I believed that the whole purpose of the KO system was to use a running count betting and playing strategy (and this is why the count is unbalanced). True counting unbalanced count systems is more difficult than balanced one and true balancing KO is not consistent with its philosophy,i.e. to have a simple and yet relatively powerful count.
Your question is actually a statement and I quite agree with it but let's see what Parker has to say.
Francis Salmon
> I believed that the whole purpose of the KO
> system was to use a running count betting
> and playing strategy (and this is why the
> count is unbalanced). True counting
> unbalanced count systems is more difficult
> than balanced one and true balancing KO is
> not consistent with its philosophy,i.e. to
> have a simple and yet relatively powerful
> count.
Running count tend to be less precise at the beginning and at the end of the shoe. I don't believe that the gain from TKO is worth the additional trouble of true counting.
> I believed that the whole purpose of the KO
> system was to use a running count betting
> and playing strategy (and this is why the
> count is unbalanced). True counting
> unbalanced count systems is more difficult
> than balanced one and true balancing KO is
> not consistent with its philosophy,i.e. to
> have a simple and yet relatively powerful
> count.
I agree, mostly. KO's big selling point (and the reason for its popularity) is its simplicity. There is no true count conversion, and the reduced rounded matrix eliminates the necessity of memorizing a lot of indices.
However, if there is one thing I have learned from hosting these pages, it is that human nature is a funny thing. People choose KO for its simplicity, and then as soon as they master it, they start looking for ways to make it more complicated. Any mention of TKO or other "tweaks" to improve the efficiency of KO on these pages usually generates a lot of interest.
I do disagree that true-counting KO is more difficult than Hi-lo. We adjust the IRC for a pivot point of zero for the number of decks being played, then we divide by the number of unseen decks -- just like Hi-lo. The only thing that some might find more difficult is that we will be dealing with negative numbers more often than with Hi-lo.
So why not just switch to Hi-lo and be done with it?
All counts, both balanced and unbalanced, are most accurate at their pivot point. All balanced counts have a pivot point of TC 0. Other than the 16 vs 10 index, there is not much exciting going on at TC 0. We have no edge, and there are not many other important indices kicking in. However, at Hi-lo TC +4 (which is equivalent to a TKO TC of 0), there is a lot going on. We have a substantial edge, and several indices occur at or near this count.
In addition, Hi-lo does not count the 7, a fairly important card, in order to remain balanced. (Side comment: One may use Ralph Stricker's Silver Fox count, which counts the 7 and the 9 in order to remain balanced, but this results in a loss in Insurance efficiency). Of course, KO and TKO count the 7.
Bottom line: A true-counted KO is a surprisingly powerful count, and with equivalent indices will out-perform Hi-lo across the board. Depending on the game in question, the improvement may be significant. TKO may well be As Good As It Gets without the added complications of multi-level tags or side counts.
As a result of all of this, I will be devoting a significant portion of my upcoming book to TKO.
> I believed that the whole purpose of the KO
> system was to use a running count betting
> and playing strategy (and this is why the
> count is unbalanced). True counting
> unbalanced count systems is more difficult
> than balanced one and true balancing KO is
> not consistent with its philosophy,i.e. to
> have a simple and yet relatively powerful
> count.
>snip: With unbalanced counts, it's much easier and virtually as accurate to have a set of pre-calculated "fudge numbers" that tell you how much to adjust your index numbers at various depths of the shoe.
The KISS Count in BJBB II has a table of 21 discrete index numbers. As a refinement, it also tells you how much to move those numbers when you're early or late in the shoe.
Example: the index number for taking Insurance in a six deck game is an R/C of "25" or higher. But if you're early in the shoe, you need "26" and later near the shuffle you need only "24". The exact same goes for any other hands whose indices are "25" (i.e. 8 vs. 5; 9 vs. 7; 12 vs. 2; A/8 vs. 4). Hands with more extreme indices need to be fudged two points up early and two points down late.
Similar "fudge" numbers could be worked out in advance for KO and it would be virtually as accurate as true count converting.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks