euphdude: Another SCORE question

[euphdude]

Hi All,

I just joined "Don's Domain." I'm still debating about which counting system I should use in the long run. I'm definitely going the unbalanced route...The two systems in question are the K-O and Fred Renzey's Stage III Kiss Count. I've never tested KO in the casino but I can still count faster with it....you don't need to worry about separting those red and black 2's. As far as a comparison of the Indices - This one isn't even close. The KO has 11 rounded indices that are all activated at the pivot point, 1 index entry for the key count, and a couple of others if the count falls below the IRC. That is it. The KISS full indices are not rounded and there are differing entries depending on whether you play pitch or shoe games. Big Advantage KO. Nonetheless, the KISS system has a number of factors going for it...Explanation of the count - Renzey did a great job of explaning his count whereas Vancura and Fuchs left alot of my questions unanswered. I have also had numerous email conversations with Renzey and he has always willingly answered all of my questions. The KISS key count and pivot points are the same regardless of the number of decks you will use whereas the KO is different....definite plus for the KISS. Having said that, I'm still slightly leaning towards K-O for its overall simplicity.

When I tried to do some research, I was a bit dismayed when I first bought BJA3 as the score of KO was consistently bested by Hi-Lo in all of but a few scenarios. This was in contrast to what I found in the KO book where K-O was listed as equal to or greater than Hi-Lo. Although some folks might say Vancura and Fuchs were artificially pumping up their own results, I suspected that the SCOREs were not done on a true apples to apples comparison. And on page 165 of BJA3, Don confirmed that the SCORE comparisons of Hi-Lo versus KO were done with the KO preferred indices, most of which are activated at the pivot point. And of course, KO lacks indices for splitting 10's. My question for Don (as well as anyone else who might be able to help) is as follows...what were the ROUGH differences in SCORE when you did a true apples to apples comparison? Specifically, was the SCORE gap closed when you don't split 10's with Hi-Lo? My gut feeling is that this difference may indeed close the SCORE gap , as the splitting of ten's are listed as the 4th and 5th most important indices of the Ill 18 (BJA3, p. 62)

If the answer to this question is yes, I think I've made a final decision on which system to go with.

Thanks so much!!!
Euphdude

[Hollywood]

> Hi All,

> I just joined "Don's Domain." I'm
> still debating about which counting system I
> should use in the long run. I'm definitely
> going the unbalanced route...The two systems
> in question are the K-O and Fred Renzey's
> Stage III Kiss Count. I've never tested KO
> in the casino but I can still count faster
> with it....you don't need to worry about
> separting those red and black 2's. As far as
> a comparison of the Indices - This one isn't
> even close. The KO has 11 rounded indices
> that are all activated at the pivot point, 1
> index entry for the key count, and a couple
> of others if the count falls below the IRC.
> That is it. The KISS full indices are not
> rounded and there are differing entries
> depending on whether you play pitch or shoe
> games. Big Advantage KO. Nonetheless, the
> KISS system has a number of factors going
> for it...Explanation of the count - Renzey
> did a great job of explaning his count
> whereas Vancura and Fuchs left alot of my
> questions unanswered. I have also had
> numerous email conversations with Renzey and
> he has always willingly answered all of my
> questions. The KISS key count and pivot
> points are the same regardless of the number
> of decks you will use whereas the KO is
> different....definite plus for the KISS.
> Having said that, I'm still slightly leaning
> towards K-O for its overall simplicity.

> When I tried to do some research, I was a
> bit dismayed when I first bought BJA3 as the
> score of KO was consistently bested by Hi-Lo
> in all of but a few scenarios. This was in
> contrast to what I found in the KO book
> where K-O was listed as equal to or greater
> than Hi-Lo. Although some folks might say
> Vancura and Fuchs were artificially pumping
> up their own results, I suspected that the
> SCOREs were not done on a true apples to
> apples comparison. And on page 165 of BJA3,
> Don confirmed that the SCORE comparisons of
> Hi-Lo versus KO were done with the KO
> preferred indices, most of which are
> activated at the pivot point. And of course,
> KO lacks indices for splitting 10's. My
> question for Don (as well as anyone else who
> might be able to help) is as follows...what
> were the ROUGH differences in SCORE when you
> did a true apples to apples comparison?
> Specifically, was the SCORE gap closed when
> you don't split 10's with Hi-Lo? My gut
> feeling is that this difference may indeed
> close the SCORE gap , as the splitting of
> ten's are listed as the 4th and 5th most
> important indices of the Ill 18 (BJA3, p.
> 62)

> If the answer to this question is yes, I
> think I've made a final decision on which
> system to go with.

