Switch from KO Hard to Justify

[aslan]

I've been looking for a good reason to switch from KO to Hi-lo or other count. Actually, as I study the KO to true count chart it seems like KO is conservative if nothing else. The key count for beginning to ramp up one's betting comes late when fewer decks have been played and the pivot point of +4 comes at a true count of +4, although early if one is used to a more conservative +5 before going to max bet. I'm now beginning to believe again that improvement over KO will be very modest if not nonexistent in most real-life play of 6-deck games where positive counts are likely to come 3 decks or more into the shoe. They didn't tell me when I learned KO that I would most likely remain a KO player for life. Can KO be used in team play effectively? That's about the only preteext I can find for making a switch.

 

[21forme]

I agree with you. I've thought about switching, and every time I do, I can't come up with a good reason to switch.

I sometimes play on a "mini-team" with one other. We share bankroll and split profits/losses when we play together. He uses a different count. It works fine, but depends on what kind of team play you mean.

 

[blackchipjim]

switcharoo

I don't know at what point a person would switch from one to the other on systems. Would you wait until you get your butt kicked time after time and finally switch in disgust or what. I have to consider the system and the person using it. I myself like the system and I just started to use the tko version. I cannot really comment on the ko system even though I've used it for a little over year. I think personnally it will take me a little while longer and more tweaking to go full bust out on it. All in All I like it and it fits my style of play and level of play. blackchipjim

 

[Canceler]

Just my silly observation...

I wonder about these people who agonize over whether one system is microscopically better than another one. Specifically, I wonder if they always bet enough during the high counts. If they don’t, then all this theoretical BS (not basic strategy) is worthless.

Not trying to sound superior here; I’m guilty myself.

 

[sagefr0g]

in choosing a blackjack counting system certain attributes were key for me.
ease of use, effectiveness, popularity and would it engender an understanding of what the heck it was that your doing in the first place.
hi/lo fit the bill in all of these areas.
the one attribute that all of the systems seem to be cursed with is the requirement that the user maintains a "count" lol..... of course that is the case after all we are talking card counting here .
but it is the maintaining of some sort of count that i personally find the most disagreeable about any of the systems. that in a nutshell is the reason i've become so obsessed with working out a way to manage the 'fuzzy' count.
the goal started out to try and develope skill in being able to recognize when an advantage exists. that really isn't very difficult. the biggest challenge at this point is accurate bet sizing for the percieved advantage.
the biggest step forward that i've realized for an easy way to maintain a realization of just where you are advantage wise (at least your perception of said advantage) with out maintaining a count is simply knowing what level of betting you have decided to allow according to a percieved advantage. but there is a problem with that. problem being that in the first place what you are really doing with the fuzzy count is trying to as skillfully as you can to mimic what a orthodox hi/lo count simulation that affords an advantage does.
within such a simulation exists a range of RC's that yield a TC according to how many decks are left to be dealt. there in lay the problem for fuzzy counting because what happens is you get 'lost' in that range of RC's for which you would not get 'lost' in if you were maintaining an acurrate RC in the first place lol . so thats sort of where i'm at right now with the fuzzy count is trying to find an easy way to overcome this range of RC's that complicate the fuzzy count's effectiveness. looking for an epifany that will beat that lol. it's kind of fun in an exasperating way :cat:

 

[RJT]

Can KO be used in team play effectively? That's about the only preteext I can find for making a switch.

Yes KO can and has been used effectively for team play, the only reason to switch is if you wanted to pursue some form of shuffle tracking.

RJT.

 

[aslan]

I agree with you. I've thought about switching, and every time I do, I can't come up with a good reason to switch.

I sometimes play on a "mini-team" with one other. We share bankroll and split profits/losses when we play together. He uses a different count. It works fine, but depends on what kind of team play you mean.

Two or more persons counting/backcounting/flatbetting at different tables and signaling in a BP is what I had in mind.

 

[aslan]

I wonder about these people who agonize over whether one system is microscopically better than another one. Specifically, I wonder if they always bet enough during the high counts. If they don’t, then all this theoretical BS (not basic strategy) is worthless.

Not trying to sound superior here; I’m guilty myself.

I have a greater problem keeping my bets down to recommended levels during high counts. Encounters with negative variance is helping me correct this bad habit. :laugh:

 

[aslan]

...that in a nutshell is the reason i've become so obsessed with working out a way to manage the 'fuzzy' count....:cat:

I've never had a real handle on what constitutes a fuzzy count. Sometimes, in the excitement of hitting multiple blackjacks at high counts I've actually lost count and then I'm flying pretty much by guesstimation to a point. That's about as fuzzy as I've ever gotten. If it gets too far away from me, I retreat to flatbetting at a lower or minimum level. Have you come up with any hard and fast guidelines for fuzzy betting yet, or is this still just as fuzzy as the concept? LOL I'm laughing with you, not at you. I'm always looking for an easier way to do things myself.

 

[21forme]

Two or more persons counting/backcounting/flatbetting at different tables and signaling in a BP is what I had in mind.

No reason why it shouldn't work with any successful counting system.

