Hollywood: Couple of addtional questions?

[Hollywood]

Playing 6 decks, pen at 75%. DOA DAS using KO.
Allowed to split 3 X.

Count is at plus 8 and i'm playing 2 hands with max bet on the table on both hands. (15 units each)

Question one: Dealer has picture showing.
On one hand i'm pat.
On 2nd hand I have a pair of 8's.

Do I split them or treat as 16 and not take a card?

Question two: Same as above, but on 2nd hand I have Ace 7 for soft 18. Do I take the card or stand on my soft 18.

Much appreciated,

Hollywood

[Don Schlesinger]

> Playing 6 decks, pen at 75%. DOA DAS using
> KO.
> Allowed to split 3 X.

> Count is at plus 8 and i'm playing 2 hands
> with max bet on the table on both hands. (15
> units each)

> Question one: Dealer has picture showing.
> On one hand i'm pat.
> On 2nd hand I have a pair of 8's.

> Do I split them or treat as 16 and not take
> a card?

Hi-Lo TC BELOW which you would split, (of course surrender is the first choice!)is +8. Above that, you would stand. Hard to say what the K-O equivalent is, because it matters where you are in the pack. From there, we might be able to make the conversion to Hi-Lo, to get an idea.

> Question two: Same as above, but on 2nd hand
> I have Ace 7 for soft 18. Do I take the card
> or stand on my soft 18.

Hit. Count doesn't matter for that play, but having a side count of 2s and 3s would be nice! :-)

Don

[Hollywood]

> Hi-Lo TC BELOW which you would split, (of
> course surrender is the first choice!)is +8.
> Above that, you would stand. Hard to say
> what the K-O equivalent is, because it
> matters where you are in the pack. From
> there, we might be able to make the
> conversion to Hi-Lo, to get an idea.

> Hit. Count doesn't matter for that play, but
> having a side count of 2s and 3s would be
> nice! :-)

> Don

interesting points.

First of all thank you so much for answering my questions.

But, you mention that it depends where I am in the pack.

This has been bothering me for a while, because it seems that when I play KO, most of my good situations ALMOST ALWAYS come at the end of the shoe.

Cardkountr has been telling me for a while now that I should switch over to high/lo because of this and the fact that KO does not seperately track aces.

Now, I know some of the other systems are better, however according to what I have read the advantage is not enough to worry about.

I played with it for a while and found it a bit more difficult for myself. While i'm able to use KO almost flawlessly, I just figured i would stay with that.

There are many schools of thought on this over the past few years Don.

But, what is your September 2004 opinion on it?

As always,

Hollywood

[Don Schlesinger]

> But, what is your September 2004 opinion on
> it?

I think that someone who plays for your stakes should probably use the highest-level sytem he is able to learn. K-O's pivot is +4, corresponding to Hi-Lo TC of +4, so that's what makes it so appealing: You have perfect accuracy for making your large bets. That said, there are some occasional strategy departures that take place at even higher TC levels, such as +8, and when they come along, you have no assurance with K-O that you're making the right play, unless you use different indices for different pack levels, which is a monumental pain.

The overall effect on your bottom line is slight, but when the plays come up (seldomly), you'd like to know that you're making the right decision, which prompted your post.

I'd say, try mastering a balanced count and see how it comes along.

Don

[Hollywood]

> I think that someone who plays for your
> stakes should probably use the highest-level
> sytem he is able to learn. K-O's pivot is
> +4, corresponding to Hi-Lo TC of +4, so
> that's what makes it so appealing: You have
> perfect accuracy for making your large bets.
> That said, there are some occasional
> strategy departures that take place at even
> higher TC levels, such as +8, and when they
> come along, you have no assurance with K-O
> that you're making the right play, unless
> you use different indices for different pack
> levels, which is a monumental pain.

> The overall effect on your bottom line is
> slight, but when the plays come up
> (seldomly), you'd like to know that you're
> making the right decision, which prompted
> your post.

> I'd say, try mastering a balanced count and
> see how it comes along.

> Don

Again Schlesinger, (for the 500th time) I thank you. You clear more stuff up for me then a hasidic rabbi quoting the kababa.

Hollywood

[Don Schlesinger]

> Again Schlesinger, (for the 500th time) I
> thank you. You clear more stuff up for me
> then a hasidic rabbi quoting the kababa.