> Thanks so much!!!
> Euphdude

Hi

I'm not going to respond to your post, because the master will do that.

But, I just wanted to mention that I only use KO, and I split 10's using 6 decks at the pivot.

There are indices not listed in KO that I use regularly.

So you want to address that with the big guys.

I'm a little guy.

Hollywood

[euphdude]

> Hi

> I'm not going to respond to your post,
> because the master will do that.

> But, I just wanted to mention that I only
> use KO, and I split 10's using 6 decks at
> the pivot.

> There are indices not listed in KO that I
> use regularly.

> So you want to address that with the big
> guys.

> I'm a little guy.

> Hollywood

Hi Hollywood,

Thanks for your information. I found a couple of messages in the archives that mirrored your idea of splitting 10's at the pivot point in K-O. From an expectation standpoint, I'd have to agree with you...it appears to be a great move. But, I don't ever plan on doing that as I don't ever wanted to be identifed as an advantage player.

The main reason I want to asked this question is to validate my hypothesis that splitting 10's is a huge help to the Hi-Lo, and only mariginally helps the K-O. By removing this basic strategy departure, my hypothesis is that K-O should come very close, if not equal hi-lo.

Thanks again and all the best.

[Parker]

> Hi All,

> I just joined "Don's Domain." I'm
> still debating about which counting system I
> should use in the long run. I'm definitely
> going the unbalanced route...The two systems
> in question are the K-O and Fred Renzey's
> Stage III Kiss Count. I've never tested KO
> in the casino but I can still count faster
> with it....you don't need to worry about
> separting those red and black 2's. As far as
> a comparison of the Indices - This one isn't
> even close. The KO has 11 rounded indices
> that are all activated at the pivot point, 1
> index entry for the key count, and a couple
> of others if the count falls below the IRC.

There are actually 18 KO Preferred indices, including insurance. They are the same as the I-18 except that splitting 10's vs 5 and 6 is dropped and doubling 8 vs 5 and 6 is added. Of course, the thing that makes the KO indices different is that they are all keyed to one of only three numbers -- the pivot, the key count, and the IRC.

> That is it. The KISS full indices are not
> rounded and there are differing entries
> depending on whether you play pitch or shoe
> games. Big Advantage KO. Nonetheless, the
> KISS system has a number of factors going
> for it...Explanation of the count - Renzey
> did a great job of explaning his count
> whereas Vancura and Fuchs left alot of my
> questions unanswered.

Agreed. The KO book is less than crystal-clear in several areas.

> I have also had
> numerous email conversations with Renzey and
> he has always willingly answered all of my
> questions.

Fred answers e-mails, as well as contributing regularly to the Parker Pages, and now hosting our new Poker page (where he'll probably occasionally field off-topic questions regarding Blackjack Bluebook). Fred is indeed one of the "Good Guys."

Ken Fuchs used to occasionally post on the Parker Pages, although it has been over two years since his last post. However, you can still read his posts, if you use the search function on the Blackjack Main page.

> The KISS key count and pivot
> points are the same regardless of the number
> of decks you will use whereas the KO is
> different....definite plus for the KISS.

I don't follow you here. All unbalanced counts have an IRC, a key count and a pivot. You can standardize to one of these for any number of decks, but the other two will always vary with the number of decks. Fred doesn't really discuss the key count in BJBBII.

> Having said that, I'm still slightly leaning
> towards K-O for its overall simplicity.

I started with KO and used it for several years with good results before switching to UBZ2. My upcoming book will be primarily concerned with a variant of KO, and will (hopefully) clarify some of those unclear areas mentioned earlier.

