JB: Counting with KO

[Don Schlesinger]

> Here goes:

> 6 deck game I start at 40. If a small card
> comes out i'm at 39.

So, the small cards are negatives, just as I thought. You are unique! The whole world wants to see the count go up; you want to see it go down! :-)

> At 24 is the first time I raise my bet from
> 1 to 2 units. And also the first time I
> don't hit my 16 against dealer 10.

> My 24 is the same as KO's minus 4.

> At 17 is the first time I take insurance.
> My 17 is the same as plus 3 in KO.

> At 16 almost all my other indices kick in.

> Also at 16 i'm at a 10 unit bet.

> My 16 is equivlant to KO's plus 4.

All the rest follows from your very unusual beginning premise.

> I have an aversion to negative numbers. So
> with the way I set this up, I never say plus
> minus etc. Just count up and down.

But, you could have started at, say, +20 and counted up and down in the usual fashion, with small cards positive, no?

> You know i'm a bit strange to begin with, so
> why would this surprise you? lol lol lol

I've never seen anything like it before, so it caught me off guard. Did you devise this yourself?

> You must find this even more humorous,
> seeing as you have the personal knowledge of
> the big numbers I play at.

> Several hundereds of thousands of dollars in
> winnings, please don't tell me i'm doing it
> wrong.

Whatever floats your boat! It's not "wrong" -- it's just very different. Besides, you have the money to prove that it works!

Don

[Hollywood]

> So, the small cards are negatives, just as I
> thought. You are unique! The whole world
> wants to see the count go up; you want to
> see it go down! :-)

> All the rest follows from your very unusual
> beginning premise.

> But, you could have started at, say, +20 and
> counted up and down in the usual fashion,
> with small cards positive, no?

> I've never seen anything like it before, so
> it caught me off guard. Did you devise this
> yourself?

> Whatever floats your boat! It's not
> "wrong" -- it's just very
> different. Besides, you have the money to
> prove that it works!

> Don

I was having so much trouble doing it the correct way. Besides having severe dislexia (spelled wrong) I have extremly week math skills. If you remember I graduated high school with a 67 average and much of that was from cheating.

Funny thing was I was the fastest typist the school had ever seen to that point and they used to have me give demonstrations. Typing on an IBM electric close to 200 words a minute back then and 70 words a minute with mittens on. lol

I only devised this myself, because conventional systems did not work. I know it's terrible Don, but it gets the job done.

As soon as I get involved in any plus or minus situation I lose track of what i'm doing.

So with this system, i'm merely going up and down.
I used to start at 30, but frequently the count would get to zero which would take be back to the plus minus stuff which I had trouble with.

So I went up to 40 and it has never happened again or at least very rarely.

Why do you think i'm telling you for years I am your blackjack poster child. Meaning, if YOU have taken me to this level with my skills anybody can do this.

I try to tell this to people all the time that think it's above their head.

I'm basically a math moron, so if Schlesinger,Parker, Norm and the rest of the masteres in here can put this much money in my pocket, what can they do for the smart guys in here?

I think alot.

Thanking you guys in advance for all my extra cash lol

Hollywood

[Don Schlesinger]

> I was having so much trouble doing it the
> correct way. Besides having severe dislexia
> (spelled wrong) [close! dyslexia] I have >extremely weak math skills. If you remember I >graduated high school with a 67 average and much > of that was from cheating.

LOL!

> Funny thing was I was the fastest typist the
> school had ever seen to that point and they
> used to have me give demonstrations. Typing
> on an IBM electric close to 200 words a
> minute back then and 70 words a minute with
> mittens on. lol

How did you learn to type like that?

> I only devised this myself, because
> conventional systems did not work. I know
> it's terrible Don, but it gets the job done.

It's not "terrible"; it's just unique.

> As soon as I get involved in any plus or
> minus situation I lose track of what i'm
> doing.

Then, you've done the right thing.

> So with this system, i'm merely going up and
> down.
> I used to start at 30, but frequently the
> count would get to zero which would take be
> back to the plus minus stuff which I had
> trouble with.

And, you don't want to get in trouble when the count (for you) is so wonderfully low! :-)

> So I went up to 40 and it has never happened
> again or at least very rarely.

