KO prefered vs hi-low

[golfnut101]

question for experienced players:

The KO book states that KO prefered has virtually same performance as hi-low, and that although hi-low may have a VERY slight edge theoretically(depending on game)practically speaking, it may be the opposite if you take into consideration counting mistakes by the average counter. Bojack mentioned in a thread on hitorstand that a member of the MIT team says by far biggest error he sees in his seminars is counting errors. He went on to say that most of us are not as accurate as we think, therefore, way too many errors made.
So I wonder if a unbalanced system makes up in practice what it gives up in theory. Any comments would be appreciated.

 

[ScottH]

question for experienced players:

The KO book states that KO prefered has virtually same performance as hi-low, and that although hi-low may have a VERY slight edge theoretically(depending on game)practically speaking, it may be the opposite if you take into consideration counting mistakes by the average counter. Bojack mentioned in a thread on hitorstand that a member of the MIT team says by far biggest error he sees in his seminars is counting errors. He went on to say that most of us are not as accurate as we think, therefore, way too many errors made.
So I wonder if a unbalanced system makes up in practice what it gives up in theory. Any comments would be appreciated.

They are the same in actual playing strenght. Hi-Lo might not have much of an advantage over KO in terms of EV, but balanced counts do have other advantages over running count systems.

 

[golfnut101]

They are the same in actual playing strenght. Hi-Lo might not have much of an advantage over KO in terms of EV, but balanced counts do have other advantages over running count systems.

what would those be ?

 

[ScottH]

what would those be ?

With a balanced count one set of indexes will work for all games. With a RC system you need to know a different set for every game. KO preferred has one small set for all games, but they made a lot of compromises to make one set work for all games. If you ever wanted to learn more indexes you would have to learn different ones for different games. I found this out when I was attempting to learn more indexes using my current system of KO.

Also with a balanced count you can start counting shoes that are in mid-shoe. You expect the count to always remain at a TC of 0, so if you join a game you can just start your count at zero and go from there.

These are just a couple, there are probably more. I'll let you know if I think of anything.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

...

Also with a balanced count you can start counting shoes that are in mid-shoe. You expect the count to always remain at a TC of 0, so if you join a game you can just start your count at zero and go from there....

Hold the phone there, in another thread we came to a conclusion that it doesn't work very well that way. What you have to do is pretend the dealt cards are behind the cut card and are yet to be dealt (and never will be dealt) when calculating your true count. So all you are doing is half-shoeing yourself by starting a count mid-shoe.

I've never used KO but I have used BRH-1 which is a level 3 unbalanced count. In a shoe game the errors caused by the unbalance can become pretty severe, especially in a game with deep pen which is what we're always looking for anyway. The biggest reason I can think of not to use an unbalanced system on a shoe game is the difficulty in Wonging in/out with it. Sure you can true count adjust an unbalanced system, but you end up having to do the same deck estimation and division anyway so why not use a balanced system and get all the other benefits of it?

 

[golfnut101]

wonging

Hey Monkey

thnx for the reply. I have not attempted to back count yet(same as wonging?), but, if I count from the beginning of a shoe & then jump in, what would the difference be ?
As well, KO prefered does perform well in a 6d game. What errors would you be talking about with your previously used system ? ScottH, as far as indices go, the pct of plays you make by learning extra indices that are not mentioned in KO book is so small, that unless you are laying down big bets consistently and often, they really are not important(see Snyders comments on this on his site)But, I am a rook, so this is why I ask, and am very appreciative for the feedback guys !

 

[ScottH]

Hey Monkey

thnx for the reply. I have not attempted to back count yet(same as wonging?), but, if I count from the beginning of a shoe & then jump in, what would the difference be ?
As well, KO prefered does perform well in a 6d game. What errors would you be talking about with your previously used system ? ScottH, as far as indices go, the pct of plays you make by learning extra indices that are not mentioned in KO book is so small, that unless you are laying down big bets consistently and often, they really are not important(see Snyders comments on this on his site)But, I am a rook, so this is why I ask, and am very appreciative for the feedback guys !

Learning more indices in certain games, such as 1D and 2D games can be a nice EV boost. Like zengrifter said in his interview, people are being trained to only learn the I-18, but it's really not that hard to learn more.

Automatic Monkey, I read that thread and understood the idea. I was just trying to say that you can wong in mid-shoe easier. I didn't want to go into any detail about how to do it since I don't use a balanced count.

 

[ScottH]

Hold the phone there, in another thread we came to a conclusion that it doesn't work very well that way. What you have to do is pretend the dealt cards are behind the cut card and are yet to be dealt (and never will be dealt) when calculating your true count. So all you are doing is half-shoeing yourself by starting a count mid-shoe.

Isn't joining a game mid-shoe just like playing the game with bad penetration? It seems you'd be better off looking around for a fresh shuffle since it is more liklely you will see more drastic changes in the count on the fresh shoe.

 

[jetace]

You are more likely to see extreme highs (and extreme lows) by starting with a fresh shuffle. But for sake of playing time, I personally think sometimes it is worth it to begin counting a deck that has already been started while you wait for a fresh shuffle to begin elsewhere (this seems to be good for camoflauge as well).

I think the question to be asked is, how deep into the deck would this be reasonable? Any sim coders out there looking for a challenge?