KO Full and the Illustrious 18

#1
I started learning all the 6D KO Full indices. I noticed that the book doesn't provide numbers for all of the Illustrious 18 deviations. I decided to make my own numbers for the missing deviations. Please double check me.

10,10 v 5 = +10
10,10 v 6 = +4
12 v 5 = -19
12 v 6 = -13
13 v 3 = -19

The deviations for the 12s and 13 really don't matter as I have pretty much dedicated myself to backcounting recently, but I figured I would knock them out while I was looking up the others.

I came up with the numbers by finding deviations that had the same index number in Blackjack Attack and comparing them to their counterparts in the KO Full matrix. For example, Blackjack Attack (really Professional Blackjack, because that's where Schlesinger gets the reference) lists the deviation for 10,10 v 5 and 16 v 9 at +5. Knock-Out Blackjack lists the 16 v 9 deviation at +10, so that's what I used for 10,10 v 5.

Is this an acceptable method of determination, or will there be errors induced through the conversion from a balanced to an unbalanced system?
 
Last edited:

ScottH

Well-Known Member
#2
Doc said:
I started learning all the 6D KO Full indices. I noticed that the book doesn't provide numbers for all of the Illustrious 18 deviations. I decided to make my own numbers for the missing deviaitons. Please double check me.

10,10 v 5 = +10
10,10 v 6 = +4
12 v 5 = -19
12 v 6 = -13
13 v 3 = -19

The deviations for the 12s and 13 really don't matter as I have pretty much dedicated myself to backcounting recently, but I figured I would knock them out while I was looking up the others.

I came up with the numbers by finding deviations that had the same index number in Blackjack Attack and comparing them to their counterparts in the KO Full matrix. For example, Blackjack Attack (really Professional Blackjack, because that's where Schlesinger gets the reference) lists the deviation for 10,10 v 5 and 16 v 9 at +5. Knock-Out Blackjack lists the 16 v 9 deviation at +10, so that's what I used for 10,10 v 5.

Is this an acceptable method of determination, or will there be errors induced through the conversion from a balanced to an unbalanced system?
According to the KO book, 12 vs 4,5,6 and 13 vs 2,3 you deviate at the IRC. I also believe that you split tens vs both 5 and 6 at +4 (pivot point).
 

avs21

Well-Known Member
#3
I did a Sim I got this for KO six deck
10,10 vs 5= +7
10, 10 vs 5= +6


There shouldn't be that big of gap of +6 between splitting 10's vs 5's or 6's for the index numbers.
 
#4
According to the KO book, 12 vs 4,5,6 and 13 vs 2,3 you deviate at the IRC. I also believe that you split tens vs both 5 and 6 at +4 (pivot point).
I was unable to find any reference to splitting 10s in the book. If you could point me to the correct page, I would appreciate it. The deviation at the IRC is suggested for 12 v 4,5,6 and 13 v 2,3 in the KO preferred version. I was using the "Full" matrix on page 164. Should I just use the IRC for 12 v 5,6 and 13 v 3 since they don't have their own specified deviation in the KO "Full" matrix on page 164?

There shouldn't be that big of gap of +6 between splitting 10's vs 5's or 6's for the index numbers.
Is this error just a function of compounded rounding errors when switching from the true count adjuted values presented for Hi-Lo in Blackjack Attack to running count indices for KO, or is there something fundamentally wrong with my method?

Thank you both for your answers. I think I'm just going to have to bite the bullet and finally buy some good BJ simulation software.
 

ScottH

Well-Known Member
#5
They dont suggest splitting tens in the book because it can be a giveaway that you are counting. But if you have a good act then you can split away! Even top players such as zengrifter advocate splitting tens, but i think that most counters stay away from the play. Personally, I like to split them, but it's really up to you. There are pros and cons to making the play.
 

avs21

Well-Known Member
#6
Sorry I Don't know , but I am sure someone else on this board will know. I usually just run sims. All the counting sysyems I have seen the indexes between Splitting 10's vs 5's and 6's usually have the same number or almost the same. Example of few sysyems indexes for splitting tens

Omega II: 9,8
Kiss Stage III: 24,24
 
#7
avs21 said:
Sorry I Don't know , but I am sure someone else on this board will know. I usually just run sims. All the counting sysyems I have seen the indexes between Splitting 10's vs 5's and 6's usually have the same number or almost the same. Example of few sysyems indexes for splitting tens
I use the same index for splitting 10s against 5-6 AND doubling A9 vs. same. zg
 

Mikeaber

Well-Known Member
#8
12's with KO Full

Okay, I'm confused. Consider 6-deck with an IRC of -20. With a 6-deck game, according to KO Full on pp164, you are supposed to deviate at -7 if you have 12 and the dealer has 4.