Yup. +40 RCs for us mere mortals are hard to come by.

> Why do you think i'm telling you for years I
> am your blackjack poster child. Meaning, if
> YOU have taken me to this level with my
> skills anybody can do this.

Sounds like a very good ad for a school ... or a Web site. :-)

> I try to tell this to people all the time
> that think it's above their head.

> I'm basically a math moron, so if
> Schlesinger, Parker, Norm and the rest of the
> masters in here can put this much money in
> my pocket, what can they do for the smart
> guys in here?

Well, when we ran the Blackjack Clinic over 20 years ago, we truly had people from all walks of life, and many thought they could never learn to do this, but they did. Motivation goes a long way.

> I think a lot.

> Thanking you guys in advance for all my
> extra cash lol

It certainly has been fun, no?

Don

[Hollywood]

> LOL!

> How did you learn to type like that?

> It's not "terrible"; it's just
> unique.

> Then, you've done the right thing.

> And, you don't want to get in trouble when
> the count (for you) is so wonderfully low!
> :-)

> Yup. +40 RCs for us mere mortals are hard to
> come by.

> Sounds like a very good ad for a school ...
> or a Web site. :-)

> Well, when we ran the Blackjack Clinic over
> 20 years ago, we truly had people from all
> walks of life, and many thought they could
> never learn to do this, but they did.
> Motivation goes a long way.

> It certainly has been fun, no?

> Don

I started typing in Junior high. Just had a knack for it.

The funny thing is that to get an A (senior year in HS) you only needed 50 words a minute with 4 errors. So all the guys in the neighborhood wanted to sit next to me, I would finish mine and take it out and get 2 other guys A's and the 3rd guy a B.

Talk about responsibility. lol

The mittens thing started in 9th grade with one of my teachers. I was already typing 130 wpm and she asked me to try it, it became quite a show.

Go figure

Hollywood

[Parker]

> I was having so much trouble doing it the
> correct way. Besides having severe dislexia
> (spelled wrong) I have extremly week math
> skills. If you remember I graduated high
> school with a 67 average and much of that
> was from cheating.

Don't sell yourself short. You single-handedly figured out how to convert KO into something quite different that works for you. In addition, you have become adept at converting from your method to traditional KO (at least, away from the table) in order to ask questions here in a manner that we can understand, and put the answers to use.

This takes math skills of some sort.

Just don't ask me how to true-count your method. :-)

[Hollywood]

> Don't sell yourself short. You
> single-handedly figured out how to convert
> KO into something quite different that works
> for you. In addition, you have become adept
> at converting from your method to
> traditional KO (at least, away from the
> table) in order to ask questions here in a
> manner that we can understand, and put the
> answers to use.

> This takes math skills of some sort.

> Just don't ask me how to true-count your
> method. :-)

I didn't have a choice, it was either come up with something or STOP playing. I love the game to much for that.

True counting would be quite a challenge .

By the way big guy, i'm waiting for the book.

Hollywood

[JB]

> I have always had trouble with negative
> numbers.

> So I play my 6 deck KO game starting at 40
> instread of 20.

> What the books says to do at -4 I do at 24.

> I take insurance at 17 instead of plus 3
> etc.
> All the same thing, just another way to do
> it.

> There are many different ways to do it.

> This is only my suggestion if you don't like
> that plus minus stuff.

>
> Hollywood

So you basically count down from 40, start ramping your bets at 24, take insurance at 17 and make all index plays at 16.

I like it.

What bet spreads have you had success with (i.e. 2 units at 24, 3 at 23, etc)?

Thanks

[Parker]

> Also, I'm thinking it might be easier to
> minimize negative numbers by making my IRC
> say +5. Assuming a 6 deck shoe, what would
> be my new pivot point, key count, and matrix
> value?

I recommend adjusting the IRC for a pivot point of 0. For 6D, this would mean an IRC of -24, and a key count of -8.

Yes, this means that you will be dealing with negative numbers most of the time. People are apprehensive about this for whatever reason, but it only takes a few hours of practice for most people to become comfortable with negative numbers. It is time well spent.

