Can KO's Running Count Be True Count Converted?

[assume_R]

K_C
If by KO TC you mean the count that KO will give you through it's "automatic" adjustment for being unbalanced, I see your point. What I am talking about is converting KO RC to absolute TC, the same TC that you would get through HI-Lo and perfect deck estimation.

Aslan, that is indeed what he was describing - taking the RC and dividing it by the # of decks, to get a TC.

A HiLo TC does not mean the exact same things as a KO TC. So there is no "absolute TC" standard.

I only have the one spreadsheet of KO RC conversion to TC for 6 deck, and would like to obtain spreadsheets for 8-deck. I'm guessing a spread sheet for double deck would be the same as the 6 deck chart for 2 and 1 decks remaining. I'm also guessing I can expand the spreadsheet in the other direction using the same formulas for the 8 deck game. I just haven't had time to do it yet. I believe I put the URL for the KO to TC conversion in a previous post in this thread.

Check out the spreadsheet I made (attached) for any # of decks (and also any unbalanced system). So for example, change the "# of Decks" cell. Or, if you want to use Red 7 instead of KO, change the "Neutral" value from "4" to "2". Also, change Row 13 to input how many decks remaining you want to know the TC for.

 

[k_c]

K_C

Thanks for you analysis.

If by KO TC you mean the count that KO will give you through it's "automatic" adjustment for being unbalanced, I see your point. What I am talking about is converting KO RC to absolute TC, the same TC that you would get through HI-Lo and perfect deck estimation.

I would not be willing to use what you term the "natural" IRC for KO, because I am most of all interested in the pivot point, the point where I will have max bet out, being exactly what the absolute TC is. That is why for me the KO IRC is best set to 4-(4*#decks), or -28 instead of -4*#decks or -32. Without calculation, I then know that KO RC intersects TC at +4 in all scenarios up to one deck remaining.

In a game, it would be way too difficult to be adjusting KO RC to absolute TC. Heck, there would be no reason not to switch to Hi-Lo. I find it comforting with KO that in most cases it is right on target TC-wise as one approaches the cut card, and when it is far from the cut card, KO's RC is quite conservative. Knowing this, I can begin raising my bet as early as KO RC -11 in a 6-deck game with 5 decks remaining. This is good to know. I only have the one spreadsheet of KO RC conversion to TC for 6 deck, and would like to obtain spreadsheets for 8-deck. I'm guessing a spread sheet for double deck would be the same as the 6 deck chart for 2 and 1 decks remaining. I'm also guessing I can expand the spreadsheet in the other direction using the same formulas for the 8 deck game. I just haven't had time to do it yet. I believe I put the URL for the KO to TC conversion in a previous post in this thread.

I hope I made sense. I have to go now to a block party. Thanks again for explaining the relation of KO to the HiLo count and TC.

I see what you're saying but the simplest way to true count KO is to start with the natural IRC. When you do that then KO pivot point always equals zero for any number of decks and the mechanics of true counting are the same as Hi-Lo's.

Any count is balanced if you start with its natural initial running count. Hi-Lo's natural initial running count just happens to be 0. Hi-Lo could be made unbalanced by defining its initial running count to something other than 0 like unbalanced KO defines its initial running count to something other than -4*decks.

In any event it's best to use what's most comfortable to you.

 

[aslan]

Aslan, that is indeed what he was describing - taking the RC and dividing it by the # of decks, to get a TC.

A HiLo TC does not mean the exact same things as a KO TC. So there is no "absolute TC" standard.

I stand corrected.

I was looking at it this way. First, there were balanced counts. This required conversion to TC. Then the idea emerged to unbalance the count in order to "simulate" TC conversion to some extent, or on average. I never thought of this as unbalanced TC, or any kind of true count at all. But I guess it is, because a level 2 or 3 count would have a different TC than HiLo TC, and yet it would probably be a better TC than HiLo TC.

I will now study your spreadsheet.

 

[aslan]

Check out the spreadsheet I made (attached) for any # of decks (and also any unbalanced system). So for example, change the "# of Decks" cell. Or, if you want to use Red 7 instead of KO, change the "Neutral" value from "4" to "2". Also, change Row 13 to input how many decks remaining you want to know the TC for.

Well, this is exactly what I have been looking for. Only now I understand what it means. Now, the question is, how do I use this new found knowledge in a practical sense? I cannot memorize the chart, nor does it seem practical to try to make this conversion in my head during play. The chart does show me that in the early going of a shoe game, I may actually be in a position to raise my bet even though the KO count is very negative. Do you carry a small chart with you when you play, similar to carrying a basic strategy chart? Or do you do what I have been doing, simply memorize key points to check for in play?

