K-O successfully

aceK

aceK

Member
Most of the time you read or hear of counters being successful using the Hi-Lo but what about those using the the K-O counting. Has someone done well using the K-O system on this forum?
 
aceK said:
Most of the time you read or hear of counters being successful using the Hi-Lo but what about those using the the K-O counting. Has someone done well using the K-O system on this forum?
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly. The two are very close to each other in power. There have to be hundreds of K-O winners.

Don
 
Thank you, DSchles. I'm looking forward in getting started my blackjack journey using the K-O system
 
I'm still way below n0 (I've maybe gotten 150 hours in, mostly in the year or so prior to COVID and none since) but I'm a slight winner with Don's REKO.
 
aceK said:
Most of the time you read or hear of counters being successful using the Hi-Lo but what about those using the the K-O counting. Has someone done well using the K-O system on this forum?
Click to expand...
In practice, K-O is more tiring than Hi-Lo (it counts one more card than Hi-Lo; it is also unbalanced). Between Hi-Lo and K-O, I choose Hi-Lo.
 
I disagree. I think that counting one more card is a lot less effort than true count conversion. Overall I think the counting aspect of K-O is easier for that reason. These are not the only criteria for choosing a system. HiLo has the advantage of having been the count of choice for many advanced techniques.
 
moraine said:
In practice, K-O is more tiring than Hi-Lo (it counts one more card than Hi-Lo; it is also unbalanced). Between Hi-Lo and K-O, I choose Hi-Lo.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I disagree too. For all intents and purposes, the only reason K-O was ever created in the first place was to try to find a workable alternative to Hi-Lo that wouldn't require true count conversion. To the extent that K-O acquits itself quite admirably in that regard, with SCOREs for most games that approach those of Hi-Lo, you're one of a very few people I have ever read who would claim that Hi-Lo is easier to use. Makes little sense.

Don
 
Up to 4 decks at least, Hi-Lo's needed conversion of a running count to true count has never been a problem for me, by intuition alone, I could get the result of dividing any running counts by 1, 2 or 3 roughly right all the time.
 
moraine said:
Up to 4 decks at least, Hi-Lo's needed conversion of a running count to true count has never been a problem for me, by intuition alone, I could get the result of dividing any running counts by 1, 2 or 3 roughly right all the time.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, if you play nowadays, you're going to be playing 6- and 8-deck games. Second of all, if you want to play correctly, your divisor should be accurate to half decks, not full decks.

Mind you, Gronbog and I don't much care which count you use, but just trying to explain to you that counting an extra rank compared to doing true count conversion is a tradeoff 90% of players would happily do. Just understand that you're in the minority.

Don
 
DSchles said:
Just for the record, REKO isn't mine. It's Norm Wattenberger's.

Don
Click to expand...

Well, I'd still buy you a beer sometime after all this pandemic nonsense is over, your posts here have very much helped!

As far as REKO vs HiLo -- saving the conversion makes it so I don't accidentally space out looking at the tray while thinking. I feel like that's a telltale sign, although to be honest, I feel like my 1-20 spread is a dead giveaway already, and AC just doesn't care thanks to the 75% pen on an 8-deck shoe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top