pm: One last KO backcounting question..

[pm]

Don, I have one last confusion about using KO for backcounting..

Since there are no KO ODPs for when you are seated and playing, would you have to calculate the Hi-Lo equivalent of the current count in order to determine whether you should stay or leave? (Vancura & Fuchs furnish some rough departure points for when you are still backcounting, or when you are playing "white rabbit" style, but not for when you have reached the key count and have started to play.)

Or, if the key count is -4, would you want to depart around -8 or something like that (obviously the Hi-Lo equivalent of that count would always be different depending on the number of remaining decks)?

Also, I thought I read somewhere that KO tends to underestimate your advantage at the beginning of the shoe and overestimate it towards the end. Wouldn't that affect the KO departure points, since the system is apparently expecting you to be more tolerant towards the end of the shoe? (I know the opposite is true for Hi-Lo; is it possible that things are different with an unbalanced count?).

I understand what you were saying earlier about how the remaining cards are what they are; they're not going to change based on the counting that you're doing in your head, but clearly, Hi-Lo and KO account for those cards in different fashions. The Hi-Lo player will clearly be able to wong in earlier than the KO player (on average); if KO does overestimate your advantage towards the end of the shoe, it seems like it is expecting you to stay and play longer than the Hi-Lo player would.

??

[Don Schlesinger]

> Since there are no KO ODPs for when you are
> seated and playing,

Who said that? I just did the ODPs for Hi-Lo; that doesn't mean they can't be done for other counts. So, they exist, but they aren't to be found anywhere ... yet. Is that what you meant?

> would you have to
> calculate the Hi-Lo equivalent of the
> current count in order to determine whether
> you should stay or leave?

It would be a decent approximation, if not a perfect equivalence.

> (Vancura &
> Fuchs furnish some rough departure points
> for when you are still backcounting, or when
> you are playing "white rabbit"
> style, but not for when you have reached the
> key count and have started to play.)

They really couldn't have created their numbers the same way we did.

> Or, if the key count is -4, would you want
> to depart around -8 or something like that
> (obviously the Hi-Lo equivalent of that
> count would always be different depending on
> the number of remaining decks)?

Right. You can't have just one K-O value for ODP. You need a whole set of them -- same as Hi-Lo.

> Also, I thought I read somewhere that KO
> tends to underestimate your advantage at the
> beginning of the shoe and overestimate it
> towards the end.

Depends on how you use the indices. Some people learn different values for different levels of penetration. If you don't, then you can't use one number and be right all the time, everywhere, except at the +4 pivot.

> Wouldn't that affect the KO
> departure points, since the system is
> apparently expecting you to be more tolerant
> towards the end of the shoe?

Yes, of course.

> (I know the
> opposite is true for Hi-Lo; is it possible
> that things are different with an unbalanced
> count?).

Again, you can't make a blanket statement for "unbalanced counts." It depends on how you are playing the count and using the indices. Unfortunately, K-O has a lot of different versions out there (novice, preferred, TKO, etc.), so "K-O" can mean different things to different players.

> I understand what you were saying earlier
> about how the remaining cards are what they
> are; they're not going to change based on
> the counting that you're doing in your head,
> but clearly, Hi-Lo and KO account for those
> cards in different fashions. The Hi-Lo
> player will clearly be able to wong in
> earlier than the KO player (on average); if
> KO does overestimate your advantage towards
> the end of the shoe, it seems like it is
> expecting you to stay and play longer than
> the Hi-Lo player would.

I think all of this would be accounted for when ODPs would be created for K-O. I understand what you're saying, but it just doesn't make sense to me. If we undertook complete studies for ODPs for K-O, then we would do what is necessary, given all of the parameters of the system, to create the correct numbers that would be appropriate for the system. And, they would take into account all of the idiosyncrasies of K-O.

I just can't promise you that anyone is going to do that anytime soon. :-)

Don

[pm]

> Who said that? I just did the ODPs for
> Hi-Lo; that doesn't mean they can't be done
> for other counts. So, they exist, but they
> aren't to be found anywhere ... yet. Is that
> what you meant?

Yes; I knew that they obviously couldn't have gone through anything like the rigorous chapter 13 methodology to come up with those few rough departure points in the KO book.

> It would be a decent approximation, if not a
> perfect equivalence.

> They really couldn't have created their
> numbers the same way we did.

> Right. You can't have just one K-O value for
> ODP. You need a whole set of them -- same as
> Hi-Lo.

> Depends on how you use the indices. Some
> people learn different values for different
> levels of penetration. If you don't, then
> you can't use one number and be right all
> the time, everywhere, except at the +4
> pivot.

> Yes, of course.

> Again, you can't make a blanket statement
> for "unbalanced counts." It
> depends on how you are playing the count and
> using the indices. Unfortunately, K-O has a
> lot of different versions out there (novice,
> preferred, TKO, etc.), so "K-O"
> can mean different things to different
> players.

> I think all of this would be accounted for
> when ODPs would be created for K-O. I
> understand what you're saying, but it just
> doesn't make sense to me. If we undertook
> complete studies for ODPs for K-O, then we
> would do what is necessary, given all of the
> parameters of the system, to create the
> correct numbers that would be appropriate
> for the system. And, they would take into
> account all of the idiosyncrasies of K-O.

> I just can't promise you that anyone is
> going to do that anytime soon. :-)

Ok, I figured as much. So if I'm understanding everything right, it seems like there's no sense in using KO if you're going to backcount because a) you would have to convert to Hi-Lo anyway, so you might as well use Hi-Lo and make things simpler, and b) even if you did convert to Hi-Lo, you might not be departing at a time that is optimal for KO, and you can't really know for sure one way or the other since the ODP study hasn't been done for KO. Would that be fair to say?

Also, I see that the ODPs for the lag WiWo player, 4.5/6, are essentially -1 across the board. Would I still use -1 as a departure point if I were to use some other true counted system (assuming that I'm estimating at the full deck level)?

Thanks a bunch for the responses.

> Don

[Don Schlesinger]

Bottom line: Count systems are different. We did the ODPs for Hi-Lo and not for any other system.

I suspect that, for most counts, the ODPs will be essentially similar to those for Hi-Lo, occurring at about TC = -1 (or the K-O RC equivalents) most of the time.

That said, until someone does the same study for other counts, all we have is an approximation.

Don

[pm]