KO Counts at high depths

[calleo]

I'm using KO-Preferred

Game is S17, DAS, RS4, ES, NH.

Since KO is an unbalanced, running count only strategy:

What's the effect (positive or negative) on EV at high counts towards the end of the shoe?

KO says to max bet whenever the running count is over the key count. BUT the same running count at higher deck depths = less of a true count right?

I'm finding that I'll make money steadily when the running count is creeping towards the key count in the middle of the shoe (I'm ramping up my bets, not yet at max bets).

Sometimes the count will go sky high towards the end of the shoe, I max bet, and lose everything I've made in the last 5 shoes.

Is this just some bad variance? A weakness in the KO system? Is there a way to true count KO?

 

[assume_R]

I'm using KO-Preferred

Game is S17, DAS, RS4, ES, NH.

Since KO is an unbalanced, running count only strategy:

What's the effect (positive or negative) on EV at high counts towards the end of the shoe?

KO says to max bet whenever the running count is over the key count. BUT the same running count at higher deck depths = less of a true count right?

I'm finding that I'll make money steadily when the running count is creeping towards the key count in the middle of the shoe (I'm ramping up my bets, not yet at max bets).

Sometimes the count will go sky high towards the end of the shoe, I max bet, and lose everything I've made in the last 5 shoes.

Is this just some bad variance? A weakness in the KO system? Is there a way to true count KO?

Firstly, the fact that you lose some max bets is indeed due to variance. That will happen no matter how good of a counting system you have. The reason is that while you know the average composition of the remaining cards in the shoe, they are still randomly shuffled, meaning that even though there might only be 1 five left and a 99 tens in 100 cards left, you could simply become unlucky and get a 15.

Now regarding KO, I'd recommend you look at http://www.amazon.com/Color-Blackjack-revolutionary-method-counting/dp/144042697X which will answer your questions specifically regarding KO. It was designed to answer exactly that.

The short answer is that KO is most accurate during the middle of the shoe. At the beginning you could be slightly underbetting, and at the end you could be slightly overbetting. Also remember that either or those 2 situations could be remedied by simply playing more rounds or finding a better game! But believe me I understand the desire to have as much of an edge as possible in any given situation.

As a final aside, I'd recommend you look at the Zen count, or Unbalanced Zen, if you're willing to move on from KO.

Hope that helps.

 

[Brock Windsor]

....

KO says to max bet whenever the running count is over the key count. BUT the same running count at higher deck depths = less of a true count right?

I'm finding that I'll make money steadily when the running count is creeping towards the key count in the middle of the shoe (I'm ramping up my bets, not yet at max bets).

Sometimes the count will go sky high towards the end of the shoe, I max bet, and lose everything I've made in the last 5 shoes.

Is this just some bad variance? A weakness in the KO system? Is there a way to true count KO?

-KO should have you max betting at the Pivot Point, NOT the key count.
-The farther you are from the Pivot point in either direction, the less accurate your information however for practical purposes it is fine for shoe games.
-Most counting opportunities in shoe games regardless of system occur closer to the end of the shoe.
-That is probably typical variance however if you are max betting at the key count near the end of the shoe you could be max betting into negative EV.
-KO can be true counted. TKO.
-BW

 

[calleo]

The short answer is that KO is most accurate during the middle of the shoe. At the beginning you could be slightly underbetting, and at the end you could be slightly overbetting. Also remember that either or those 2 situations could be remedied by simply playing more rounds or finding a better game! But believe me I understand the desire to have as much of an edge as possible in any given situation.

You say I "could be", could you give it to me in math terms? Am I underbetting 50% of the time? 80% of the time? All of the time? Has anyone worked this out for KO?

Also underbetting and overbetting will definitely contribute negatively to EV, but overbetting will also increase variance, and therefore ROR, right?

So am I better off not max betting at higher deck depths? Instead of overbetting at high depths, why not underbet at high depths? I should be able to calculate the underbet that would give me the same (negative) hit to EV but with less variance and ROR.

Let me know if this statement is right:

Underbetting will reduce positive EV. But overbetting adds negative EV.
Is that right? Because double kelly betting brings EV from bet spreads to 0.
Or am I mixing up concepts?

I guess in the end what I am asking is: "Is there a more optimal betting ramp/spread than what is presented in the KO book?"

Maybe it should decrease at higher counts at higher depths?

 

[Brock Windsor]

....I guess in the end what I am asking is: "Is there a more optimal betting ramp/spread than what is presented in the KO book?"
...

Yes. It is one of the books larger faults in my opinion. At the KO pivot point you have and edge of about 1.5%. Do some research on kelly betting to match this edge to your bankroll.
-BW

 

[assume_R]

You say I "could be", could you give it to me in math terms? Am I underbetting 50% of the time? 80% of the time? All of the time? Has anyone worked this out for KO?

