KO Question

[A.L.F.]

Seasons Greetings:

I'm using the Full KO 6D matrix and one thing I've never understood/reconciled is why KO uses only the generic version of Basic Strategy on all games regardless of the number of decks being played.

It seems to me, that an additional advantage could be gained by using the 6D, S17, DAS, NS, Peek version available on this site, with the following seven extra BS plays:

2,2 vs 2: split
2,2 vs 3: split
3,3 vs 2: split
3,3 vs 3: split
4,4 vs 5: split
4,4 vs 6: split
6,6 vs 2: split

The generic version of KO BS would not have a player make these plays regardless of the number of decks in play.

Does anyone else--either currently using the KO Full Matrix or not--think that it would be a wise decision to incorporate these 7 additional plays into one's game when using the Full KO matrix for 6 decks? That is, is tweeking KO like this a good thing?

Best regards,

Al F.

 

[SystemsTrader]

I think the KO authors wrote the book with the intent on creating a one size fits all easy system anybody can use without a lot of memorization. You should however use the proper basic strategy for each game you play against and not their generic version.

 

[ChefJJ]

I think the KO authors wrote the book with the intent on creating a one size fits all easy system anybody can use without a lot of memorization. You should however use the proper basic strategy for each game you play against and not their generic version.

I agree.

 

[FLASH1296]

Authors tend to downplay and sometimes ignore pair-splits because they occur less often than other hands, so they deem them unimportant.

I disagree as pair splits involve at least double your money being at risk.

 

[ChefJJ]

Authors tend to downplay and sometimes ignore pair-splits because they occur less often than other hands, so they deem them unimportant.

I disagree as pair splits involve at least double your money being at risk.

That's not the point, FLASH. The KO authors used a generic BS table, but that was not the crux of the book...the system is. This isn't an indices issue, but rather a question concerning the BS table.

You should read K-O Blackjack :grin:

good luck

 

[FLASH1296]

K.o.

I have some disdain for any author who, for fame and fortune, publish a book like K.O. with unbalanced counts and generic strategies, etc. At least the book provides an upgraded version of the K.O. Count, but the emphasis remains upon simplicity and ease of use. K.O., on balance, is not a terrible count to learn, for shoe games, it just isn't a strong count; and therein lies the crux of the problem.

Books that are published with objectively awful or even irrational advice, of course, should be publicly drawn and quartered and their parts left to rot for all to view.

For (dare I say) "most" people, effective, profitable, low-risk, card counting is beyond their cognitive, emotional, and financial limitations.

Pandering to the bottomless demand that society has for "get rich quick" schemes, and fueled by hollywood distortions like the recent film - "21", there will always be publishers willing to rationalize their promulgation of books that de-emphasize or ignore the peril and jeopardy generated by amateurs engaging in high-risk behavior i.e. gambling' with minimal advantage. If the book was on sky-diving or deep-sea diving it would focus heavily on how to find professional instruction, but no law suits threaten a publisher for spreading bad or borderline high-risk advice re: one's assets.

A "One Size Fits All" (minimalist) approach to BJ leaves one with a handy-dandy easy to learn and apply method that reduces the player's advantage while increasing the power of the left side of the normal curve placing our intrepid recreational player ever more at the mercy of the (demon bitch goddess) FLUX.

 

[ChefJJ]

Flash, you are truly amazing. :flame:

 

[blackchipjim]

ko

I will agree will the chefjj you are trully a math genius too.