with my personality may prefer the clarity of High-Low even when playing the same game for which you like the simplicity of KO.
In my opinion, the better system is in the eye of the beholder. A person with my personality may prefer the clarity of High-Low even when playing the same game for which you like the simplicity of KO.
If any of the hundreds of people I've employed over the years told me he'd rather be slow than busy,he'd be an X-employee in a NY minute.
I don't know if its intentional or not but you and your buddy are coming across as a pair of slackers,more and more.
Does working less for the same money make you lazy/ I don't know,but I'm pretty sure it will keep in the sort of jobs where you'll find out.
I don't know if its intentional or not but you and your buddy are coming across as a pair of slackers,more and more.
Does working less for the same money make you lazy/ I don't know,but I'm pretty sure it will keep in the sort of jobs where you'll find out.
All I want out of life, and this is honest to GOD truth, is to go around everyday to people's places of work and annoy them and make fun of them for having to work while I have the luxuary to go around and make fun of them. Once this dream is realized, then I can die. And I will be happy. Rest in peace with inner peace. But until then I live restlessly. Driven by an unimaginable fire that won't let me rest, even for one moment!
Last edited:
Totally disgree with you AM.
If you look at the history, prior to instituting these ridged tests, mistakes were costing the team the majority of their winnings (i.e. they were falling far short of their EV). After they brought in the ridged standards, they became a highly successful team. Precision isn't totally necessary, but if you don't have the dedication to achieve this level of percision, your probably making far too many mistakes.
RJT.
If you look at the history, prior to instituting these ridged tests, mistakes were costing the team the majority of their winnings (i.e. they were falling far short of their EV). After they brought in the ridged standards, they became a highly successful team. Precision isn't totally necessary, but if you don't have the dedication to achieve this level of percision, your probably making far too many mistakes.
RJT.