KO or Renzey?

[sagefr0g]

Actually, you don't have to be all that good at estimating decks. Remember that in blackjack, everything we do is an approximation. You can round decks, round indices, round bets and still have results close to computer perfect.

I also play in AC, and the most important skills you need to have there are Wonging out of bad counts and Wonging into good counts (in that order). No count or system or additional degree of accuracy will compensate for not being able to do that well, and to Wong, you need to estimate decks anyway. You will also need to be able to switch between 6D and 8D on the fly.

So being you already know how to use High-Low, I cannot think of any reason for switching from it. You seem to be very good at practicing; just buy a bunch of used decks from a casino and practice deck estimation. You only need to be able to estimate to the nearest deck, if that.

i agree with your consensus Automatic-Monkey. one point though and i'm not expert on this issue but i believe hi/lo counters do have to be careful about rounding indices as some are very exacting and some are wide-border to borrow a phrase. example of one that is very exacting. the indice for standing versus hiting 16v10 .
best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[sagefr0g]

That's not what I have heard.

4-8 decks remain: estimate to nearest full deck
1.5-3.5 decks remain: estimate to nearest half deck
.25-1.25 decks remain: estimate to nearest quarter deck

Scott i don't think that approach is considered a necessity. i believe it is for gleaning more power from the system.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[sagefr0g]

The only difference in KO is that the 7 is +1 instead of 0. In both KO and Hi-Lo you have to keep a running count, but in KO you dont have to do any math with that number. Also, in KO you dont have to estimate decks remaining. Although those 2 things may not be too hard, it is more difficult to do it than not to do it. Also, most of the indices are at the same number in KO, so it's no problem to memorize the "I-18".

the fact that one doesn't determine the true count as the number of decks dealt change was another factor that influenced my decision to go with hi/lo over the unbalanced counts. in my research of the unbalanced counts it was stated by one of the unbalanced count afficionado's that the accuracy of the determination of the actual advantage falls off the further you get from the equivalent true count for hi/lo of +2. they further stated that this wasn't so much of a problem since most of your advantage play will infact be at the hi/lo equivalent of tc = +2 . i found that outlook to be a bit less than what i was looking for in a count system. but i realize there are various levels of the unbalanced count from k0 rookie to ko preferred that i believe go a long way to address this issue.
best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[ReidDeCardes]

KO vs. hilo

I wanted to give my 2 cents on the topic. I'm a casual counter who uses hilo. I'm decent at it, but the casinos are not shaking in their boots when I buy in!

If you don't like using negative numbers, KO suggests raising the initial count to 0.

If you switch between games that use a different number of decks you must change your inital count with KO. That could be a consideration.

As was said before, hilo is very standard and therefore there is more info out there.

In Atlantic City there are 6 deck games, not just 8 deck games. I believe the Borgata has 6 deck games for $10 during weekdays.

I found that estimating the number of decks left is easy, and I don't have great vision! Also the division is easy, it just needs to be rounded down.

At the end of the day, its whatever is easier for you and will help you not look like you are counting. I tend to buy books and originally was learning KO. I like it but felt that hilo made sense for me.

Oh, and I wouldn't split 10s in AC at a low stakes table! The other players will definately point it out. I even got "advice" because I stood on 16 vs. 10. I decided not to mention that the count was positive and therefore was the correct play!

Best of luck.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Don't believe anything you hear!

That's not what I have heard.

4-8 decks remain: estimate to nearest full deck
1.5-3.5 decks remain: estimate to nearest half deck
.25-1.25 decks remain: estimate to nearest quarter deck

Wow man that's a good one! Pen below 1.25D in Atlantic City!:laugh:

Really though I just wanted to put this in perspective, if you or anyone is put off by balanced counts for fear of needing extreme deck estimation. I did a sim of some real AC conditions (8D, 1.6D pen) using High-Low, Wonging out at -1, 1-12 spread, using different precisions of deck estimation for true count conversion.

Estimate to exact card- SCORE=41.04
Estimate to quarter deck- SCORE=40.93
Estimate to half deck- SCORE=40.38
Estimate to full deck- SCORE=39.57

So as you see it does make a difference, but only by a couple of percent. You will get a bigger gain from switching to a level 2 count, using a bigger spread, backcounting, or even better, getting out of AC and finding a game with LS!

 

[ScottH]

Wow man that's a good one! Pen below 1.25D in Atlantic City!:laugh:

Really though I just wanted to put this in perspective, if you or anyone is put off by balanced counts for fear of needing extreme deck estimation. I did a sim of some real AC conditions (8D, 1.6D pen) using High-Low, Wonging out at -1, 1-12 spread, using different precisions of deck estimation for true count conversion.

Estimate to exact card- SCORE=41.04
Estimate to quarter deck- SCORE=40.93
Estimate to half deck- SCORE=40.38
Estimate to full deck- SCORE=39.57

So as you see it does make a difference, but only by a couple of percent. You will get a bigger gain from switching to a level 2 count, using a bigger spread, backcounting, or even better, getting out of AC and finding a game with LS!

The difference is small only when referring to 8 or 6 decks. What about when you're playing a 2-deck game? Are you still going to be estimating to the nearest full deck? I hope not...