LOL!! But, make it the "kaballah"!

Don

[Parker]

Have you considered true-counting KO?

Because the pivot is at such a useful place, and because the 7 is counted (albeit overvalued), a true-counted KO (in running count mode) will consistently out-perform KO by a margin that you might consider significant.

And of course, you would no longer be missing out on those opportunities when the TC goes high very early in the shoe.

True-counting KO is fairly easy. You simply adjust the IRC so that the pivot point is always at 0 by using the formula:

(number of decks) x -4

So. for a six deck shoe, the IRC would now be -24.

Then, you simply divide by the number of unseen decks, just as with any balanced count.

Your indices at the pivot would still be good (remember, the pivot is now 0). Take insurance at/above TC -1, and 16 vs 10 is now TC -4. You now have all the most important indices covered.

You could also get a useable set indices simply by subtracting 4 from the hi-lo indices, which are widely available.

Of course, eventually you'd probably want to sim a set of optimal indices for the games you play, and use as many as you can cram into your brain. :-)

The biggest advantage of this is that you don't have to learn any new tags. People who have switched from KO to Hi-lo tell me that the most difficult part was not the true count conversion (as you might expect), but rather breaking themselves from the habit of counting 7's.

[Parker]

Sloppy editing on my part. The following paragraph:

> Because the pivot is at such a useful place,
> and because the 7 is counted (albeit
> overvalued), a true-counted KO (in running
> count mode) will consistently out-perform KO
> by a margin that you might consider
> significant.

should read as follows:

"Because the pivot is at such a useful place, and because the 7 is counted (albeit overvalued), a true-counted KO will consistently out-perform KO (in running count mode) by a margin that you might consider significant."

My apologies for any confusion.

[Hollywood]

> Have you considered true-counting KO?

> Because the pivot is at such a useful place,
> and because the 7 is counted (albeit
> overvalued), a true-counted KO (in running
> count mode) will consistently out-perform KO
> by a margin that you might consider
> significant.

> And of course, you would no longer be
> missing out on those opportunities when the
> TC goes high very early in the shoe.

> True-counting KO is fairly easy. You simply
> adjust the IRC so that the pivot point is
> always at 0 by using the formula:

> (number of decks) x -4

> So. for a six deck shoe, the IRC would now
> be -24.

> Then, you simply divide by the number of
> unseen decks, just as with any balanced
> count.

> Your indices at the pivot would still be
> good (remember, the pivot is now 0). Take
> insurance at/above TC -1, and 16 vs 10 is
> now TC -4. You now have all the most
> important indices covered.

> You could also get a useable set indices
> simply by subtracting 4 from the hi-lo
> indices, which are widely available.

> Of course, eventually you'd probably want to
> sim a set of optimal indices for the games
> you play, and use as many as you can cram
> into your brain. :-)

> The biggest advantage of this is that you
> don't have to learn any new tags. People who
> have switched from KO to Hi-lo tell me that
> the most difficult part was not the true
> count conversion (as you might expect), but
> rather breaking themselves from the habit of
> counting 7's.

You must have read my mind, because one of my next questions, was to ask in the room if anyone could think of a way I could modify the KO system instead of changing systems.

If others would have a little trouble with the 7's, then you could probably times that by 3 for me.

Parker I can't thank you enough.

Any additional advice you can think of, my ears are up.

Thank you,

Hollywood

[Hollywood]

> LOL!! But, make it the "kaballah"!

> Don

Opps, sorry about that Don. Spelling is only one of my 10,000 weaknesses.

You do of course realize I should be the poster child for BJ.
If a person like me can beat up the casino's, (only because of what I learned in this room)

I can only imagine what the sharpshooters can do.

Also, changing the subject just a bit. I have been meaning to ask you what events where the highlights for you in the olympics?

Hollywood

[Don Schlesinger]

> Also, changing the subject just a bit. I
> have been meaning to ask you what events
> where the highlights for you in the
> olympics?

Don't usually discuss non-BJ subjects here, but I'll give a quick answer:

In swimming, Phelps was an extraordinary story, as was the women's world record medley relay.

In track, Isinbayeva's world record in the pole vault, along with many other fine performances.

In gymnastics, the two American all-around gold medals -- both quite a shocker.

And, in the team sports, the women's incredible gold-medal showings in softball, beach volleyball, basketball, and soccer, and the silver in gymnastics.

Don