Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: GT: Anyone using KO in AC?

  1. #21
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: chutzpah! :-) *NM*


  2. #22
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: Re: TKO


    > And finally, if I understand Brett Harris
    > properly, I think he says a true counted
    > unbalanced count may be the absolute
    > strongest system going.

    This shouldn't be a such a surprise, really. BYT, credit goes to Ken Fuchs for his pioneer work on true counting unbalanced systems.

    Anyway, back to my point.

    Back in the day, when folks were assuming that the card tags needed to balanced, they naturally had to make compromises. Regarding hi-lo versus TKO, it turns out that it is better to count the seven, than to not count the seven. But if hi-lo counted it, it would have to find another card ( negative ) to offset it and keep the balance. Only thing really available was the 9, but as we now know, that hurt the Insurance index - the most valuable one of all.

    But TKO can count the 7, without the Insurance loss, or at least the Insurance loss is more than made up by the gain in knowing about 7's.

    So, true counting unbalanced systems allows one to count "excess" positive or negative cards, without compromise.

    I would not be surprised if the most powerful-but-not-too-difficult count of all, would be a true counted unbalanced level 2.




  3. #23
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: TKO

    > I would not be surprised if the most
    > powerful-but-not-too-difficult count of all,
    > would be a true counted unbalanced level 2.

    I've run a few sims on a true-counted UBZ2, and it looks very promising -- enough so that I've started using the system with IRC's adjusted for a 0 pivot point, in anticipation of (some day) using it in true count mode.

  4. #24
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: Re: TKO


    > I've run a few sims on a true-counted UBZ2,
    > and it looks very promising -- enough so
    > that I've started using the system with
    > IRC's adjusted for a 0 pivot point, in
    > anticipation of (some day) using it in true
    > count mode.

    That's probably what I would do, too. UBZ2 is a terrific count, even in RC mode only.




  5. #25
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: TKO


    > I've run a few sims on a true-counted UBZ2,
    > and it looks very promising -- enough so
    > that I've started using the system with
    > IRC's adjusted for a 0 pivot point, in
    > anticipation of (some day) using it in true
    > count mode.

    In that case you would do better with a balanced count like Zen. I've posted some SCOREs comparing UBZ2(T) against other counts.

    Sincerely,
    Cac



  6. #26
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: TKO

    > In that case you would do better with a
    > balanced count like Zen. I've posted some
    > SCOREs comparing UBZ2(T) against other
    > counts.

    Since you brought it up (I was hating to ask) do you have the SCORE on UBZII(T)/A?

    Also, I think Parker plays more SD and DD than shoes.

    Would sure be great to see (I forget what to call it!) the modified SCORE for SD and DD for say TKO/A, UBZII(T)/A, HiLo/A!

    Thanks for all you do.

  7. #27
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: TKO

    > Since you brought it up (I was hating to
    > ask) do you have the SCORE on UBZII(T)/A?

    No, I don't.

    > Also, I think Parker plays more SD and DD
    > than shoes.

    Yeah, I know.

    > Would sure be great to see (I forget what to
    > call it!) the modified SCORE for SD and DD
    > for say TKO/A, UBZII(T)/A, HiLo/A!

    Agree but I think you could get those easily with CVdata.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  8. #28
    GT
    Guest

    GT: Ken Fuchs

    Hi Hollywood,
    Thanks for all the help, you are the BEST!!!

    Please post Ken's email, I am sure his info is priceless.

    Good Cards,
    GT

    > 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

  9. #29
    GT
    Guest

    GT: Decimal?

    Hi Card,
    Thanks for the help. Could you please explain to me exactly how you side count the Aces with High-Low?

    Good Cards,
    GT

    > 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 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.

    > 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%.

    > 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.

    > 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.

    > 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.

  10. #30
    Cardkountr
    Guest

    Cardkountr: Re: Decimal?

    > Hi Card,
    > Thanks for the help. Could you please
    > explain to me exactly how you side count the
    > Aces with High-Low?

    > Good Cards,
    > GT

    Hi GT,

    Sorry I didn't get back to you right away, I was away on a playing trip and only just got back last night.

    Actually I find side counting aces pretty simple, as I mentioned earlier I didn't like my primary count going back and forth between positive and negative numbers so I start with a base number of 20 = 0 and then just add to or subtract from that number for my primary count and by doing so it allows me to play for long periods of time flawlessly without becoming fatigued and also makes it much easier for me to tack on a side count of aces separated by a decimal.

    For example at the start of the shoe my primary Hi/Lo count is 20,(which is 0) say 3 low cards come out and 1 ace, in my mind I say 22 POINT 1. Next round say 2 face cards and another ace comes out now i'm at 19.2 etc. In this scenario I would know i'm at a running count of -1 before my true count conversion and that 2 aces have come out.

    Here's how I use the ace overage/shortage information for insurance decisions, if I have an overage of aces remaining (fewer came out than should have based on how many decks have been played) I reduce my primary running count by 2 points for each extra ace remaining above what should have been played and then convert to a true count.

    In the same token, if I have a shortage of aces remaining based upon how many should have come out (more aces already came out than should have), I add 2 to my primary count for each ace I'm short based on where I am in the shoe and then do my true count conversion.

    For example in the ace overage situation, if 2 decks have been played and I know that only 6 aces came out when there should have been 8, so I have 2 extra aces remaining in the shoe, I would then subtract 4 (2 extra aces remaining X 2 points for each one) from my running count and then do my True conversion.

    If I had a shortage of aces remaining, for example 6 aces played when only 4 should have come out after 1 deck played, therefore I am 2 aces short in the remaining shoe, I would add 4 points (2 points X the number of aces short) to the running count prior to converting to a true count.

    If the resulting TC conversion after either the ace overage or shortage computation is above my Hi/Lo index of +3 I insure, otherwise I don't.

    Hope this is of some help to you,

    Card.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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.