KO or Red 7 count

[bjcounter]

How does the KO and red 7 count work? I currently use hilo, but some friends have suggested that I try KO red 7 instead.

 

[21forme]

If you're comfortable with HiLo stick with it. You would have to play for a lifetime or two to notice any difference in EV.

 

[FLASH1296]

21forme is correct, but I hasten to add ...

If you are a very serious player who puts in many hours or who plays
for high stakes you ought to consider a level Two count e.g. The Zen Count.

 

[johndoe]

21forme is correct, but I hasten to add ...

If you are a very serious player who puts in many hours or who plays
for high stakes you ought to consider a level Two count e.g. The Zen Count.

What about a casual player going from primarily shoe games to DD? Is Zen, etc. worth the effort then?

 

[FLASH1296]

All of the level One counts, i.e. Hi-Lo, Red Seven, K.O. are weak when it comes to hand held games.

For DD games you need to move to Level Two.

The best is Hi-Opt II and the second best is Advanced Omega II

However ZEN is powerful enough for ALL BJ games, whether balanced or unbalanced.

 

[callipygian]

How does the KO and red 7 count work?

(1) As everyone else noted, don't go chasing new systems just because they offer some marginal theoretical benefit. An easy system played well is better than a difficult system played poorly.

(2) KO and Red 7 are distinct from Hi-Lo in that they are unbalanced systems - there are more "low" cards than "high" cards, so the count tends to drift upwards. At a certain count, known as the pivot, the RC equals the Hi-Lo TC (there exists mathematical proof for this). Most importantly, at the pivot, the number of decks does not matter. That is, the main advantage of unbalanced counts over balanced counts is that you don't need to do deck estimation or true count conversion. You play with a running count ONLY.

The drawback to unbalanced counts is that as the RC moves away from the pivot, the correlation between RC and TC diverges. This drawback can be minimized by picking a pivot which is close to the major decisions you'll be making - if you're flat betting below TC +3 and jumping to 100 units at TC +4, choose KO (whose pivot is TC +4); if you're flat betting below TC +1 and jumping to 100 units at TC +2, choose Red 7 (whose pivot is TC +2).

In terms of performance, KO and Red7 and Hi-Lo are essentially equal, so if unbalanced counts don't make sense to you, go with Hi-Lo. Likewise, if you can't tell a 6D shoe from an 8D shoe, go with KO or Red 7.

(3) FAQ about unbalanced counts: What should my IRC be? The answer is anything you want it to be. It's completely arbitrary, so long as you adjust all your betting decisions and strategy change indices accordingly.

- I like to start with an IRC such that the RC at the pivot equals the TC at the pivot. So for a 6D game with KO counting, I'd start at -20 so my pivot is +4.
- Some people like to start the count at 0. This means that the pivot is RC +24 on the same game.
- Other people don't like counting negative numbers, so they'll start with an IRC of 100. This means that the pivot is RC +124.

The general rule is:
PivotRC - InitialRC = NumberOfDecks * Imbalance

So if you're playing a Red 7 count with an IRC of -5,809 on a 13-deck shoe, your pivot is ... (highlight between the arrows) -->-5,785<--

 

[SD Padres]

I agree with Flash that KO is weak against pitch games. However, you can true count it and add more indices to make it stronger. Now you have a simple level 1 system that is able to exploit any game.

 

[bjcounter]

21forme is correct, but I hasten to add ...

If you are a very serious player who puts in many hours or who plays
for high stakes you ought to consider a level Two count e.g. The Zen Count.

I don't put in a lot of hours, I practice 3-5 hours a week at home, have for a few years. I don't put in that much time other than the occasional trip, mainly to Vegas which we typically go for 10-14 days where I hit it hard. So no, not a lot of hours.

Nor a high stakes player. When I find a good, good, good game, I'm a green chipper. Typically around my home, red.

I will stick with HiLO. I was just curious as to how the other two counts worked.

 

[Snoman13]

All of the level One counts, i.e. Hi-Lo, Red Seven, K.O. are weak when it comes to hand held games.

For DD games you need to move to Level Two.

The best is Hi-Opt II and the second best is Advanced Omega II

However ZEN is powerful enough for ALL BJ games, whether balanced or unbalanced.

Hey Flash, I was wondering if you had some links to a site or two showing the math that proves KO/REd7/level one counts weak against pitch games?