I know that you understand that you need to be more accurate when there are fewer decks, but I have a feeling many players that think Hi-Lo is easier than KO dont. They think it is super easy because they probably do estimate to the nearest deck, which doesn't seem sufficient to me in games with 4 decks or less.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

The difference is small only when referring to 8 or 6 decks. What about when you're playing a 2-deck game? Are you still going to be estimating to the nearest full deck? I hope not...

I know that you understand that you need to be more accurate when there are fewer decks, but I have a feeling many players that think Hi-Lo is easier than KO dont. They think it is super easy because they probably do estimate to the nearest deck, which doesn't seem sufficient to me in games with 4 decks or less.

Oh sure I agree completely. The original poster was talking specifically about AC, where there are no pitch games and almost everything is 8D. The only way to beat those games with counting is with aggressive Wonging, and that's a little easier to do with a balanced count. For SD and DD I use unbalanced, because there isn't much of an advantage to true counting there and I'm terrible at deck estimation, not prepared to do it to a quarter or eighth deck.

 

[sagefr0g]

The difference is small only when referring to 8 or 6 decks. What about when you're playing a 2-deck game? Are you still going to be estimating to the nearest full deck? I hope not...

I know that you understand that you need to be more accurate when there are fewer decks, but I have a feeling many players that think Hi-Lo is easier than KO dont. They think it is super easy because they probably do estimate to the nearest deck, which doesn't seem sufficient to me in games with 4 decks or less.

so Scott are you implying that using hi/lo with full deck estimation in the two deck game or four deck game is less powerful than an unbalanced count? i don't know the answer to that implication but i'd guess that it would still be a neck to neck horse race.

best regards,
sagefr0g

 

[ScottH]

so Scott are you implying that using hi/lo with full deck estimation in the two deck game or four deck game is less powerful than an unbalanced count? i don't know the answer to that implication but i'd guess that it would still be a neck to neck horse race.

best regards,
sagefr0g

Well, it already IS a neck to neck horse race, so that is what I am implying. I'm not completely sure, but like I said I don't think rounding to the nearest deck is sufficient in 2 deck games. Someone else would have to confirm or deny this since I am only speculating.

 

[Sonny]

I'm not completely sure, but like I said I don't think rounding to the nearest deck is sufficient in 2 deck games.

Rounding to the nearest deck in a DD game, or even SD game, is perfectly sufficient. You will still have a good advantage playing this way. However, most players find it very easy to use half-decks which will improve the performance. Full-deck estimation is fine, but smaller is better.

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

Rounding to the nearest deck in a DD game, or even SD game, is perfectly sufficient. You will still have a good advantage playing this way. However, most players find it very easy to use half-decks which will improve the performance. Full-deck estimation is fine, but smaller is better.

-Sonny-

Stanford Wong writes about single deck and hi/lo in Professional Blackjack. i'll paraphrase what he states for the case of single deck.
the idea is that if you have some RC and say about a half deck left to be dealt that you would figure your TC = (RC divided by 1/2) which would be the same thing as TC = 2RC . or lets say 1/3 deck is left to be dealt then TC = 3RC. so Wong does talk about computing the TC by fractions of a deck for single deck.
if you went full deck estimation for single deck wouldn't that mean you'd essentially be going by RC = TC . if so then as you got further into the deck you'd be under estimating the TC fairly significantly wouldn't you. half way through the deck would be under estimating by a factor of two.
but anyway how does such a consideration bode for KO? maybe i'm missing something here but i would think that KO and hi/lo using full deck estimation for single deck would be a neck to neck horse race but if one was using a fractions of the deck hi/lo should be signifcantly more effective than KO.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[avs21]

If you use Hi-lo on SD with full deck estimation KO I think would do better since for BS deviations using Full deck estimation is not sufficient. However comparing Half deck vs quarter deck there isn't a big difference between the two. Correct me if this stat is wrong
In SD game full deck estimation vs half deck you will have extra .2-.3 adv with half deck estimation just from BS deviations alone compared to FD estimation. RC I think is fine for betting purposes, but not BS deviations for the last deck.

 

[ScottH]

Rounding to the nearest deck in a DD game, or even SD game, is perfectly sufficient. You will still have a good advantage playing this way. However, most players find it very easy to use half-decks which will improve the performance. Full-deck estimation is fine, but smaller is better.

-Sonny-

Do you have any numbers comparing the EV in both cases? What would be the difference in EV between playing a 2-deck game using TC to the nearest deck vs TC to the nearest half deck from 1.5-2 and nearest 1/4 deck from 1.25 decks and lower.

 

[sagefr0g]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sagefr0g
.........
i believe studies have show hi/lo is a bit more powerful.
the bulk of the literature Griffin, Schlesinger, Wong, May, Revere, Humble & Cooper and even Vancura & Fuchs, Snyder and Renzy works seem to always use it as a referance point.
just my opinion your mileage may vary.
best regards,
mr fr0g

Hi-Lo and KO are VERY close in strenth. With an occasional TC error using Hi-L0, KO will be equal if not better than Hi-Lo.

don't mean to beat a dead horse here just want to solidify a point i've been trying to make.
i believe the link below helps make the point i was trying to make above:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=2602

note the difficulties KO practitioners are experiencing correlating the illustrious 18 with KO. difficulties such as these are not found with hi/lo . these are the types of problems one is more likely to run into with counts such as ko, red7 and kiss . so much of the literature is almost based on hi/lo

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[BJLover]

hi there shadroch,what kind of computer training software did you use??
on the look out for some different programs,thanks