Why Is The Playing Efficiency Higher For Ko Than Hi-lo?

S

SilentBob420BMFJ

Banned
the betting correlation is 97% for both, and the playing efficiency is 51% for hi-lo and 55% for ko.. i thought hi-lo was better than ko? also if you could explain in detail what BC and PE are? i know the basic definition of each, but thats it..
 
SilentBob420BMFJ said:
the betting correlation is 97% for both, and the playing efficiency is 51% for hi-lo and 55% for ko.. i thought hi-lo was better than ko? also if you could explain in detail what BC and PE are? i know the basic definition of each, but thats it..
Click to expand...

from advantageplayer.com (Dead link: http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=9769) _PE, BC, etc_

from qfit.com Definitions
 
SilentBob420BMFJ said:
the betting correlation is 97% for both, and the playing efficiency is 51% for hi-lo and 55% for ko.. i thought hi-lo was better than ko? also if you could explain in detail what BC and PE are? i know the basic definition of each, but thats it..
Click to expand...

because KO is the BOMB™
 
Dude! Do have to open up Peter Griffin? You suck...

Just kidding. This book is a love/hate relationship with me.

It seems that BC means betting correllation. 1.00 would be "perfect" or nearly so. KO is not listed. He lists what he calls three columns--"correlation"; "Vegas Gain"; and "Reno Gain." HI-LO is listed as .97, .82 (.85), and .64 (.66), respectively. First numbers are simulation yields and parenthesis are statistically predicted yields.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand Griffin but it seems to me that if KO has a slightly better playing efficiency (PE), I will guess (an educated one via Griffin) that the BC for KO would be slightly worse than that of Hi-Lo.

Can someone else chime in here. (I always feel like an idiot with this theoretical stuff.)
 
EyeHeartHalves said:
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand Griffin but it seems to me that if KO has a slightly better playing efficiency (PE), I will guess (an educated one via Griffin) that the BC for KO would be slightly worse than that of Hi-Lo.
Click to expand...

Guy said that the BC is the same and BE is slightly higher with KO than HiLo, so you don't need to guess. ;) Just like Mimosine said, KO is the bomb! :flame:
 
humbly...

You guys are probably right. Was just p/o'd cause the dude stumped me. I forgot what was BC and PE and all that. Haven't read Griffin in a while but sure you guys are going to say there's another place to find the info. I don't even know why I even tried to defend Hi-Lo. I never even liked it. The only redeeming quality I think of when I think of Hi-Lo is that it's an easy count to learn for 6-deck games.
 
BC (how well you can estimate your advantage pre deal and vary your bets accordingly) and PE (how well the count accurately dictates changes to basis strategy) are slightly higher in KO than Hi-Lo because KO accounts for 7's and Hi-Lo does not.

I'm no KO expert but I think the advantage of Hi-Lo is the true count conversion. As being a balanced count and converting to a TC gives you a more accurate BC and PE throughout the shoe while KO being unbalanced, although slightly better on average fluctuates more.

In other words, from what I have read, and I have read very little on KO, Hi-Lo gives a more consistant read than KO, but the average read that KO gives is better. If that makes any sense? :confused:

It's kind of like having a steady $50 per hour EV with a $400 hourly standard deviation or a $52/hour EV with a $450/hour SD.
 
SilentBob420BMFJ said:
the betting correlation is 97% for both, and the playing efficiency is 51% for hi-lo and 55% for ko.. i thought hi-lo was better than ko? also if you could explain in detail what BC and PE are? i know the basic definition of each, but thats it..
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that BC and PE don't predict win rate.

Keep in mind that PE is more important in 1-2 deck games and BE is more important in shoes.

Keep in mind the .51 is an overll blended number and that each index number representing when to depart fom BS, has it's own Playing Efficiency correlation attached to it and a bet based on TC at the time.

Keep in mind it's a theoretical number obtainable by a computer having perfect knowledge of each card remaining but not a human. Say a human can play well enough to gain 70% of that PE, 70% of the 0.04% difference makes the gap even narrower.

And I think (does anyone know) that .55 comes from Griffin? who just estimated it.

Also I imagine there are underlying assumptions in those numbers as to how many index numbers are played in some given game.

So, I believe, if one's goal is to win more money per hour or number of hands played, Hi-LO probably slightly outperforms KO in a lot of games with the same bankroll and risk. Not all games. And, not a difference that I'd really care that much about anyway.
 