Not doubting you here, just curious as to how much of a disadvantage it is.

 

[moo321]

Hey Flash, I was wondering if you had some links to a site or two showing the math that proves KO/REd7/level one counts weak against pitch games?

Not doubting you here, just curious as to how much of a disadvantage it is.

It really depends on the game. In a good single deck game, HiOpt2 is going to be about 10-15% better. Not monstrous, but signficant if you're playing a lot of hours.

 

[FLASH1296]

20% +

I will refer you to:

Blackjack Attack, 3rd ed.

page # 171

Comparing Hi-Opt II with Hi-Lo S17 / H17 and three bet

spreads we see that there is a significant 20% difference.

If offered a 20% raise in salary you would pay attention.

 

[Renzey]

I was wondering if you had some links to a site or two showing the math that proves KO/REd7/level one counts weak against pitch games?

It's not so much that level one counts are weak against pitch games, as that unbalanced counts are comparatively weak against pitch games. I believe that's primarily because of the almost non-existent PE (playing efficiency) of unbalanced counts in negative situations since you're essentially "playing all" -- and with a lower betting spread. Also, unbalanced counts really should have a separate set of indices for pitch play, and I think most players don't go to that extent.

Page 194 of Bluebook II has a chart showing how the EV of unbalanced counts (used-out-of-the-box) fall off a bit when compared with similarly card-tagged balanced systems. Admittedly, the sims were run for only a few hundred million hands each, but the standard error was 0.01%.

 

[moo321]

I will refer you to:

Blackjack Attack, 3rd ed.

page # 171

Comparing Hi-Opt II with Hi-Lo S17 / H17 and three bet

spreads we see that there is a significant 20% difference.

If offered a 20% raise in salary you would pay attention.

Its penetration dependent as well. The deeper the pen, the bigger the difference.

 

[hhrb]

21forme is correct, but I hasten to add ...

If you are a very serious player who puts in many hours or who plays
for high stakes you ought to consider a level Two count e.g. The Zen Count.

Hi FLASH1296,

I agree with this.
A simple question: If we double the tags of Red 7 (2-A) we graduate from

RED 7
1,1,1,1,1,0.5,0,0,-1,-1 to

RED 7 (doubled)
2,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2,-2

The RED 7 DOUBLED is a level-2 count and the same as

BRH-0
2,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2,-2

It must be stronger than the RED 7 "simple" and is still pretty easy. What do you think: does it pay to generate full index numbers for this "new" RED 7? Perhaps this RED 7 DOUBLED outperforms KO FULL.

Thanks for any comments

hhrb

 

[Renzey]

Hi FLASH1296,

If we double the tags of Red 7 (2-A) we graduate from

RED 7
1,1,1,1,1,0.5,0,0,-1,-1 to

RED 7 (doubled)
2,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2,-2

It must be stronger than the RED 7 "simple". Does it pay to generate full index numbers for this "new" RED 7?

The actual RED 7 "simple" is:
...2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9...10....A
...1....1....1....1....1...0/1..0....0...-1...-1
It counts only half the 7's, and carries a BC of 97.2% and a PE of 53.1%.

Going to the RED 7 "double" would produce:
...2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9...10....A
...2....2....2....2....2....1....0....0...-1...-1
with a BC of 98.4% and a PE of 54.2%

It would be a bit stronger that the RED 7 "simple". However, you could achieve exactly the same thing by modifying the RED 7 "simple" to count all the 7's as plus a half point.
It's not as tough as it might seem if you simply substitute the letter "H" for "and-a-half". Thus, if the cards came out.............

...6....10...4....7....3....9....10...5....7....6; your R/C would run;
...7.....6....7...7H..8H..8H...7H..8H...9...10 etc.

You'll have an "H" in your R/C roughly half the time, but no cards are counted as 2 points. You can do the same with the deuces when using KISS III (to produce 97.5% BC and 56.2% PE), and I believe you'd use the same basic table of index numbers for all four systems -- except that the true level 2 versions would double all the indices.

 

[Mimosine]

if you're going to go to an unbalanced level 2 then you should use UBZ as defined by the illustrious members of this board in a sticky above.

simply doubling all the values really doesn't do anything to differentiate the value to the player (and the house) the different cards.

A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,T
-1,1,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2


now you have a count that is almost as effective as Zen & Mentor, not a little more effective than KO Full.

