Hi,
I'm new to counting and read the "Blackbelt in Blackjack" to learn Advanced Red 7. I don't have much problem with counting only red 7. But, I do have a problem with different indices depending on the number of decks. Can someone let me know whether KO has a different indices between SD/DD and shoes? If KO doesn't separate indices, I want to move to KO. Also, is it true that Advanced Red 7 has advantage in SD/DD and KO has advantage in shoes? Thank you.
> Hi,
> I'm new to counting and read the
> "Blackbelt in Blackjack" to learn
> Advanced Red 7. I don't have much problem
> with counting only red 7. But, I do have a
> problem with different indices depending on
> the number of decks. Can someone let me know
> whether KO has a different indices between
> SD/DD and shoes? If KO doesn't separate
> indices, I want to move to KO. Also, is it
> true that Advanced Red 7 has advantage in
> SD/DD and KO has advantage in shoes? Thank
> you.
KO is a running count system as well. The only difference is that you count ALL the 7's as +1.
To use the same indexes regardless of the number of decks (with very minor exceptions), you have to convert your running count to a "true" count. You can true count Red 7 and KO (both unbalanced counts), but it's a bit more difficult than going with a balanced count like Hi-Lo.
> But, I do have a
> problem with different indices depending on
> the number of decks.
I had the same problem remembering the IRC, Key and Pivot running count values for different numbers of decks. However, KO is pretty easy because the indexes are rounded into just the three categories listed above.
The values for the IRC, Key and Pivot are just a function of the number of decks in play, so if you juggle things around a little, you can easily figure out the index values before you sit down. Eventually, they become second nature.
For example, I recalibrated the KO indexes so the Key count was always -1, for any number of decks (the book has examples of how to recalibrate like this). I picked this particular Key count value because it makes getting IRC and Pivot so easy.
IRC = #Decks * -3
Pivot = #Decks
Easy!
Examples:
6 decks
IRC = -18 (6 * -3)
Key = -1 (always)
Pivot = 6 (6 decks)
1 deck
IRC = -3 (1 * -3)
Key = -1 (always)
Pivot = 1 (1 deck)
Kasey
At the below link is a method for reduction of KO indexes to two categories:
> Hi,
> I'm new to counting and read the
> "Blackbelt in Blackjack" to learn
> Advanced Red 7. I don't have much problem
> with counting only red 7. But, I do have a
> problem with different indices depending on
> the number of decks. Can someone let me know
> whether KO has a different indices between
> SD/DD and shoes? If KO doesn't separate
> indices, I want to move to KO. Also, is it
> true that Advanced Red 7 has advantage in
> SD/DD and KO has advantage in shoes? Thank
> you.
NewB brings up what, to my thinking, is the major weakness of running count systems -- multiple index tables. Sure, these counts are easy to play, and they have very impressive BE's -- making them ideally suited for shoes, but what about if/when you want to progress to other games?
If there's only one game in town, there's no issue. But if you frequent Vegas (in particular), where lots of games exist, you'd certainly want to take advantage of the best possible game -- regardless of the number of decks.
I learned the 12 vs. 2 index for my count almost 20 years ago, and it's never changed. I couldn't un-learn it if I tried. Don S. commented that he's got 165 Revere PC indicies stuck in his head.
It seems to me it would be far more difficult to juggle 2, 3, or perhaps 4 different indicies in your mind for 12 vs. 2 than to divide the running count by the decks remaining to be played.
Rather than learning the I18 4 times, why not just learn 72 (18 X 4) indicies? That really WILL make you some extra money.
Thoughts?
to know if more errors are made in deck estimation and TC calculation, or in using the wrong IRC or index in RC systems. Of course the solution is to stick to the one number of decks. I don't know how many people do this.
> Rather than learning the I18 4 times, why
> not just learn 72 (18 X 4) indicies? That
> really WILL make you some extra money.
> Thoughts?