 

[sagefr0g]

I've never had a real handle on what constitutes a fuzzy count. .............................................................................. Have you come up with any hard and fast guidelines for fuzzy betting yet, or is this still just as fuzzy as the concept? LOL I'm laughing with you, not at you. I'm always looking for an easier way to do things myself.

lol same here and i've been trying to get just such a handle for quite some time now. it's more of an idea that i came up with than an exact process such as orthodox card counting. i kind of doubt one would be able to have much success with it if one hasn't had a significant amount of experience counting cards. it's skill based similar to shooting a free shot basket in basketball or more significantly for fuzzy counting it's skill based in the manner that deck estimation is skill based as opposed to taking the discard cards and physically counting how many cards are there.
quite simply what i call 'fuzzy' counting is in the final analysis estimating what the true count is rather than counting out a running count and then dividing that count by the number of decks undealt to arrive at a true count. so what you have to do is to carefully watch the cards each round as they are played out and mentally take note of the balance or imbalance of low value cards to high value cards. then you gauge the significance of that estimated imbalance against the number of decks that are left to be dealt. this is part of where having previous experience counting cards is helpful. so it is a 'hazy' process to be sure but through practice it is not at all difficult to attune your self to be able to detect when the imbalance of low to high cards becomes sweet. the problem is that the degree of sweetness becomes so hazy that you really can't confidently judge a true count of more than TC=1 or maybe TC=2 most of the time since your not keeping an accurate running count. it becomes estimation on top of estimation on top of more estimation. and that is a problem no doubt and unfortunately i believe it is a problem that no amount of skill can overcome. the problem is compounded because what you are trying to do with fuzzy counting is to as closley as you can mimic the optimal bets appropriate according to true counts, bankroll and ROR for a given game as known by an appropriate simulation. that being the case you only have maybe a window of 1% or sometimes 2% for which your estimation can be off and still realize even the most miniscule advantage from approaching that simulations advantage. that being the case when it comes to betting levels greater than one would expect to make for a TC=2 what it boils down to is a judgement call on the fuzzy counters part or in other words an (hopefully) intelligent guess or gamble. yep gambling much like a ploppy i guess, lol.
so to me what the promise of fuzzy counting holds forth is not a long term advantage as in card counting or not even any advantage at all really. but what i think it can do is put you on a more even playing field from the perspective of the prospects of a short term gambler. it's an accepted idea that in the short term anything can happen for a proficient card counter. so i suppose card counting in the short term can be looked upon as gambling with an edge. perhaps fuzzy counting in the short term can at least be gambling on an even playing field or nearly even playing field, i don't really know it just makes sense to me that way.
additionally though i believe 'fuzzy' counting probably could be used in conjuction with proper wonging in and wonging out to obtain a consistant small advantage just as the ace/ten front count can as described by Renzy in Blackjack Bluebook II. that is if you can actually acertain a TC=2 accurately then such an approach should be possible.
well anyway i appreciate your curiousity Aslan as i need to be able to ramble on about this if i'm ever to get anywhere with it lol.
oh and by the way i often joke about fuzzy counting being a lazy approach and sloppy ect. and i know that a lot of folks probably look at it in that light but the truth of the matter is that it takes a lot of practice, knowledge and concerted effort. i've put in probably about almost five N0's of practice so far.

 

[aslan]

mr frog

Is the gist of what you're saying something like this: I observe that most rounds seem about even, in a few rounds more high cards came out, but in a much larger number of rounds low cards outnumbered high cards, so that I believe that the count must be in positive territory now after three and a half decks have been dealt. (There is probably a way to estimate about how many rounds of mostly small cards have to appear before a positive count is possible, but after a while you would get a feel for this. Also, a large number of rounds with high cards appearing would probably tell you to wong out or keep flatbetting.) All of this could be done just by getting a "sense" of the balance of cards from round to round. Is this fuzzy enough? lol

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I have a greater problem keeping my bets down to recommended levels during high counts. Encounters with negative variance is helping me correct this bad habit. :laugh:

How are you at getting away from low counts with KO? Getting out of the shoe at a predetermined running count works to a degree, but Wonging out is somewhat more effective with a true counted system.

You might want to learn how to true count KO, if you like the system.

 

[sagefr0g]

mr frog

Is the gist of what you're saying something like this: I observe that most rounds seem about even, in a few rounds more high cards came out, but in a much larger number of rounds low cards outnumbered high cards, so that I believe that the count must be in positive territory now after three and a half decks have been dealt. (There is probably a way to estimate about how many rounds of mostly small cards have to appear before a positive count is possible, but after a while you would get a feel for this. Also, a large number of rounds with high cards appearing would probably tell you to wong out or keep flatbetting.) All of this could be done just by getting a "sense" of the balance of cards from round to round. Is this fuzzy enough? lol

yes thats about the gist of it. just observing what ever it is that comes about and being sensitive to how much the symmetry of the hi/lo cards is getting out of wack lol. kind of like a farmer who looks out his window on a cloudy overcast day who thinks gee i think it might rain....
but you try and nail that true count by considering what you saw and estimating some TC, then bet accordingly. so it becomes a judgement call and a gamble. all the while trying to keep your bet scheme in line with some ideal simulation that fits the game your playing, your desired ROR and your bankroll. and as a way of trying to keep from forgetting where you thought your TC is at instead of keeping the RC in mind you just keep in mind what level you have just bet at. this would be where the biggest margin of error would likely come in and the problem i'm pondering over in the hopes of finding some easy shortcut that would remedy it. ie. to keep the estimation on top of estimation conumdrum from pileing up.
so like i mentioned before i don't know if in the long run there would be any advantage. likely there would be a small one if a wonging scenerio similar to that put forth by Renzy for the ace/ten front count was put into practice.
in his scenerio you just only need to evaluate (by counting) the first couple of decks dealt and then you just bet all the way through the remaining pack at some appropriate bet level with out any additional counting. it does require wonging in and out appropriately though.
pretty much the idea of the fuzzy count is trying to make a trade off between the value of accuracy in the case that it would be wasted effort if you were able to know the unknowable situation of when accurate effort is really needed as opposed to shooting for accuracy all of the time due to the fact that it is unknowable regarding when it is needed lol.