 

[assume_R]

Aslan, I'm glad you understand a bit better. I have found that it was worth it to me to use Zen instead of TKO.

There is nothing wrong with starting at -4 * decks, dividing by # of decks, and knowing exactly the TC. The advantage for each TC would be more accurate than using the traditional KO running count.

Yet you'd need to practice dividing by decks left.

A count with no house advantage would be at TC = -4, and your advantage would start to rise at TC >= -3 (if you start at -32 for 8 deck and -24 for 6 deck)/

No need to memorize the chart, but just start at RC = -32 for 8 decks, and know that your advantage starts when TC > -4. Every additional TC above -4 is about a +0.50% advantage.

And the indices can be easily calculated from cvdata.

How to use this chart is up to you, but like I said, it isn't so different from using Zen.

 

[aslan]

Aslan, I'm glad you understand a bit better. I have found that it was worth it to me to use Zen instead of TKO.

There is nothing wrong with starting at -4 * decks, dividing by # of decks, and knowing exactly the TC. The advantage for each TC would be more accurate than using the traditional KO running count.

Yet you'd need to practice dividing by decks left.

A count with no house advantage would be at TC = -4, and your advantage would start to rise at TC >= -3 (if you start at -32 for 8 deck and -24 for 6 deck)/

No need to memorize the chart, but just start at RC = -32 for 8 decks, and know that your advantage starts when TC > -4. Every additional TC above -4 is about a +0.50% advantage.

And the indices can be easily calculated from cvdata.

How to use this chart is up to you, but like I said, it isn't so different from using Zen.

Up to this point my counting strategy has been shaped by a a perhaps irrational aversion to the dreaded deck estimation and division of balanced counts. lol My friend tells me how easy and simple it is to make the switch, yet I have persisted for more than three years in hanging on to KO. Here I am again at the same crossroads I keep returning to. And I realize that only I can make this (lol) momentous change. I think I am fishing for words of encouragement. Are there any tricks for making the quick division an easy added step? And you also suggest however slightly a move to the heralded zen count, the count I would have adopted long ago were it not for the added difficulty and advice by online mentors to stick to the far easier KO system. Tell me I won't encounter the exact same variance of KO and I will begin the change today. Is Zen any more sensitive to those situations where the dealer wins every or nearly every hand? Will Zen save me from any losing situations due to the use of KO? Or will Zen only increase my winnings in a winning session by a small percentage, and/or decrease my losses in a losing session by a likewise small percentage?

 

[boneuphtoner]

Tell me I won't encounter the exact same variance of KO and I will begin the change today. Is Zen any more sensitive to those situations where the dealer wins every or nearly every hand? Will Zen save me from any losing situations due to the use of KO? Or will Zen only increase my winnings in a winning session by a small percentage, and/or decrease my losses in a losing session by a likewise small percentage?

No to all of your questions except the last one, and if you aren't a pro playing a ton, you probably wouldn't know the difference there either. After starting off with KO, I moved up to a level II balanced count. I wish I never did. With flooring, the division was never a problem for me, but the deck estimation has always been an insecurity of mine. I can count KO even faster than level II FELT, but whenever I give KO a try, coming from a balanced count, I feel like I'm wandering in the wilderness when I'm between my wongout point and the current key count (given deck depth). It is a weird feeling. If I can break myself from it, as an amateur who plays no more than 35 hours per year (most of that 3-4 trip to Vegas), there is no way I'll ever see the difference in effort between KO and FELT.

 

[aslan]

No to all of your questions except the last one, and if you aren't a pro playing a ton, you probably wouldn't know the difference there either. After starting off with KO, I moved up to a level II balanced count. I wish I never did. With flooring, the division was never a problem for me, but the deck estimation has always been an insecurity of mine. I can count KO even faster than level II FELT, but whenever I give KO a try, coming from a balanced count, I feel like I'm wandering in the wilderness when I'm between my wongout point and the current key count (given deck depth). It is a weird feeling. If I can break myself from it, as an amateur who plays no more than 35 hours per year (most of that 3-4 trip to Vegas), there is no way I'll ever see the difference in effort between KO and FELT.

Even though I've slowed down, I know I've played well over 100 hours already this year.

I assume that KO TC is inferior to HiLo TC because the tagging of sevens was not an attempt to increase accuracy, but rather to trade-off a small degree of accuracy to eliminate the need for deck estimation. It's the accuracy of KO that I would like to tweak, and I think I can do it by creating a few checkpoints, similar to KO exit points, but for the purpose of raising my bet when KO indicates negative, and TC indicates positive, which sometimes occurs early in a shoe game.