Just one thing to add, comparing the playing efficiency of an unbalanced system to that of a balanced system only applies when you are doing a true count conversion on the unbalanced system too. Most users of KO do not. This is because the playing indices of a running count system are only accurate when you are near the pivot point of that system (the point where the count is accurate for any number of decks.) Being the powerful 16 vs. 10 index is nowhere near the pivot point of any system, it is going to be inaccurate at any point other than very near the geometrical center of the shoe. This can be a significant problem in a deeply dealt 6D or 8D game, and this is one of the reasons I believe a balanced count is the right choice for shoe games.
 
Automatic Monkey said:
Just one thing to add, comparing the playing efficiency of an unbalanced system to that of a balanced system only applies when you are doing a true count conversion on the unbalanced system too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think the PE for KO listed above is based on a count w tags

2-7: +5/6
8-9: 0
T-A: -6/5...

Is that right?
 
Kasi said:
Keep in mind that BC and PE don't predict win rate.

Keep in mind that PE is more important in 1-2 deck games and BE is more important in shoes.

Keep in mind the .51 is an overll blended number and that each index number representing when to depart fom BS, has it's own Playing Efficiency correlation attached to it and a bet based on TC at the time.

Keep in mind it's a theoretical number obtainable by a computer having perfect knowledge of each card remaining but not a human. Say a human can play well enough to gain 70% of that PE, 70% of the 0.04% difference makes the gap even narrower.

And I think (does anyone know) that .55 comes from Griffin? who just estimated it.

Also I imagine there are underlying assumptions in those numbers as to how many index numbers are played in some given game.

So, I believe, if one's goal is to win more money per hour or number of hands played, Hi-LO probably slightly outperforms KO in a lot of games with the same bankroll and risk. Not all games. And, not a difference that I'd really care that much about anyway.
Click to expand...

you make a good point, because what i would really like to know is the playing efficiency of all the systems at a low positive count (mostly what i play at)
this is the problem with what im trying to do (flat bet $10, wong in at positive running count (no matter the system), use up to 10 indices, break even), as all the info out there is based on varying your bets and such.. i need several experts to tell me the best possible thing to do if im flat betting but want to break even, and if you add in comps, i may actually be positive..

Automatic Monkey said:
Just one thing to add, comparing the playing efficiency of an unbalanced system to that of a balanced system only applies when you are doing a true count conversion on the unbalanced system too. Most users of KO do not. This is because the playing indices of a running count system are only accurate when you are near the pivot point of that system (the point where the count is accurate for any number of decks.) Being the powerful 16 vs. 10 index is nowhere near the pivot point of any system, it is going to be inaccurate at any point other than very near the geometrical center of the shoe. This can be a significant problem in a deeply dealt 6D or 8D game, and this is one of the reasons I believe a balanced count is the right choice for shoe games.
Click to expand...

16 vs 10 is at +1, which is the pivot point for hi-lo, so how would 16 vs 10 be "nowhere near" the pivot point for KO?
 
SilentBob420BMFJ said:
16 vs 10 is at +1, which is the pivot point for hi-lo, so how would 16 vs 10 be "nowhere near" the pivot point for KO?
Click to expand...

No, the pivot point of hi-lo is zero, like all balanced counts. The pivot of KO is +4 , that means at this point you have the best information about the decisions you have to make, it's the point, where KO works at it's best and thats in the middle of the shoe. (like AM allready said) I recommend to you to read some old post of Mimosine and 21forme to understand the concept of KO and it's weakness in the beginning and end of a shoe game (or the book, of cause).
The index number for 16 vs. 10 for KO is -8 (rounded to -4 fo KO preferred). You see it's nowhere near the pivot for KO, for Hi-lo the index is 0 (pivot of hi-lo).
 
Tko

Have you ever (or can you?) sim TKO? I switched from KO to TKO using Hi-Lo indicies and I am reasonably certain it is outperforming KO Preferred in 8 deck games, but I have no idea by how much.
BW
 
Brock Windsor said:
Have you ever (or can you?) sim TKO? I switched from KO to TKO using Hi-Lo indicies and I am reasonably certain it is outperforming KO Preferred in 8 deck games, but I have no idea by how much.
BW
Click to expand...

No, I never simmed TKO. I'm not sure if CVData can handle this. But I think that your are right, TKO will always outperform KO in Running-Count-mode. When you subtract four from each hi-lo index you should have a good approximation for TKO. Here are some SCORE's for 6D by Cacarulo.
Let me say something about TKO (Archive copy)
TKO SCORE (Archive copy)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top