Is this telling us that we should HIT any time the count is -7 or less? Basic Strategy (Generic on pp28) definitely gives a STAND on 12 vs 4. With the IRC being -20 on the first hand of a shoe, that would mean that you would always hit the damn 12 against a 4 until the count reached -7! That doesn't sound right! What am I missing?
 

SystemsTrader

Well-Known Member
#9
Mikeaber said:
Okay, I'm confused. Consider 6-deck with an IRC of -20. With a 6-deck game, according to KO Full on pp164, you are supposed to deviate at -7 if you have 12 and the dealer has 4.

Is this telling us that we should HIT any time the count is -7 or less? Basic Strategy (Generic on pp28) definitely gives a STAND on 12 vs 4. With the IRC being -20 on the first hand of a shoe, that would mean that you would always hit the damn 12 against a 4 until the count reached -7! That doesn't sound right! What am I missing?
Yes Mike hit those 12 vs 4 below -7. I do it when I do play all. It works more often than not. You will get a lot of strange looks at the table and the occasional comment.
 

rdorange

Well-Known Member
#10
-twenty count?

From what I've been reading on this forum, you shouldn't have to be to concerned with the twelve vs X index play. By the time most counters get a count -20, they have already walked away or they are only betting a single unit and this play won't make a lot of difference. Is this correct?
 

Mikeaber

Well-Known Member
#11
SystemsTrader said:
Yes Mike hit those 12 vs 4 below -7. I do it when I do play all. It works more often than not. You will get a lot of strange looks at the table and the occasional comment.
Okay....I just couldn't believe I was interpreting it correctly.

rdorange said:
From what I've been reading on this forum, you shouldn't have to be to concerned with the twelve vs X index play. By the time most counters get a count -20, they have already walked away or they are only betting a single unit and this play won't make a lot of difference. Is this correct?

Not exactly rdorange. With KO, being an unbalanced system, you start out a fresh shoe with a count of -20. If you counted down the entire shoe, you would end up with a count of +4. 7's are counted as +1 so with 6 decks, there is an increase in the count from -20 to +4 because of the 24 sevens.
 

SystemsTrader

Well-Known Member
#12
rdorange said:
From what I've been reading on this forum, you shouldn't have to be to concerned with the twelve vs X index play. By the time most counters get a count -20, they have already walked away or they are only betting a single unit and this play won't make a lot of difference. Is this correct?
You will never use the 12 v 4 backcounting. It is a negative index and you will only use it during play all.
 

Cass

Well-Known Member
#13
SystemsTrader said:
You will never use the 12 v 4 backcounting. It is a negative index and you will only use it during play all.
Even if the count is just slightly negative it is proper to hit 12v4. It is a very borderline play. It would be hard to completely avoid playing any negative hands at all even with wonging, unless the casino lets you jump in and out of hands.
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#14
SystemsTrader said:
You will never use the 12 v 4 backcounting. It is a negative index and you will only use it during play all.
i suppose this is a point where HI/LO and KO diverge. i normally don't play all where i wong out if at two decks dealt out if the true count is zero or minus one. but the true count often gets to minus one before two decks is dealt so i'm still sitting and playing. thus i often find myself using the 12v4 hit action instead of stand even though i don't play all.

best regards,
mr fr0g :D
 
Last edited:

Mikeaber

Well-Known Member
#15
I played 6 hours this past Saturday evening and didn't get the 12/4 even once! I was just sure that play was going to double my wins :laugh: Six hours of play and only 12 units ahead....man, that ante kills you!
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#16
Mikeaber said:
I played 6 hours this past Saturday evening and didn't get the 12/4 even once! I was just sure that play was going to double my wins :laugh: Six hours of play and only 12 units ahead....man, that ante kills you!
heh heh it's like in boxing you should never try for the knock out punch you jus gotta let it happen :laugh:

12 units up in six hours? good grief man i'm usually dancing the jig when that happens....:celebrate

best regards,
mr fr0g :D
 

Knox

Well-Known Member
#17
For what its worth I start the 6-deck KO count at zero, then work up from there. Then I hardly ever have to work with negative numbers. There are three triggers. The first signals you to start increasing your bets (+16) and to stay on 16 v. 10. Insurance comes at +23, and all of the other index plays where you break from the BS come at +24. I think there are only about 12 matrix plays, mostly related to hard doubling. Unfortunately, the stars don't align that often where you get in an index play situation with the +24 count.

It seems to me that the 12 v. 4 play is omitted for the 6-deck game, and is only for negative counts (i.e. counts less than the initial running count). But I will have to go back and check that when I get home (full matrix). The full matrix plays are said to be not worth the effort to learn, but now that I have the first dozen memorized it would not bother me to learn a few more.
 
Top