 

[boneuphtoner]

Even though I've slowed down, I know I've played well over 100 hours already this year.

I assume that KO TC is inferior to HiLo TC because the tagging of sevens was not an attempt to increase accuracy, but rather to trade-off a small degree of accuracy to eliminate the need for deck estimation. It's the accuracy of KO that I would like to tweak, and I think I can do it by creating a few checkpoints, similar to KO exit points, but for the purpose of raising my bet when KO indicates negative, and TC indicates positive, which sometimes occurs early in a shoe game.

100% not true. KO TC is definitely superior to HiLo TC across the board....it definitely helps to count those 7s!!! See Modern Blackjack, Second Edition (print only). TKO is the strongest single parameter level 1 count, period. Now, I never said it was easier than HiLo TC.

However, you can get 50% of the gain of TKO by doing exactly what you've been doing...fine tuning your exit points, key counts, etc.

 

[aslan]

100% not true. KO TC is definitely superior to HiLo TC across the board....it definitely helps to count those 7s!!! See Modern Blackjack, Second Edition (print only). TKO is the strongest single parameter level 1 count, period. Now, I never said it was easier than HiLo TC.

However, you can get 50% of the gain of TKO by doing exactly what you've been doing...fine tuning your exit points, key counts, etc.

Well that is music to my ears!

 

[revrac]

I've started using the moving key count to approximate the true count, its actually very easy if you look at that excel file someone created on this site somewhere showing actual true counts and if you have those spots memorized your almost getting most of the advantage from TKO method without much work.

 

[aslan]

I've started using the moving key count to approximate the true count, its actually very easy if you look at that excel file someone created on this site somewhere showing actual true counts and if you have those spots memorized your almost getting most of the advantage from TKO method without much work.

Which post are you referring to, and how exactly are you implementing your moving key count strategy?

 

[aslan]

I've started using the moving key count to approximate the true count, its actually very easy if you look at that excel file someone created on this site somewhere showing actual true counts and if you have those spots memorized your almost getting most of the advantage from TKO method without much work.

Are you using some guideline for key count (6-deck) such as
-13 at 5 decks remaining
-10 at 4 decks remaining
-6 at 3 decks remaining
-5 at 2 decks remaining?

 

[revrac]

I've attached a version of a file i found somewhere on this site but added the extra decks on separate tabs. I also flipped it upside down on the one i use just because i rather see the count increasing from from the bottom up but am putting the unflipped one on here b/c works easier with any IRC.

So just put in your IRC up top and you'll see how your key count should move depending on how many decks have been played. So for example with 6 decks, KO has you start your betting progression at 16 higher than your IRC. This spreadsheet shows you for each number of decks where you should start betting more...with less than one deck played it should really be about 12 higher than your IRC but with 5 decks played it should be more like 22 higher than your IRC. This is basically the TKO method, it accounts for the fact that KO bets too little early on and over bets later on.

 

[revrac]

Are you using some guideline for key count (6-deck) such as
-13 at 5 decks remaining
-10 at 4 decks remaining
-6 at 3 decks remaining
-5 at 2 decks remaining?

I didn't see this second post before i posted the response but yes this is pretty much what i'm doing, but just using different numbers which vary according to the TC which is shown on that spreadsheet.

 

[aslan]

I've attached a version of a file i found somewhere on this site but added the extra decks on separate tabs. I also flipped it upside down on the one i use just because i rather see the count increasing from from the bottom up but am putting the unflipped one on here b/c works easier with any IRC.

So just put in your IRC up top and you'll see how your key count should move depending on how many decks have been played. So for example with 6 decks, KO has you start your betting progression at 16 higher than your IRC. This spreadsheet shows you for each number of decks where you should start betting more...with less than one deck played it should really be about 12 higher than your IRC but with 5 decks played it should be more like 22 higher than your IRC. This is basically the TKO method, it accounts for the fact that KO bets too little early on and over bets later on.

That's the same spreadsheet I use and the same technique. I am ordering the Color of Blackjack just to see if it adds anything more to my knowledge of TKO, especially indexes and maybe a few tricks of the trade.

 

[revrac]

ah, very nice. I ordered CoBJ last week hoping the same thing as you, maybe get a little more out of it and if not i'm sure it'll still be an interesting read.

Currently i just use the full KO indecies with a few adjustments. Like for example in the KO book for a six deck it says double on 9 vs 2 at count of -4. I double 9 vs 2 at the key count, since -4 is the key count used in the book so its really a moving index as well. I haven't run any sims on this but logically it seems that this would be more accurate and give a some small advantage.