Also underbetting and overbetting will definitely contribute negatively to EV, but overbetting will also increase variance, and therefore ROR, right?

So am I better off not max betting at higher deck depths? Instead of overbetting at high depths, why not underbet at high depths? I should be able to calculate the underbet that would give me the same (negative) hit to EV but with less variance and ROR.

Let me know if this statement is right:

Underbetting will reduce positive EV. But overbetting adds negative EV.
Is that right? Because double kelly betting brings EV from bet spreads to 0.
Or am I mixing up concepts?

I guess in the end what I am asking is: "Is there a more optimal betting ramp/spread than what is presented in the KO book?"

Maybe it should decrease at higher counts at higher depths?

It's not that you shouldn't be max betting at higher depths - as BW said, most of your good counting opportunities occur at the end of the shoe! It's just that the count at which you place your max bet can change depending on the depth.

So at the beginning of the shoe, lots and lots of low cards could come out, and your RC could increase by 18. By all normal counting methods, this would initiate an increased bet. But since it was the first round, the count might not have hit the key count yet in KO. This would mean you are betting like you have a 0% edge, when in fact you have a 0.5% edge (underbetting) and losing valuable EV. At the end, you will be betting like you have a 3% edge while you may only have a 2% edge, and hence you are unnecessarily placing $$ at risk.

The % of times this affects you is something I haven't explored.

Also, the book in the link I sent you will answer every question you have asked, such as the exact count and depth and amount at which you deviate from traditional KO.

 

[calleo]

-KO should have you max betting at the Pivot Point, NOT the key count.
-The farther you are from the Pivot point in either direction, the less accurate your information however for practical purposes it is fine for shoe games.
-Most counting opportunities in shoe games regardless of system occur closer to the end of the shoe.
-That is probably typical variance however if you are max betting at the key count near the end of the shoe you could be max betting into negative EV.
-KO can be true counted. TKO.
-BW

My bad, I meant pivot point. In this 6 deck game I am ramping up my bets starting at the key count of -4 up to a max bet at the pivot point of +4 (and over).

 

[21forme]

Somewhere in the archives of this forum is a spreadsheet converting RCs to TCs at various depths of the shoe. My guess it was posted about 4 years, but I don't remember by whom.

Bottom line, KO can be true counted for more accuracy, but if you're going to true count, switch to HiLo. There's so much more information available for HiLo than TKO.

 

[boneuphtoner]

Bottom line, KO can be true counted for more accuracy, but if you're going to true count, switch to HiLo. There's so much more information available for HiLo than TKO.

Not only that, but true counting unbalanced strategies is harder than it is for balanced counts. For balanced, it is simply RC divided by number of decks remaining. For unbalanced, it is RC-4(decks played)/decks remaining.

 

[assume_R]

This is something I made which will help you out.

Each value in the table is the true count for a given rc, modeled off some old spreadsheet that 21forme was referring to.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3049951/TC_Conversion.xlsx

 

[aslan]

At KO RC of +4 you are exactly at True Count of +4. This is called the pivot point and this is the recommended point for placing your maximum bet. It is true that as you increase your RC above +4, you begin to understate your advantage in terms of True Count (provided there are more than one deck remaining), but at no point are you less than +4, the point where you should be betting maximum bet.

So, for example, if you are at KO RC of +10, the True Count will only be +7 with two decks remaining. This of course is still within the range of where you should be betting maximum bet. If you are losing at these advanced counts, it is not because your EV has turned negative; your EV may not be as high as you may have thought, but it still warrants a maximum bet.

Your bad luck is the same as for the rest of us, that is, negative variance within a plus count. The dealer still wins 48% of hands compared to our 43% in positive counts, and our advantage is still linked to our greater percentage of successful splits and double downs in a ten-rich remaining shoe, as well as, the greater chance of receiving naturals. (You might want to ask QFIT about the exact percentage of hands won by dealer/player in plus counts, since 48%/43% is an average, but I believe it is an established fact that the dealer still wins more hands than the player.)

If you find yourself winning many hands in early plus counts, then losing it back in later plus counts, it is not really surprising. You normally will not win all the hands in plus counts, and in fact, you normally will not win the majority of them. If you adopt a strategy of lowering your bet in later plus counts when you have won in earlier plus counts, you will likely "lock in" a certain amount of your winnings, but at the same time, you will be precluding yourself from those rare but wholly desirable situations in which you win all or the majority of hands in plus counts with max bet out.

Don't forget, your chance of winning the hand is no greater at +4 than it is at +10. As for some differences between winning hands in plus counts versus winning hands in negative counts, you'll have to ask QFIT or other expert, as I noted earlier. But I do know that if good cards are coming out, the dealer has just as much chance of getting them as you do, unless you are playing multiple hands.