KO sim for more indices ....

[Boatman117]

I would be very appreciative if someone could run and post a KO sim for indices for me,

I DO have the book, and have picked up and absorbed a wealth of information on here as well.

All of the indices are not listed in the book however, once the deck goes very negative.

I know not to play at negative counts but thats not always feasable ...

So I would like to know the proper plays at those times ....

Particularly for splits, and hard and soft doubles.

I have been coming up with a few things on my own but need something accurate to check them against .....

Thanks for any responses and work you do ...

Rules:
6d
S17
DOA
DAS
RSA
RHA
LS
INS

Thanks again

 

[FLASH1296]

If you are stuck using K.O I suggest buying the "World's Greatest Blackjack Simulation - K.O. Edition" by John Auston.

Purchase this via bj21.com

This book will provide you with sim'd results for almost every possible situation (rules and penetration) and various common bet spreads.
This is done in a comprehensive fashion giving you the Desirability Index, Risk of Ruin, earnings per 100 hands, standard deviation, etc. etc.

This is a small series of books done for some of the more popular counts e.g. Zen, Advanced Omega II.

 

[FLASH1296]

Incidentally, there is, in Blackjack Attack, quite a few sim's comparing the performance of various counts that one can employ.

In nearly all cases, K.O. performs as the weakest count that was so much as considered for inclusion.

Also it has been written about, ad lib, re: the authors of K.O. presented their data in a manner that slanted the results in favor of their count.

 

[FLASH1296]

Before I get "flamed" I need to apologize in advance, as I can see
where some people will view what I posted as being arrogant or hostile.

I am sorry; but I empathize with those who adopt a system
like K.O. and proceed to get hammered by the casinos.

I just despise systems that are weak and are sold with
false or misleading statements about their power.

 

[Boatman117]

If you are stuck using K.O I suggest buying the "World's Greatest Blackjack Simulation - K.O. Edition" by John Auston.

Purchase this via bj21.com

This book will provide you with sim'd results for almost every possible situation (rules and penetration) and various common bet spreads.
This is done in a comprehensive fashion giving you the Desirability Index, Risk of Ruin, earnings per 100 hands, standard deviation, etc. etc.

This is a small series of books done for some of the more popular counts e.g. Zen, Advanced Omega II.

Thanks a lot !!

I didn't know about this book

I do appreciate your responses.

 

[QFIT]

Before I get "flamed" I need to apologize in advance, as I can see
where some people will view what I posted as being arrogant or hostile.

I am sorry; but I empathize with those who adopt a system
like K.O. and proceed to get hammered by the casinos.

I just despise systems that are weak and are sold with
false or misleading statements about their power.

KO Full is just as strong as HiLo.

 

[FLASH1296]

Hi-Opt is superior to K.O.

Without doing any simulations it is obvious on the face of it that this system cannot be powerful.
Not only is the system unbalanced but it unbalances itself by the inclusion of both Deuces and Sevens;
the two "low" cards that have the weakest "effect of removal" on a Card Counter's advantage.

The sims done by the experts show that K.O. is not a strong performer.

 

[QFIT]

That is only true if you believe the authors !

L.O.L.

The sims done by the experts always show that K.O. is not a strong performer.

Sorry, you are incorrect. KO-Full is just as strong as HiLo.

 

[FLASH1296]

The Facts, not the Opinions.

Neither of us are mathematicians, but ...

I direct you, (and all those who have a vested interest in believing that K.O. is a good choice, (to Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition, by Don Schlesinger.

See Ch. 9 pp.151 - 183, most specifically the charts which present the data comparing K.O. with Hi-Lo (and others) tables 9.11 to 9.28.

You have been misled I think.
The results are not very close.

 

[QFIT]

Neither of us are mathematicians, but ...

I direct you, (and all those who have a vested interest in believing that K.O. is a good choice, (to Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition, by Don Schlesinger.