It is true the multiple index tables are a pain. I deal with it by abstracting the indexes with the KO terms IRC, Key and Pivot.
So I know for 12 vs. 2 I hit unless I am at Pivot. I don't think of it as having different values, it is just "Pivot". Before I sit down to play, I load my brain with what IRC, Key and Pivot mean for the game I'm about to play.
See my post above for how I've simplified that.
Kasey
Thank you for the precious advices. I have decided to buy and read Knock-Out Blackjack first, and then decide which one to choose.
> Thank you for the precious advices. I have
> decided to buy and read Knock-Out Blackjack
> first, and then decide which one to choose.
A wise decision. Even if you decide not to learn KO, Knockout Blackjack is a good book to have. There is a lot of good information in it that applies to blackjack and counting in general, not just to the KO counting system.
> It is true the multiple index tables are a
> pain. I deal with it by abstracting the
> indexes with the KO terms IRC, Key and
> Pivot.
> So I know for 12 vs. 2 I hit unless I am at
> Pivot. I don't think of it as having
> different values, it is just
> "Pivot". Before I sit down to
> play, I load my brain with what IRC, Key and
> Pivot mean for the game I'm about to play.
> See my post above for how I've simplified
> that.
> Kasey
Attempting to simplify the IRC, Key and Pivot certainly makes sense. I applaud you for that. My thoughts were more aligned with KO Full where you have different indicies for each decision. The KO betting ramp is also an issue as you change games. (To be fair, it's an issue with TC systems as well, but not to such an extent.)
Ideally, we'd like the counting aspect of our game to be so automatic that it requires little or no thought at the table. That frees our minds to concentrate on the really challenging part of the equation -- winning AND remaining welcome.
TC conversion is certainly work, but it can be practiced to the point of mastery. Use Norm's CVDrills for an hour a day, and you'll be a TC machine in no time. Once at the table, you do it the same way you've done it thousands of times before. And the vast majority of playing decisions don't even require a TC conversion.
On the other hand, the RC player table hops around the casino and must mentally shift his/her index tables and betting patterns. 15 minutes ago, that index was -2. Now, it's +4. 15 minutes ago, I bet 3 units at -3. Now, it's at +2. And 15 minutes from now, they could all change again.
RC systems are certainly alluring, but that gloss rubs off quickly when you start playing multiple games.
> The KO betting ramp is
> also an issue as you change games. (To be
> fair, it's an issue with TC systems as well,
> but not to such an extent.)
This is true, I find remembering my betting ramp for different games to be the most difficult part of KO, since I have found no way to do it except rote memorization.
Please educate me on way TC system ramps are easier.
Thanks!
> This is true, I find remembering my betting
> ramp for different games to be the most
> difficult part of KO, since I have found no
> way to do it except rote memorization.
> Please educate me on way TC system ramps are
> easier.
> Thanks!
The optimal bet ramp depends on a number of factors and actually can/should be recalculated based upon the game you're playing, the SD at various TC/RC levels, your unit size, and your bankroll. The math isn't for the faint hearted, but fortunately for us, there are a number of tools on the market that will do it for us.
System developers site a middle-of-the-road bet ramp that works for a cross-section of penetration/rules/bankrolls, but the bet ramps can't be optimized without additional data the developers don't have.
Generally speaking, you'll begin increasing your bets at a TC of +2. In 2D, I'll move to 2 units at a TC of +1.5 or so.
My generic/conservative bet ramp looks like this:
TC +2 = 2
TC +3 = 6
TC +4 = 10
TC +5 = Whatever I can get away with -- generally 12 - 20 in 6D
With a smaller bankroll vs. your unit size, you might not reach your top bet until the TC gets to +6 or even higher. With a huge bankroll, you can bet the table max at a TC of +2.
The point is, once you've calculated the optimal bet ramp for one game, it's pretty much the same for all games. If I see a 6D, H17 game with no surrender but great penetration, I may want a TC of +2.5 before I begin raising my bets, but the variations are minor.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks