Thread: AsZehn: KO vs Red 7

1. AsZehn: KO vs Red 7

I am playing mostly 8 & 6 deck shoes in AC and backcounting. Have been using KO, but getting minimal amount of hands in since count seldom reaches key. Would Red 7 be a better choice?

2. Don Schlesinger: Re: KO vs Red 7

> I am playing mostly 8 & 6 deck shoes in
> AC and backcounting. Have been using KO, but
> getting minimal amount of hands in since
> count seldom reaches key. Would Red 7 be a
> better choice?

The nature of back-counting shoe games is that you play about only 15-20 minutes on the hour. No change of count is going to alter that fact.

Don

3. Cacarulo: KO vs Red 7 vs UBZ2 vs Hi-Lo

> I am playing mostly 8 & 6 deck shoes in
> AC and backcounting. Have been using KO, but
> getting minimal amount of hands in since
> count seldom reaches key. Would Red 7 be a
> better choice?

This is an interesting question but before giving you an answer let me say that Red 7 as it (counting the red 7s as 1 and the black 7s as 0) is not better than KO. Now, instead of using R7 we can use DR7 (double R7) which has tags from A to T (-2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2). This is a better count than R7.

DR7 can be used in TC mode (DR7) as well as in RC mode (DR7R). Since this is a level-2 count we would expect to get a better SCORE than with KO.
And this is so when we play all.

Let's use the following scenario: 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,C22 floored indices,1-12 optimal spread,5000-million-round sim.

DR7R = \$35.38
KO = \$34.94

As you see DR7R outperforms KO in play-all mode.

But, what happen when back-counting at the optimal RC point?

DR7R = \$62.56 (wonging at -4 and playing 24.85% of the time)
KO = \$65.30 (wonging at -6 and playing 21.37% of the time)

As you can see KO performs better although you play less hands!

More important yet is to know how does KO compare against UBZ2.
Using the above conditions:

1) Play-All

KO = \$34.94
UBZ2 = \$36.61

No secrets here.

2) Back-counting

KO = \$65.30 (wonging at -6 and playing 21.37% of the time)
UBZ2 = \$63.85 (wonging at -5 and playing 25.83% of the time)

Play-all = \$34.84
Back-counting = \$66.14 (wonging at +1 and playing 28.05% of the time)

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

4. Don Schlesinger: Re: KO vs Red 7 vs UBZ2 vs Hi-Lo

> 2) Back-counting

> KO = \$65.30 (wonging at -6 and playing
> 21.37% of the time)
> UBZ2 = \$63.85 (wonging at -5 and playing
> 25.83% of the time)

> Surprise!!! and what about Hi-Lo?

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. BJRM Wongs in at a much higher optimal point, for K-O, yet still wins less, as expected, than UBZ. It doesn't make sense that a more powerful count outperforms another for play-all yet wins less for back-counting.

I'd have to check the SCORE chapter, but I doubt that we have any such examples in the book. Are you sure that your comparison is fully "apples to apples"?

Don

5. Don Schlesinger: Re: KO vs Red 7 vs UBZ2 vs Hi-Lo

See the chart at the bottom of p. 295 in BJA.

I'm afraid something is not right.

Don

6. Cacarulo: Re: KO vs Red 7 vs UBZ2 vs Hi-Lo

> This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. BJRM
> Wongs in at a much higher optimal point, for
> K-O, yet still wins less, as expected, than
> UBZ. It doesn't make sense that a more
> powerful count outperforms another for
> play-all yet wins less for back-counting.

You know I have blind faith on my programs

> I'd have to check the SCORE chapter, but I
> doubt that we have any such examples in the
> book. Are you sure that your comparison is
> fully "apples to apples"?

Yes of course I'm comparing apples to apples.
The only difference is that for KO and UBZ2 I used an IRC of -24 (indices were calculated according). I didn't use SBA but my own programs.

If anyone out there wishes to verify the results please don't be shy and go ahead. It would be an interesting finding

Rules and conditions: 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,C22 floored,5000 million rounds,spread 1-12.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

7. Cacarulo: Re: KO vs Red 7 vs UBZ2 vs Hi-Lo

> See the chart at the bottom of p. 295 in
> BJA.

> I'm afraid something is not right.

I don't have the book right here but weren't those charts for games with LS and I18?

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

8. Don Schlesinger: Re: KO vs Red 7 vs UBZ2 vs Hi-Lo

The fact that you've added 4 indices and surrender should not change the rankings. UBZII should outperform K-O under any setting. They aren't close enough for some set of rules to tip the balance in K-O's favor. K-O isn't in the same league as UBZII.

The tables on pp. 294-5 make that pretty clear. I still think something is wrong.

Don

9. Cacarulo: Re: KO vs Red 7 vs UBZ2 vs Hi-Lo

> The fact that you've added 4 indices and
> surrender should not change the rankings.
> UBZII should outperform K-O under any
> setting. They aren't close enough for some
> set of rules to tip the balance in K-O's
> favor. K-O isn't in the same league as
> UBZII.

> The tables on pp. 294-5 make that pretty
> clear. I still think something is wrong.

We see that in play-all mode the answers are correct so that's an evidence that the sims are right. Notice that I'm using the same sims for computing both scenarios: play-all and back-count.

Probably someone will run a sim to confirm what I say.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

10. Cacarulo: Wrong chart

> See the chart at the bottom of p. 295 in
> BJA.

> I'm afraid something is not right.

I've looked at that page and the game described there is 5/6,S17,DAS,LS,PLAY-ALL,I18+F4. My game is 5/6,S17,DAS,BACK-COUNT,C22.

Besides, if you look at the bottom of p. 297 you'll find that 5/6,S17,DAS,BACK-COUNT,I18 gives a SCORE of \$63.54 which is close to what I've posted: \$65.30. The difference is that I'm using C22 instead of I18.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•