See Ch. 9 pp.151 - 183, most specifically the charts which present the data comparing K.O. with Hi-Lo (and others) tables 9.11 to 9.28.

You have been misled I think.
The results are not very close.

You are directing me to a book to which I contributed 80-some pages. In fact I have numbered copy #3. That chapter compares KO Preferred which uses compromise indexes. KO using the same, correct indexes as HiLo is just as good as HiLo. None of the old-timers, including me, believed this at first. But modern sims bear it out.

 

[FLASH1296]

Now that is "An equine of a variant hue"*

I see what you are saying.

I stand corrected.

I am glad that the disparity has been clarified.

I too am an old-timer, and I too AM surprised.


* "A Horse of a Different Color"

 

[hhrb]

You are directing me to a book to which I contributed 80-some pages. In fact I have numbered copy #3. That chapter compares KO Preferred which uses compromise indexes. KO using the same, correct indexes as HiLo is just as good as HiLo. None of the old-timers, including me, believed this at first. But modern sims bear it out.

Hi,

where can I get those “same, correct HiLo-Indexes” for KO? Could you post them here (especially for 6D)?

Thank you very, very much in advance
hhrb

 

[QFIT]

Hi,

where can I get those “same, correct HiLo-Indexes” for KO? Could you post them here (especially for 6D)?

Thank you very, very much in advance
hhrb

Many are in the back of the KO book.

 

[hhrb]

Many are in the back of the KO book.

Yes, I know. But I would like to learn some more indexes. Maybe its possible to outperform HiLo?

hhrb

 

[EasyRhino]

Do we know WHY Ko-full performs as good as or better than hi-lo? Is it because the 7 is reckoned?

 

[QFIT]

Do we know WHY Ko-full performs as good as or better than hi-lo? Is it because the 7 is reckoned?

Basically, yes. Counting the seven improves playing efficiency, betting correlation and insurance correlation. It is also helped by the fact that more precise betting is possible with running counts in unbalanced systems.

 

[KOLAN]

downloadet casino verite it is free
http://www.qfit.com/downloads.htm

 

[jack.jackson]

Basically, yes. Counting the seven improves playing efficiency, betting correlation and insurance correlation. It is also helped by the fact that more precise betting is possible with running counts in unbalanced systems.

I use 3 RC index'ex, per every 1/2 deck, for MD, with my balanced count.

Two, per every 1/4 deck, in single and double.

 

[Mimosine]

Without doing any simulations it is obvious on the face of it that this system cannot be powerful.
Not only is the system unbalanced but it unbalances itself by the inclusion of both Deuces and Sevens;
the two "low" cards that have the weakest "effect of removal" on a Card Counter's advantage.

The sims done by the experts show that K.O. is not a strong performer.

could you use a larger, uglier font? We would all appreciate it.

*hmm*

Why is it OBVIOUS that an unbalanced count would be worse than a balanced count??

Including more cards IS BETTER for a count not worse....

the two cards that have the weakest effect are 8 and 9, thus most systems ignore them. 7 and 2 are significant compared to 8 and 9.

all this supposition about something being obvious, even by the crudest back of the envelope calculation is clear - that you are wrong.

I use UBZ, it performs far better than HiLo and is on par with balanced Level II counts like Zen and Mentor. As proved by my sims, others, and BJAII. But of course it can't be good, it is unbalanced. Jeeze this is the oldest debate in the book, Isn't the Red 7 count pretty damn close to HiLo?

Saying that KO is an "underpowered" count, or to accuse the authors of misleading people is really quite crap.

Where is your published blackjack book? or credentials that make you feel qualified to say this stuff?

 

[FLASH1296]

O.K. O.K.
I am sorry.
I apologize.

I have, once again, engaged my keyboard without benefit of unaltered consciousness.

I know that, at times, I am burdensome.
In my more insightful moments, I am pleased
that there are sufficiently gracious people here
to abide by my occasional lapses. Their forbearance
is very much appreciated.