Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: GT: Anyone using KO in AC?

  1. #1
    GT
    Guest

    GT: Anyone using KO in AC?

    I use High-Low in AC. But wanting to know as much as possible, I picked up the KO Book. It says you have to start your IRC at -28 for eight decks, and -20 for six decks All those negative numbers seem like a deterrent. Anyone prefer this system?

  2. #2
    Cardkountr
    Guest

    Cardkountr: Re: Anyone using KO in AC?

    > I use High-Low in AC. But wanting to know as
    > much as possible, I picked up the KO Book.
    > It says you have to start your IRC at -28
    > for eight decks, and -20 for six decks All
    > those negative numbers seem like a
    > deterrent. Anyone prefer this system?

    I use High/Low with a side count of aces so I would be of no help to you, but perhaps my friend "Hollywood" who uses KO very successfully will respond. In addition to being a nice guy always willing to help people, I consider him to be the AC resident KO expert.

    Most any counting systems will get the job done, so it basically comes down to which system a person feels comfortable with and can play flawlessly without making mistakes. A more complicated count with several mistakes per hour will not perform as well as either High/Low or KO played with no mistakes.

    If converting to a TC doesn't bother you and if there's a likelyhood you may someday explore ST'ing then you may want to stick with High/Low which you are familiar with.

    Card.

  3. #3
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Can you help me?

    > If converting to a TC doesn't bother you and
    > if there's a likelyhood you may someday
    > explore ST'ing then you may want to stick
    > with High/Low which you are familiar with.

    I started my BJ experience using KO. While still in the learning curve, I switched to HiLo for the very reason you mentioned .. the ability to later learn to ST.

    While still not ST'ing (I watch for slugs and segments when they are obvious) I have been contemplating making a last final switch 'back' to TKO.

    Doing some research regarding some of Hollywood's recent posts, I have re-read alot of Cacarulo's stuff from days gome by and it seems TKO just flats kicks everyother level one system, side counted or not, and some level 2 systems square in the ass; and by a wide margin.

    So my question is this, and I know you can't answer it for me but I'll ask anyway ...

    ... in todays casino environment, is ST'ing generally a viable tool, do you have to travel far and wide to use it, what is the generally accepted EV increase a decent ST'er expects from ST'ing (TKO seems to be atleast 5% better than true counted HiLo).

    And finally, would ST'ing with a true counted KO be difficult?

    Thanks for the help.

  4. #4
    Cardkountr
    Guest

    Cardkountr: Re: Can you help me?

    Hi Sun, I hope all is well with you.

    Choosing a counting system is largely an individuals personal preference based on their own ability to keep the count and play perfectly without becoming fatigued, as we all experience the dreaded grind sessions from time to time.

    Anyone who knows me is familiar with my favorite saying "Hours are King" and with that in mind I play a simple system which I find to be easy enough to allow me to play long hours when needed without mistakes.

    > I started my BJ experience using KO. While
    > still in the learning curve, I switched to
    > HiLo for the very reason you mentioned ..
    > the ability to later learn to ST.

    I don't have the strong math background that many of you have so I have to rely upon what I read along with my personal experiences which I'll relate to you within this post.

    When I started counting 27 years ago I chose High/Low not because of shuffle tracking (that came later) but primarily because that was the most popular system of that day with information widely available. In the years that followed I began building upon High/Low by adding refinements or what I refer to as more tools in the box, each one increasing my EV a little. For example, sometime around 1982 or 83 I was introduced to side counting Aces after reading MDBJ and began side counting aces on my feet as Kenny recommended. I found this a little cumbersome so after a few years I refined it by devising a decismile system to side count aces in addition to my primary count. Then came the addition of indices from Wong's Professional Blackjack, only surpassed by BJA I,II, and the ultimate III. If I had to choose one refinement only, hands down it would have to be Don's I-18 which prioritized the order by gain.

    It wasn't until the early 90's that I started tracking which I found to be a great companion for High/Low and an easy addition to my repertoire. Although in the world of Trackers, I consider myself only a half assed tracker but it gets the job done for me while I continue learning.

    > While still not ST'ing (I watch for slugs
    > and segments when they are obvious) I have
    > been contemplating making a last final
    > switch 'back' to TKO.

    > Doing some research regarding some of
    > Hollywood's recent posts, I have re-read
    > alot of Cacarulo's stuff from days gome by
    > and it seems TKO just flats kicks everyother
    > level one system, side counted or not, and
    > some level 2 systems square in the ass; and
    > by a wide margin.

