KO Knockout Blackjack - some clarification with 4 decks

[Taff]

So my eyeball was close. Good so I can use these (just to be clear this is using the standard IRC number and not your offset one!?

Yes mate. I adjusted the trigger points for your game. I can see where you're coming from regarding the matrix tables (or lack thereof ) so now you have your head around the deck adjustment can I suggest my approach.

Set the pivot point at 0. So your IRC is now -24 in a six deck game. Now do the reverse of what you were doing above effectively working back from the pivot. So playing the first deck, with 5 decks undealt you apply a T.C working up in multiples of 5 from the pivot. So:

-5 is tc3
-10 is tc2
-15 is tc1

You can see here that tc1 is 9 points above the IRC and, thus the key count where we started upping our bets in the other method I showed you.

With 4 decks left to play we work back from the pivot in multiples of 4 so:

-4 is tc3
-8 is tc2
-12 is tc1

Again you can see the tc1 is moving in the opposite direction in multiples of 3. Always remembering that 0 is tc4 regardless of decks dealt.

Now you can forget the above index plays and create your own via C.V in accordance with the TC's or simply nick the Hi-Lo indices. I know someone who does this and swears by it. I created my own. Up to you.

 

[bowlofrice]

This is interesting. I will need to practice this of course. Since I am going to be doing 4 and 6 decks games I need to have something that works for both in the absense of published indices for 4 decks game.

So what you are saying is do the KO count and convert to true with the less complicated conversion stated above (less complciated than the Hi-Lo RC to TC by the looks of things) which therefore stills maintains some of the benefit of KO.

Once I am there I can just use the published indices for Hi-Lo for 4 and 6 deck games.

 

[Taff]

So what you are saying is do the KO count and convert to true with the less complicated conversion stated above (less complciated than the Hi-Lo RC to TC by the looks of things) which therefore stills maintains some of the benefit of KO.

No. I'm saying it adds to the power of K.O considerably. Go back to your (correctly) identified problem of K.O overbetting at the end of the shoe and you will see why. From the above method you can see that the deeper you go into the shoe, the more the various trigger points converge around the pivot point. It is K.O orthodoxy that the preferred/full method is most accurate around the middle of the shoe. Thus, K.O can hurt you at the best games with deeper penetration. The above method will, in my humble opinion go a long way towards eradicating that problem.

 

[bowlofrice]

Right. I am going to need to go a practice this.

I have KO counting down super fast but I need to factor in this conversion calculation etc. but it looks like at the start of each hand I just need to decide the X number of decks remaining so I have the KO to true multiples in my head, then as cards are drawn during the hand if I am close to these multiples I can take a moment to reflect before acting.

So as a starting point I can try implementing I18 with the converted index and don't worry about 4 or 6 decks?

 

[Taff]

So as a starting point I can try implementing I18 with the converted index and don't worry about 4 or 6 decks?

If memory serves me correctly I18 was based around Hi-lo in a 4 deck game. You won't be 100% accurate but starting out you'll be close enough. Dont forget we count the 7's. Good luck.

 

[bowlofrice]

Thanks, off to do some research and practice so if the thread goes dark for a while that's why. Will report back!

 

[gronbog]

will concede that my comments, taken in isolation, look like I'm dismissing the value of these index plays. Believe me I'm not

Fair enough. I will admit that I skimmed most of the thread, since I'm not all that familiar with KO.

 

[bowlofrice]

Now you can forget the above index plays and create your own via C.V in accordance with the TC's or simply nick the Hi-Lo indices. I know someone who does this and swears by it. I created my own. Up to you.

Been looking at this overnight. Don't want to force a square into a circle, solve one problem, break something else.

This seems a good start:

Adjust IRC to 24 as suggested.
Re-learn / drill KO Full with adjusted count values (CV drills on my phone good for this - notice you can offset the IRC and it cascades down the tables - software just paid for itself there alone)

-8 is therefore is adjusted key count and start of bet ramping

So the benefit is:

Asuume we are at -8

2 decks remain.

0 = +4 TC
-2 = +3 TC
-4 =+2 TC
-6 = +1 TC
-8 = 0 TC

or 3 decks remain

0 = +4 TC
-3 = +3 TC
-6 =+2 TC
-9 = +1 TC
-12 = 0 TC

2 decks remaining we should hold off, 3 decks probably worth adding a unit.

 

[Taff]

2 decks remain.

0 = +4 TC
-2 = +3 TC
-4 =+2 TC
-6 = +1 TC
-8 = 0 TC

or 3 decks remain

0 = +4 TC
-3 = +3 TC
-6 =+2 TC
-9 = +1 TC
-12 = 0 TC

These calculations are correct as per the method I showed you BUT with 3 decks remaining you can see that -8 has now been made reduntant as YOUR key count and been replaced by -9. So.......

