Hollywood: Question?

[Hollywood]

I need some feed back here.

I have been reading alot of posts regarding the different systems and how people favor one over the other, blah blah blah.

Now, that being said, I have heard many people say that the disadvantage in my KO system (which I use exclusivly) is that you have no advantage early in the shoe.

Can someone explain to me why a person would have an earlier advantage using a different counting system?

I always thought the people that have advantages that come up sooner then mine is because they S/T.

But, with all the back and forth I listen to about this better then that for this reason and that better then this for that reason.

If in fact they have a sooner advantage using a different system, then it would seem to me, that alone would make it superior.

And, if that is true, then is the advantage so small that it's a non issue?

Many Thanks,

Hollywood

[VerdugoJohn]

I have never used KO, or any other unbalanced system, but I understand from reading work by Fred Renzey that the principal weakness of an unbalanced system is getting an less accurate read on your true advantage than with a balanced one. Unbalanced systems are precise re:advantage estimation only near their pivot points--or so he claims in an article I read in Blackjack Insider. Accordingly, in single deck games, balanced counts usually have a larger advantage over unbalanced ones, as true count ranges much more in this game than any other...he had a simulation that compared hi-lo to ko, red 7 and black ace. Hi-lo was a little better in single deck, but there was very little difference in results in a 6 deck shoe game. Thus, the advantage of unbalanced systems, no true count conversion, comes at almost no cost of performance in a shoe game, and only a small one in single deck. So don't fret. KO will get the money...you are better served spending your time finding good games, developing your act and deception skills rather than worrying about your count system.

[VerdugoJohn]

Oops, well maybe I did not address you question in the previous post. I am not familar enought with KO and what the pivot point is for a 6 deck game, so perhaps you can respond with the comparable information for KO for the below example. That way we can both get a knowledge profit by this exchange?

If I was playing a 6deck, S17, DAS, LS game with 75% penetration, the off the top advantage would be about .26% to the house. If I was using hi-lo, if four more low cards than high came out on the first round, I would have an ever so slight advantage I would think, assuming +.5% change in edge for me change +1 in true count; thus (4/6) time .5 = +.33 added to inital -.26% would result in .07% advantage to me. Really big eh?

So, what is your initial running count be for a six deck game, your pivot point between 5-6 decks, and how many excess low cards would need to come out in the first round for yout to think you has a slight advantage?

Thanks

[Parker]

> I need some feed back here.

> I have been reading alot of posts regarding
> the different systems and how people favor
> one over the other, blah blah blah.

> Now, that being said, I have heard many
> people say that the disadvantage in my KO
> system (which I use exclusivly) is that you
> have no advantage early in the shoe.

Not exactly. The problem is that KO (and all unbalanced counts used in running count mode) tend to underestimate your true advantage early in the shoe, and overestimate it very late in the shoe.

> Can someone explain to me why a person would
> have an earlier advantage using a different
> counting system?

> I always thought the people that have
> advantages that come up sooner then mine is
> because they S/T.

Not necessarily.

I think the easiest way to see what is happening is if we look at KO in running count mode and compare it with a true-counted KO.

So, we will look at a 6 deck shoe and use -24 for the IRC. This will make the pivot 0 and the key count -8. It will also mean that a KO TC of 0 is equivalent to a Hi-lo TC of +4.

Remember, the key count is the point at which we first have an edge and begin to raise our bets.

Now, suppose a bunch of small cards come out very early in the shoe, and at the end of one deck we are at a running count of -10. Since we are not yet at the key count, we do not raise our bet, right?

However, if we take that -10 RC and divide it by the 5 decks remaining, we see that we are at TC -2, which is equivalent to a Hi-lo TC of +2, which means that we have an edge and should be raising our bets.

Conversely, suppose we are at RC -4 with one deck left (you should be so lucky as to find a game with this kind of pen). Since we are above the key count, we have an advantage, right?

Well, no. Dividing -4 by the one deck remaining gives us a TC of -4, equivalent to a Hi-lo TC of 0. We have no edge.

Does that help?

The good news is that most shoes will not be this extreme, and as a result KO works pretty well overall in running count mode, as you have proven.

> But, with all the back and forth I listen to
> about this better then that for this reason
> and that better then this for that reason.

> If in fact they have a sooner advantage
> using a different system, then it would seem
> to me, that alone would make it superior.

> And, if that is true, then is the advantage
> so small that it's a non issue?

At your stakes, it could be significant. The only way to know for sure is to run sims.

It is possible to "fudge" KO to compensate for this without resorting to true-counting. For example, you could lower the key count by 4 when you are in the first two decks.

However, you must keep in mind that once you reach the pivot, you have accurate information regardless of where you are in the shoe.

[Hollywood]

> Not exactly. The problem is that KO (and all
> unbalanced counts used in running count
> mode) tend to underestimate your true
> advantage early in the shoe, and
> overestimate it very late in the shoe.

> Not necessarily.

> I think the easiest way to see what is
> happening is if we look at KO in running
> count mode and compare it with a
> true-counted KO.

> So, we will look at a 6 deck shoe and use
> -24 for the IRC. This will make the pivot 0
> and the key count -8. It will also mean that
> a KO TC of 0 is equivalent to a Hi-lo TC of
> +4.

> Remember, the key count is the point at
> which we first have an edge and begin to
> raise our bets.

> Now, suppose a bunch of small cards come out
> very early in the shoe, and at the end of
> one deck we are at a running count of -10.
> Since we are not yet at the key count, we do
> not raise our bet, right?

> However, if we take that -10 RC and divide
> it by the 5 decks remaining, we see that we
> are at TC -2, which is equivalent to a Hi-lo
> TC of +2, which means that we have an edge
> and should be raising our bets.

> Conversely, suppose we are at RC -4 with one
> deck left (you should be so lucky as to find
> a game with this kind of pen). Since we are
> above the key count, we have an advantage,
> right?

> Well, no. Dividing -4 by the one deck
> remaining gives us a TC of -4, equivalent to
> a Hi-lo TC of 0. We have no edge.

> Does that help?

> The good news is that most shoes will not be
> this extreme, and as a result KO works
> pretty well overall in running count mode,
> as you have proven.

> At your stakes, it could be significant. The
> only way to know for sure is to run sims.

> It is possible to "fudge" KO to
> compensate for this without resorting to
> true-counting. For example, you could lower
> the key count by 4 when you are in the first
> two decks.

> However, you must keep in mind that once you
> reach the pivot, you have accurate
> information regardless of where you are in
> the shoe.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Regards

Hollywood

[Hollywood]

> I have never used KO, or any other
> unbalanced system, but I understand from
> reading work by Fred Renzey that the
> principal weakness of an unbalanced system
> is getting an less accurate read on your
> true advantage than with a balanced one.
> Unbalanced systems are precise re:advantage
> estimation only near their pivot points--or
> so he claims in an article I read in
> Blackjack Insider. Accordingly, in single
> deck games, balanced counts usually have a
> larger advantage over unbalanced ones, as
> true count ranges much more in this game
> than any other...he had a simulation that
> compared hi-lo to ko, red 7 and black ace.
> Hi-lo was a little better in single deck,
> but there was very little difference in
> results in a 6 deck shoe game. Thus, the
> advantage of unbalanced systems, no true
> count conversion, comes at almost no cost of
> performance in a shoe game, and only a small
> one in single deck. So don't fret. KO will
> get the money...you are better served
> spending your time finding good games,
> developing your act and deception skills
> rather than worrying about your count
> system.

Thank you for the feedback John.

Good cards,

Hollywood