 

[aslan]

ah, very nice. I ordered CoBJ last week hoping the same thing as you, maybe get a little more out of it and if not i'm sure it'll still be an interesting read.

Currently i just use the full KO indecies with a few adjustments. Like for example in the KO book for a six deck it says double on 9 vs 2 at count of -4. I double 9 vs 2 at the key count, since -4 is the key count used in the book so its really a moving index as well. I haven't run any sims on this but logically it seems that this would be more accurate and give a some small advantage.

Sounds right to me.

 

[Syph]

Not sure this has been mentioned, but insofar as key counts are concerned remember that KO has an imbalance of 4 points per deck. So, the count should be increasing by 4 every deck. Regardless of what IRC you use, if the count has increased by 4 by the end of the first deck played, you are still playing in a neutral count. 8 by the second, 12 by the third, etc ...

If the count rises less than 4 points per deck, you are now playing with a disadvantage from where you began, it it increases more you are now playing with an advantage from your starting point.

Pretty simple.

Also keep in mind that over 90% of the money made with KO occurs when pivot is reached. I believe the exact number is 91.7% in a typical six deck game, consult Mathprof for further details. Which is also to say that true counting KO generally isn't worth your time, IMHO. I have some sims done from Brett Harris from years back, and the difference between KO and TKO was about 5-7%. It was literally the difference of about $2-$3 per hour with a top bet of around $250. Most will only attain half that, if that, from sloppy deck estimation, and slow play.

I can post the sims if anyone is interested.

I later found this quote:

"In 6D (66% pen), The Color of Blackjack adds 13.5% to KO's earning rate. In 6D (75% pen), The Color of Blackjack adds 4.4% to KO's earning rate. In 6D (83% pen), The Color of Blackjack adds 2.4% to KO's earning rate."

http://www.bj21.com/ads/color_of_blackjack/ad.html

You shouldn't be playing 66% pen games, and the other two improvements are negligible.

My personal belief is that true-counting isn't really a good idea for most players. You've taken a simple, solid count and introduced complexity. Nine times out of ten, this will work more against you than for you. Truth be told, I'd encourage players to make things even simpler. Norm's reKO, while in desperate need of a new name, is all but bulletproof. Grosjean, in Beyond Counting, suggested an even simpler KO with only about 3 deviations, and betting RC-14 chips (6 deck shoe).

However, people play for many reasons. If you enjoy the challenge, have at 'er!

Best,
Syph

 

[aslan]

Not sure this has been mentioned, but insofar as key counts are concerned remember that KO has an imbalance of 4 points per deck. So, the count should be increasing by 4 every deck. Regardless of what IRC you use, if the count has increased by 4 by the end of the first deck played, you are still playing in a neutral count. 8 by the second, 12 by the third, etc ...

If the count rises less than 4 points per deck, you are now playing with a disadvantage from where you began, it it increases more you are now playing with an advantage from your starting point.

Pretty simple.

Also keep in mind that over 90% of the money made with KO occurs when pivot is reached. I believe the exact number is 91.7% in a typical six deck game, consult Mathprof for further details. Which is also to say that true counting KO generally isn't worth your time, IMHO. I have some sims done from Brett Harris from years back, and the difference between KO and TKO was about 5-7%. It was literally the difference of about $2-$3 per hour with a top bet of around $250. Most will only attain half that, if that, from sloppy deck estimation, and slow play.

I can post the sims if anyone is interested.

I later found this quote:

"In 6D (66% pen), The Color of Blackjack adds 13.5% to KO's earning rate. In 6D (75% pen), The Color of Blackjack adds 4.4% to KO's earning rate. In 6D (83% pen), The Color of Blackjack adds 2.4% to KO's earning rate."

http://www.bj21.com/ads/color_of_blackjack/ad.html

You shouldn't be playing 66% pen games, and the other two improvements are negligible.

My personal belief is that true-counting isn't really a good idea for most players. You've taken a simple, solid count and introduced complexity. Nine times out of ten, this will work more against you than for you. Truth be told, I'd encourage players to make things even simpler. Norm's reKO, while in desperate need of a new name, is all but bulletproof. Grosjean, in Beyond Counting, suggested an even simpler KO with only about 3 deviations, and betting RC-14 chips (6 deck shoe).

However, people play for many reasons. If you enjoy the challenge, have at 'er!

Best,
Syph

Excellent comments. Have you got a page ref on Beyond Counting?