> When I tried to do some research, I was a
> bit dismayed when I first bought BJA3 as the
> score of KO was consistently bested by Hi-Lo
> in all of but a few scenarios. This was in
> contrast to what I found in the KO book
> where K-O was listed as equal to or greater
> than Hi-Lo. Although some folks might say
> Vancura and Fuchs were artificially pumping
> up their own results, I suspected that the
> SCOREs were not done on a true apples to
> apples comparison. And on page 165 of BJA3,
> Don confirmed that the SCORE comparisons of
> Hi-Lo versus KO were done with the KO
> preferred indices, most of which are
> activated at the pivot point. And of course,
> KO lacks indices for splitting 10's. My
> question for Don (as well as anyone else who
> might be able to help) is as follows...what
> were the ROUGH differences in SCORE when you
> did a true apples to apples comparison?
> Specifically, was the SCORE gap closed when
> you don't split 10's with Hi-Lo? My gut
> feeling is that this difference may indeed
> close the SCORE gap , as the splitting of
> ten's are listed as the 4th and 5th most
> important indices of the Ill 18 (BJA3, p.
> 62)

As Hollywood mentions in his post, it is not etched in stone that you cannot split 10's with KO. Split them at the pivot against 6, and a little higher (pivot + 1 or 2) against dealer 5.

> If the answer to this question is yes, I
> think I've made a final decision on which
> system to go with.

I haven't simmed it, but this would definitely narrow the gap.

Also, remember that picking a counting system isn't like getting married or joining the mob. After you use a system for a while and get some casino experience, there is nothing to prevent you from switching counting systems if you feel like it.

Some people (who apparently have minds like computers) even use one system for single and double deck games, and a completely different system for shoes.

I hate those people. :-)

[Hollywood]

> Hi Hollywood,

> Thanks for your information. I found a
> couple of messages in the archives that
> mirrored your idea of splitting 10's at the
> pivot point in K-O. From an expectation
> standpoint, I'd have to agree with you...it
> appears to be a great move. But, I don't
> ever plan on doing that as I don't ever
> wanted to be identifed as an advantage
> player.

> The main reason I want to asked this
> question is to validate my hypothesis that
> splitting 10's is a huge help to the Hi-Lo,
> and only mariginally helps the K-O. By
> removing this basic strategy departure, my
> hypothesis is that K-O should come very
> close, if not equal hi-lo.

> Thanks again and all the best.

I'm sorry, perhaps I should have clarified that portion of my post.

I only split 10's against dealer 5 or 6 at pivot and even higher.

I actually even prefer it a bit above the pivot.

However, what I should have clarified is that I NEVER, EVER make that play when I am playing in my own name.

I use that play under the same set of circumstances as when I double on soft 20.

After I make one of the above 2 plays, I pick up my chips (I don't stop at the cage) and get a cab to my car.

Just remember, you start spliting 10's with your max bet on the table. They will treat you like a guy who went up to the cashier with a gun.

And, I would like to add one more thing.

They won't care if you win or lose that hand.

A tourist wouldn't do that.

By the way welcome to the neighborhood

Hollywood

[euphdude]

Hi Parker,

Thanks for your responses...I'll try to clarify a couple of points I was trying to make below:

> I don't follow you here. All unbalanced
> counts have an IRC, a key count and a pivot.
> You can standardize to one of these for any
> number of decks, but the other two will
> always vary with the number of decks. Fred
> doesn't really discuss the key count in
> BJBBII.

You are absolutely correct, he doesn't discuss a key count per se as K-O does, but he does have an equivalent point where you will always start raising your bets...at a running count of +20. What I meant was this point and his pivot of +22 (KISS III) remained the same regardless of the number of decks you are playing against. So the only differing numbers you have to remember are the IRCs. Thus, the KISS system is more streamlined in that respect. Of course in regard to indices, the KO is more streamlined.

> As Hollywood mentions in his post, it is not
> etched in stone that you cannot split 10's
> with KO. Split them at the pivot against 6,
> and a little higher (pivot + 1 or 2) against
> dealer 5.

Yeah, I had seen other posts that mentioned this. I'd like to know what the Hi-Lo SCOREs are without splitting 10's since I have no intention of ever doing so. Ian Anderson wrote the only people who split 10's are either fools or counters and it won't take much analysis of your play to figure out where you would fit in.

> I haven't simmed it, but this would
> definitely narrow the gap.

That was my hunch as well.

One final question...K-O exceeds Hi-Lo in SCORE in several cases even when the comparison was not done with identical indices. In the cases where Hi-Lo SCOREd better, do you really think a casual player (who goes to a casino maybe a half dozen times a year) would ever notice the difference?