    Cacarulos work is definitely outstanding! I regard his work along with Don's to be "The Gospel". I had seen Cacarulos TKO Score comparison previously when he posted it on this site back on Jan 26, 2004, at that time he also included a comparison of High/Low with an ace side count which scored slightly better than TKO, but then again is the additional work of side counting aces worth the slight gain in score? Only you can answer that one.

    Another one of his great posts was on Dec 15, 2003 where he published a chart showing the gain of High/Low with Ace side count over High/Low to be 12.95% with a 4 to 1 spread (the percent of gain decreases as the spread increases) and at a 12 to 1 spread the increase is 6.39%.

    > So my question is this, and I know you can't
    > answer it for me but I'll ask anyway ...

    > ... in todays casino environment, is ST'ing
    > generally a viable tool, do you have to
    > travel far and wide to use it, what is the
    > generally accepted EV increase a decent
    > ST'er expects from ST'ing (TKO seems to be
    > atleast 5% better than true counted HiLo).

    Here I'll steal a line from the Math guru's.....yes and no. That is to say that sometimes you'll walk into a casino with great pen and fall into counters heaven but it may have an untrackable shuffle. Other times you may travel to a venue only to find lousy pen which would normally cause you to walk out the door if only straight counting, but they may have a great shuffle that you can take advantage of which then makes that particular game playable for you. So the precise answer would be that it doesn't hurt to have shuffle tracking in your tool bag in case it's needed. And should you find yourself in a game with great pen and a trackable shuffle...eureka! you have the best of both worlds.

    In Arnold's Trackers Cookbook an advantage of 6 to 10% is mentioned as being attainable and he has a section of how to estimate your advantage. If you don't currently have the Cookbook, I would highly recommend it if you decide to begin tracking.

    > And finally, would ST'ing with a true
    > counted KO be difficult?

    I would think that it would not be difficult to use TKO along with tracking. Since I'm not that familiar with TKO, perhaps Don or one of the other deep thinkers can weigh in . Anything can be modified.... for example, when I first started counting decades ago I didn't like changing from negative numbers to positive numbers and going back and forth with high/low so I started with a positive base number set large enough so I will never go below zero, and simply add or subtract from that number and then convert to a true count. That works for me and allows me to keep an accurate side count very easily by tacking on a decismile to separate my primary count from my side count. For insurance decisions, I make an adjustment to the running count based on the overage/shortage of aces prior to converting to a true count.

    > Thanks for the help.

    I don't know if any of this helps but I made my best attempt, I have a much easier time visualizing something than expressing it in words. Besides, I'm just a lowly card counting criminal as viewed by the Casinos. :-)

    Have a Great Day!

    Card.


  5. #5
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: Can you help me?

    > ... I had seen Cacarulos
    > TKO Score comparison previously when he
    > posted it on this site back on Jan 26, 2004,
    > at that time he also included a comparison
    > of High/Low with an ace side count which
    > scored slightly better than TKO ...

    Regarding what you said above, I mis-spoke originally when I said TKO kicked the others square in the ass .. I should have said TKO/A.

    TKO/A seems to be far and away superior to what I am doing now and since I already TC, what the heck.

    (Yes, I know they all get the money and no, I'm not obsessing about systems, it is just that I started thinking about side counting Aces with HiLo, one thing led to another, I'm new enough and familiar with KO enough, so here I am at the crossroads .. wondering.)

    The two things holding me back from switching are 1) in the back of my mind it would be more difficult to ST with TKO/A I'm sure, and 2) figuring out the Ill 18 for TKO/A, figuring out how to not have to use the negative numbers easily when converting the TC, etc are problematic for me. Not impossible, but problematic. Karl and Dancer posted about this at length some time ago; it's doable but would take me personally some time to grind it out and them hope my math was right!

    Anyway, thanks, I appreciate all your input.

  6. #6
    GT
    Guest

    GT: TKO

    > Regarding what you said above, I mis-spoke
    > originally when I said TKO kicked the others
    > square in the ass .. I should have said
    > TKO/A.
    Thanks for all the responses! Could someone please explain to me the difference between TKO and KO? I have the latest edition of KO BJ, but did not see any reference there to TKO. Where can I learn this system?
    > TKO/A seems to be far and away superior to
    > what I am doing now and since I already TC,
    > what the heck.