Why use a pivot point of zero? Because, eventually, you will consider true-counting KO. I know you will. Everybody does. :-)

Using a pivot of zero makes true-counting incredibly easy, as all you have to do is divide by number of unseen decks, just as with a balanced count.

Even if you do not wish to use KO in TC mode all the time or learn TC indices, an occasional quick TC conversion can be used to check if you are missing any advantage when the RC climbs rapidly early in the shoe. Again, with a pivot of zero this is very easy to do.

[Cacarulo]

[Sun Runner]

> Using a pivot of zero makes true-counting
> incredibly easy, as all you have to do is
> divide by number of unseen decks, just as
> with a balanced count.

Maybe this time will do it for me, but I don't get the simplicity .. what am I missing?

6D shoe, 2 decks gone, 4 remain.
12 net excess small cards dealt.
HILO calls it RC +12. KO calls it RC -8.
What is the TC?

6D shoe, 2 decks gone, 4 remain.
12 net excess big cards dealt.
HILO calls it RC -12. KO calls it RC -32.
What is the TC?

Sorry to be so dense.

[Cacarulo]

> Maybe this time will do it for me, but I
> don't get the simplicity .. what am I
> missing?

> 6D shoe, 2 decks gone, 4 remain.
> 12 net excess small cards dealt.
> HILO calls it RC +12. KO calls it RC -8.
> What is the TC?

If you started the RC at -24 and 12 net excess small cards were dealt then KO calls for -12.
TC = -12/4 = -3. For Hi-Lo it would be +12/4 = +3 in this particular example.
If the RC is -8 it means that 16 net excess small cards were dealt. That would be -8/4 = -2
In average a TC of 0 for TKO means a TC of +4 for Hi-Lo.

> 6D shoe, 2 decks gone, 4 remain.
> 12 net excess big cards dealt.
> HILO calls it RC -12. KO calls it RC -32.
> What is the TC?

You can work this out for homework

Sincerely,
Cac

[Sun Runner]

> You can work this out for homework

Thanks, I just wanted someone else to voice the answer and see if it still sounded ridiculous to me.

> If you started the RC at -24 and 12 net
> excess small cards were dealt then KO calls
> for -12. TC = -12/4 = -3.

> For Hi-Lo it would be +12/4 = +3.

The TC is indeed plus 3. Except for KO users, it is -3.

Parker says "using a pivot of zero makes true-counting (an un-balanced count) incredibly easy, as all you have to do is divide by number of unseen decks, just as with a balanced count."

Incredibly easy I guess if you don't mind using the KO decoder ring to let you know that TC -3 is really what the rest of the world commonly refers to as +3.

Somehow as a counter I was hoping the KO TC process would return the universally accepted answer at that place in the deck of 'plus 3' .. an answer that would be meaningful without anymore thought going in to it.

I really don't have a grudge against un-balanced counts and I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just looking for that ease of use.

Parker -looking forward to the book. I'm sure it will be clear enough then.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Thanks, I just wanted someone else to voice
> the answer and see if it still sounded
> ridiculous to me.

> The TC is indeed plus 3. Except for KO
> users, it is -3.

No, it's -1!

> Parker says "using a pivot of zero
> makes true-counting (an un-balanced count)
> incredibly easy, as all you have to do is
> divide by number of unseen decks, just as
> with a balanced count."

> Incredibly easy I guess if you don't mind
> using the KO decoder ring to let you know
> that TC -3 is really what the rest of the
> world commonly refers to as +3.

K-O true counts are always four lower than Hi-Lo true counts. In the example above, the reference was to 12 excess small cards. This would be in addition to the imbalance of 8 small cards that you get for dealing two decks. So, the RC is -4, not -12, and the K-O TC is -4/4 = -1, not -12/4 = -3.

> Somehow as a counter I was hoping the KO TC
> process would return the universally
> accepted answer at that place in the deck of
> 'plus 3' .. an answer that would be
> meaningful without anymore thought going in
> to it.

Live with it! :-)

> I really don't have a grudge against
> un-balanced counts and I'm not trying to be
> difficult; I'm just looking for that ease of
> use.

The problem is what you start with. If it's Hi-Lo, then anything else seems "strange" to you; if it's K-O, right out of the box, you don't have the comparison to Hi-Lo to confuse you.

Don