 

[zengrifter]

What about a casual player going from primarily shoe games to DD? Is Zen, etc. worth the effort then?

Casual player NO - but perhaps stay with HL and add more +indices. zg

 

[hhrb]

if you're going to go to an unbalanced level 2 then you should use UBZ as defined by the illustrious members of this board in a sticky above.

simply doubling all the values really doesn't do anything to differentiate the value to the player (and the house) the different cards.

A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,T
-1,1,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2


now you have a count that is almost as effective as Zen & Mentor, not a little more effective than KO Full.

Mimosine,

The books teach us: the power of unbalanced counts in shoe games is essentially determined by BC, not so much by PE and IC. So why choose UBZ2 with BC=0.966? Sorry Mimo, of course I know the impressive work of the illustrious members of this board in the sticky UBZ2. I just want to understand the power of BC and the BC of UBZ2 is pretty low.

BC Unbalanced Counts (2-A)
0.995: Uston SS (2,2,2,3,2,1,0,-1,-2,-2)
0.989: Brh-1 (1,2,2,3,2,1,0,0,-2,-2)
0.984: Brh-0 (2,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2,-2)
0.984: Red 7 ( all 7’s 0.5) (1,1,1,1,1,0.5,0,0,-1,-1)
0.975: KO (1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,-1,-1)
0.975: Kiss 3 (all 2’s 0.5) (0.5,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,-1,-1)
0.966: UBZ2 (1,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2,-1)

Thanks for any comments

hhrb

 

[petroni]

(1) Como todos los demás señalaron, no hay que buscar nuevos sistemas sólo porque ofrecen algún beneficio teórico marginal. Un sistema fácil bien jugado es mejor que un sistema difícil mal jugado.

(2) KO y Red 7 se diferencian de Hi-Lo en que son sistemas desequilibrados: hay más cartas "bajas" que "altas", por lo que el conteo tiende a aumentar. En un conteo determinado, conocido como pivote, el RC es igual al TC Hi-Lo (existe una prueba matemática de esto). Lo más importante es que, en el pivote, el número de mazos no importa. Es decir, la principal ventaja de los conteos desequilibrados sobre los conteos equilibrados es que no es necesario hacer una estimación de mazos ni una conversión de conteos reales. Se juega SÓLO con un conteo continuo.

El inconveniente de los conteos desequilibrados es que, a medida que el RC se aleja del pivote, la correlación entre el RC y el TC diverge. Este inconveniente se puede minimizar eligiendo un pivote que esté cerca de las decisiones principales que tomará: si está apostando por debajo de TC +3 y saltando a 100 unidades en TC +4, elija KO (cuyo pivote es TC +4); si está apostando por debajo de TC +1 y saltando a 100 unidades en TC +2, elija Red 7 (cuyo pivote es TC +2).

En términos de rendimiento, KO, Red7 y Hi-Lo son básicamente iguales, por lo que si los conteos desequilibrados no tienen sentido para usted, elija Hi-Lo. Del mismo modo, si no puede distinguir una zapatilla 6D de una 8D, elija KO o Red 7.

(3) Preguntas frecuentes sobre recuentos desequilibrados: ¿Cuál debería ser mi IRC? La respuesta es la que desee. Es completamente arbitrario, siempre y cuando ajuste todas sus decisiones de apuestas y los índices de cambio de estrategia en consecuencia .

- Me gusta empezar con un IRC de modo que el RC en el pivote sea igual al TC en el pivote. Por lo tanto, para un juego de 6D con conteo de KO, comenzaría en -20, por lo que mi pivote sería +4.
- A algunas personas les gusta comenzar el conteo en 0. Esto significa que el pivote es RC +24 en el mismo juego.
- A otras personas no les gusta contar números negativos, por lo que comenzarán con un IRC de 100. Esto significa que el pivote es RC +124.

La regla general es:
PivotRC - InitialRC = NumberOfDecks * Desequilibrio

Entonces, si estás jugando un conteo de 7 rojos con un IRC de -5,809 en un zapato de 13 mazos, tu pivote es... (resaltado entre las flechas) --> -5,785 <--

YIn the KO book uses a CRI - 20 the pivot is 0 for 6 shoes.

 

[DSchles]

You realize you're responding to a thread from 15 years ago!!

Don