-8 is therefore is adjusted key count and start of bet ramping

The old key count which was fixed is now replaced by key counts that are floating. To avoid confusion I prefer the term trigger points.Think of it as a race. The IRC is the start and the pivot point is the finish. The only points of reference in between are the trigger points for raising your bets dependant upon decks left to be played. If you're into mental gymnastics, with the Pivot set at zero these trigger points are calculated using the formula.

TC=RC-4(decks played)÷decks undealt.

So in a 6 deck game your count is -4 with 2 decks remaining.. This is a running count of 20-4=16÷4÷2=2. So your TC is 2. Now if you check this off against the trigger points I gave you you can see this is correct..

 

[bowlofrice]

Right, got it. Consider ramping from TC 0.

TC 0 is a function of the converted KO RC

so abstract example

-13 with 5 decks remaning = approx 1.5TC

So, again it's back to what indices I use (and train for) and as you pointed out we count the 7's so I18 maybe off but as a starting point.

You created your own as mentioned - what did you use a baseline?

Thanks for your patience think I have "got it" now!

 

[Taff]

-13 with 5 decks remaning = approx 1.5TC

Exactly. What you do here is for you to decide and is a separate thread on flooring, truncating etc. In order to not over estimate your edge I would play it as +1 until I hit the next trigger of 10. A word of caution about upping bets at +1. This system was born in the states when they had better rules. L.S and the hole card meant typical house edge of .30/.40. You and I playing in Europe are nowhere near this. ENHC and inconsistant insurance rules push us nearer .50 and over. The key count was estimated to take .50 off the house edge which would leave players in the states having the edge, assuming they weren't lumbered with H.17 which evens the field. So for us the key count is at best neutral. Same goes for +1.

 

[bowlofrice]

In order to not over estimate your edge I would play it as +1 until I hit the next trigger of 10.

Yes, absoultely. I am not looking to pile it in at the first sign of improvement.

The lack of being able to (safely) double with 10 vs 10 and 11 vs A and 10 vs A must be costing us something significant at high counts.

I've been doing the deck estimation count drills using the TC conversion discussed in CV and it's not making that horrible buzzing noise at me too often - although I am not fast enough. Need to get the multiples of 2,3,4,5 into my head, and get that down super fast. Thanks again.

 

[bowlofrice]

Hi Taff,

I have played a few sessions now with TC conversion and the I18 that apply to ENHC.

It's early days but indications are good and can see it provides a good protection envelope to over estimation and I have picked up a few spots early that I would have previously overlooked, i.e. TC1-2 early on.

What is encouraging is that I haven't got super accurate and fast TC conversion down yet so I can only get tighter.

What I have been doing to quickly get a result is multiply the number of decks remaining by 4 to get TC0 - this allows me to quickly get an idea were the KO RC is in relation t0 this easy datum if under time pressure and quickly "eyeball" either side of that. We are only really talking about multiples of 2 3 4 5(easy) 6 and once the KO RC get's to -4 it doesn't matter so much anyway unless 1 deck remaining of course

Thanks for puting me on this path.

 

[Taff]

We are only really talking about multiples of 2 3 4 5(easy) 6 a

Hi. Be careful of using multiples of 6. It's tempting to look for -18 as a trigger point off the top in a six decker but unless you're burning 6 small cards in the first round, chances are you'll be halfway through deck 1 and should be rounding up. I always look for -15 to start and work from there. If you round your deck estimates up and your TC' divisions down (flooring) it's the least volitile way to play.

 

[bowlofrice]

If you round your deck estimates up and your TC' divisions down (flooring) it's the least volitile way to play.

So,

In a 6 deck game:

I think I see 1.5 decks played and the RC is -12

Treat that as 5 decks played and therefore TC1?

 

[Taff]

I think I see 1.5 decks played and the RC is -12

Treat that as 5 decks played and therefore TC1?

Where on earth did you get 5 decks played from.??. As soon as you've played one deck you're looking at playing safe and rounding up to the next level so at 1.5 yes, you'd be counting towards the P.P in multiples of 4. -12 is T.C 1.

Practice on C.V over and over again and you'll get it. Practice playing 2 spots as it will get you into the positive counts more regularly.

When you're in London next, mines a Guinness. !!

 

[bowlofrice]

Where on earth did you get 5 decks played from.??. As soon as you've played one deck you're looking at playing safe and rounding up to the next level so at 1.5 yes, you'd be counting towards the P.P in multiples of 4. -12 is T.C 1.

Ooops, not thinking before typing. Yes 4, the lower the number of decks the more the true count values "contract" relative to the RC which is more conservative.

-12 is T.C 1

You mean 0?

0 = +4
-3 = +3
-6 = +2
-9 = +1
-12 = 0

 

[Taff]

0 = +4
-3 = +3
-6 = +2
-9 = +1
-12 = 0

Nooooo. Lol. Pm me.