    > (Yes, I know they all get the money and no,
    > I'm not obsessing about systems, it is just
    > that I started thinking about side counting
    > Aces with HiLo, one thing led to another,
    > I'm new enough and familiar with KO enough,
    > so here I am at the crossroads ..
    > wondering.)

    > The two things holding me back from
    > switching are 1) in the back of my mind it
    > would be more difficult to ST with TKO/A I'm
    > sure, and 2) figuring out the Ill 18 for
    > TKO/A, figuring out how to not have to use
    > the negative numbers easily when converting
    > the TC, etc are problematic for me. Not
    > impossible, but problematic. Karl and Dancer
    > posted about this at length some time ago;
    > it's doable but would take me personally
    > some time to grind it out and them hope my
    > math was right!

    > Anyway, thanks, I appreciate all your input.

  7. #7
    Hollywood
    Guest

    Hollywood: Re: Anyone using KO in AC?

    > I use High-Low in AC. But wanting to know as
    > much as possible, I picked up the KO Book.
    > It says you have to start your IRC at -28
    > for eight decks, and -20 for six decks All
    > those negative numbers seem like a
    > deterrent. Anyone prefer this system?

    I only use KO.

    However, I don't like playing with negative numbers so I modify the count.

    I start my count at 40 in stead of 20.

    So at 24 my first bet increase and the first time I don't hit 16 against dealer 10 showing.

    At 17 is the first I take insurance and at 16 the rest of my indices kick in along with Don's 18.

    I do it this way so I am never dealing with negative numbers.

    You can modify a count anyway that works for you.

    The way I do it, I am never dealing with a negative count.

    No such thing as minus anything.

    Bet increases are as follows.

    At 24, 2 units (which would KO's -4)
    At 22 3 units
    At 21 4 units
    At 20 5 units

    18 6 units
    17 7 units (which is KO's =+3 insurance)
    16 10units
    12 15 units

    I never ever play 8 decks. Only 6.
    I hope this helps you.

    Also, as a side note you can write Ken Fuchs who is one of the authors of KO and he will answer any of your questions. He is a real nice guy. If you like, I will give you his email address.

    Hollywood

  8. #8
    Mickey
    Guest

    Mickey: Re: Anyone using KO in AC?

    > I only use KO.

    > However, I don't like playing with negative
    > numbers so I modify the count.

    > I start my count at 40 in stead of 20.

    > So at 24 my first bet increase and the first
    > time I don't hit 16 against dealer 10
    > showing.

    > At 17 is the first I take insurance and at
    > 16 the rest of my indices kick in along with
    > Don's 18.

    > I do it this way so I am never dealing with
    > negative numbers.

    > You can modify a count anyway that works for
    > you.

    > The way I do it, I am never dealing with a
    > negative count.

    > No such thing as minus anything.

    > Bet increases are as follows.

    > At 24, 2 units (which would KO's -4)
    > At 22 3 units
    > At 21 4 units
    > At 20 5 units

    > 18 6 units
    > 17 7 units (which is KO's =+3 insurance)
    > 16 10units
    > 12 15 units

    Aren't you going backwards? You are increasing your bet as the count is decreasing (you started at +40 right?). Assuming high cards are -1 isn't tis incorrect?

    > I never ever play 8 decks. Only 6.
    > I hope this helps you.

    > Also, as a side note you can write Ken Fuchs
    > who is one of the authors of KO and he will
    > answer any of your questions. He is a real
    > nice guy. If you like, I will give you his
    > email address.

    > Hollywood

  9. #9
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: TKO

    > Thanks for all the responses! Could someone
    > please explain to me the difference between
    > TKO and KO? I have the latest edition of KO
    > BJ, but did not see any reference there to
    > TKO. Where can I learn this system?

    The authors intended for K-O to be simpler than Hi-Lo, because no true count was necessary -- just a running count. So, there is no TKO in their book, because, frankly, I doubt they ever thought of it.

    The "T" stands for "True" (as in "true count") and simply means that you use the K-O tags but true count the system, just as one would with Hi-Lo. To do this, you need to start your count with -4 times the number of decks shuffled. if you then subtract 4 from all the Hi-Lo indices, you should be very close to what the TKO indices should be.

    Don

  10. #10
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Lost me, too!

    I have to say you've completely lost me too. You start at +40, instead of +20?? K-O is supposed to start at -20 for 6 decks.

    And, as the count gets lower, you bet more? You count the high cards as plus and low as minus???

    You could have simply arbitrarily added, say, 40 to the -20 IRC, so that you'd begin at +20 and then kept all the tag values the same, no?

    Don

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.