KO Rookie is KO with no indexes and no Insurance. I decided to compare this to Hi-Opt II known as one of the most powerful counting systems. But, I did so using the methodology proposed as "fair" in a recent BJF article. The article claims that when you compare OPP to HiLo, to be fair you cannot use indexes or true counting. So, I removed indexes and true counting from Hi-Opt II since they don't exist in KO Rookie. Below are the results:



The chart shows that over all penetrations, KO Rookie is vastly superior to Hi-Opt II.

Now clearly this is silly. You cannot compare a strategy to another by gutting one of the strategies. More complex strategies are more complex and should be compared that way. Hi-Opt II requires true counting - it is a balanced strategy. When you remove true-counting, you destroy it. The same is true of any balanced strategy. I've seen a lot of tricks pulled to make a strategy look better than it is in many, many books. But never anytyhing this obvious. The article gutted all three areas of efficiency (BC, IC and PE) and then applied a bad betting ramp.

Fair comparisons are easy. You sim the strategies as defined. If you are comparing OPP and HiLo, you don't gut every aspect of HiLo and say OPP is nearly as good. OPP performs at about one-half of KO Rookie and one-third of KO Preferred. The continued false claims that it is nearly as good as HiLo could cost players a great deal, if anyone actually believes it. You can find fair comparisons at CVCX Online of most strategies, including OPP, for different decks, penetrations, risk, spreads and rules. These are the real strategies as defined in the author's books.


CVCX Online