Thanks much Parker....Although I've lurked around for a bit, I've thoroughly enjoyed your posts.

All the best,
Euphdude

[Sun Runner]

> I just joined "Don's Domain."

Glad to have you!

> When I tried to do some research, I was a
> bit dismayed when I first bought BJA3 as the
> score of KO was consistently bested by Hi-Lo
> in all of but a few scenarios.

Why should this dismay you? All the sales pitch and personal opinion aside, generally you are going to get out what you put in.

KO is easier to use. It wins this argument. Hilo is a little more difficult to use, but may be a little better performer. Sounds reasonable to me. More effort in -better results out.

Ease of use is certainly important; for many, very important. But if ease of use is not that high on your list, if TC'ing is something you would consider, discard ease of use and put the two systems on the same level playing field.

TKO beats Hilo like a rented mule!
(Probably because it counts that 7, I'm not sure.)

I don't know Mr Renzy's KISSIII count and would not volunteer a comparison.

My OPINION is starting to become that TKO will best any other L1 system and that TKO/A will compete with about anybody under L3 (I did say 'about').

Of course Hilo is the work horse and analysis on it is plentiful. It is cumbersome to work out your own KO, TKO, TKO/A system. Many conversions, indices don't match, adjusting the whole thing to get out of negative number land (shoot, it made Hollywood start counting backwards).

But you do generally get out what you put in.

Finally -it's all good. The best advice is to take a stand, make a choice, get to learning, and get to playing. They will all get some of the money.

[Hollywood]

[Sun Runner]

[Parker]

> You are absolutely correct, he doesn't
> discuss a key count per se as K-O does, but
> he does have an equivalent point where you
> will always start raising your bets...at a
> running count of +20. What I meant was this
> point and his pivot of +22 (KISS III)
> remained the same regardless of the number
> of decks you are playing against. So the
> only differing numbers you have to remember
> are the IRCs. Thus, the KISS system is more
> streamlined in that respect. Of course in
> regard to indices, the KO is more
> streamlined.

This works because the KISS count is only unbalanced by a factor of 2, which means that the pivot is roughly equivalant to a Hi-lo TC of +2. Essentially, the "key count" is being rounded. It could probably be tweaked a bit if someone was playing one type of game exclusively.

> Yeah, I had seen other posts that mentioned
> this. I'd like to know what the Hi-Lo SCOREs
> are without splitting 10's since I have no
> intention of ever doing so. Ian Anderson
> wrote the only people who split 10's are
> either fools or counters and it won't take
> much analysis of your play to figure out
> where you would fit in.

You just have to convince 'em that you're a fool.

Works for me. :-)

> One final question...K-O exceeds Hi-Lo in
> SCORE in several cases even when the
> comparison was not done with identical
> indices. In the cases where Hi-Lo SCOREd
> better, do you really think a casual player
> (who goes to a casino maybe a half dozen
> times a year) would ever notice the
> difference?

Absolutely not!

This is the point that I have been preaching for years: People spend huge amounts of time and bandwidth discussing whether counting system A or counting system B is better, when, for the vast majority of players, it doesn't make any difference! Just pick a system and learn how to use it flawlessly.

> Thanks much Parker....Although I've lurked
> around for a bit, I've thoroughly enjoyed
> your posts.

Always nice to hear that. :-)

[Hollywood]

> This works because the KISS count is only
> unbalanced by a factor of 2, which means
> that the pivot is roughly equivalant to a
> Hi-lo TC of +2. Essentially, the "key
> count" is being rounded. It could
> probably be tweaked a bit if someone was
> playing one type of game exclusively.

> You just have to convince 'em that you're a
> fool.

> Works for me. :-)

> Absolutely not!

> This is the point that I have been preaching
> for years: People spend huge amounts of time
> and bandwidth discussing whether counting
> system A or counting system B is better,
> when, for the vast majority of players, it
> doesn't make any difference! Just pick a
> system and learn how to use it flawlessly.

> Always nice to hear that. :-)

Parker, that is such a good point.

I have always used KO because I can use it with virtually NO mistakes.

I don't find it at all confusing and more importantly the differences in all the systems don't appear to be that different.

The ones that are superior don't appear superior enough to matter.

Just like a diet, they all work. Some are better then others. But, if you follow it to the hilt then you should be fine.

Hollywood