I'm trying to add some life to this forum.
For KO, when is it the most valuable during the shoe?
TJ
I'm trying to add some life to this forum.
For KO, when is it the most valuable during the shoe?
TJ
> I'm trying to add some life to this forum.
> For KO, when is it the most valuable during
> the shoe?
When the count, in true count mode, is the highest. Otherwise, you're always comparing apples to oranges, with different running counts having different edges depending when they occur in the shoe (except for the +4 pivot whose value is the greatest the deeper in the shoe it occurs).
Don
Thank you.
I have found the last 2 decks in a 6 deck show with a High Count the most favorable.
TJ
> Thank you.
> I have found the last 2 decks in a 6 deck
> show with a High Count the most favorable.
Suggestion: Read the "Floating Advantage" chapter in BJA3.
Don
> I'm trying to add some life to this forum.
No need.
This place is not like it is 'on the outside.'
You have a question, you post it here, as you have been doing, and you get short, reasoned, educated, on target responses.
Once a question is asked and answered, thats it -in here. No more need to carry on.
The posting strings don't start morphing in to all manner of odd-ball things as they do 'out there.'
Of course there are some excellent posters 'out there' that don't come in here. You have to generate a feel for where you want to post your questions.
I have been enjoying your KO questions.
I just came off a 75 day stretch working 7 days a week; at least ten hours a day. I'm looking forward to re-visiting KO and doing some work on it myself.
Parker is working on a book about KO -Hey Parker! -is your book going to get in to TKO, maybe TKO/A?
I have been threatening to purchase CVData from Norm to do some work with TKO/A, UBZII(T)/A, and HILO/A. I've mooched off Cacarulo and others about as much as I can!
We'll see.
Keep it up!
> I have been enjoying your KO questions.
> I just came off a 75 day stretch working 7
> days a week; at least ten hours a day. I'm
> looking forward to re-visiting KO and doing
> some work on it myself.
I know the feeling. I have recently been going through a turbulent period with the "day job" that necessitated putting things like playing the game and working on my upcoming book temporarily on the back burner. Fortunately, things are now settling down a bit.
> Parker is working on a book about KO -Hey
> Parker! -is your book going to get in to
> TKO, maybe TKO/A?
The book is aimed at beginners, and probably won't get into side counts. It will primarily teach a variant of KO even simpler than what Fuch/Vancura came up with, to be used in running count mode.
However, I'm recommending standardizing to a pivot point of 0 for any number of decks right from the git-go, rather than +4.
Guess why? :-)
> I have been threatening to purchase CVData
> from Norm to do some work with TKO/A,
> UBZII(T)/A, and HILO/A. I've mooched off
> Cacarulo and others about as much as I can!
>
Do it -- you won't regret it.
> However, I'm recommending standardizing to a
> pivot point of 0 for any number of decks
> right from the git-go, rather than +4.
> Guess why? :-)
Are you saying that this would put an unbalanced count on the same par as a balanced count for ST'ing?
> Are you saying that this would put an
> unbalanced count on the same par as a
> balanced count for ST'ing?
I wasn't really thinking about tracking. However, this would be the first step if one wished to use KO (or any unbalanced count) for shuffle tracking.
Standardizing to a pivot point of 0 is the first step in true-counting an unbalanced system.
A true-counted unbalanced system would indeed be "on the same par as a balanced count for ST'ing."
> However, I'm recommending standardizing to a
> pivot point of 0 for any number of decks
> right from the git-go, rather than +4.
I play mainly DD and start at zero. If you adjust the numbers to start at zero, in order to use your pivot of zero, we would have to revert back to negative numbers to start, correct? This includes single decks, as well, right?
I prefer starting at zero with DD, if at all possible. I would also welcome a new set of tables showing all the games starting at zero and the indexes, etc., adjusted accordingly. There could be a number of charts for others, as well. Some players don't like dealing with negative number, perhaps, charts could be drawn up showing how this can be done. You can think of many different scenarios for charts. For example, you may have a chart for starting at zero in DD games, -4, etc. Then readjust all the charts and indexes to coincide with whatever count you begin with. This could be done with SD and shoe games, alike. Just the thought of readjusting the tables to play other games other than DD really discourages me from playing those games. BUT...if there is a book, ala BJA that has all these charts ready made, I may be persuaded to study and use them...hint!
If someone with a great mind like yours can put these charts together for all players, beginners and Hollywoodsalike, it would greatly improve the KO book and the ease of learning for the player.
Please make the indexes a little clearer to the feeble minded, like myself. That would also be a vast improvement over the book.
Just my 2-cents worth.
btw, I EXPECT an authographed copy of the book when it comes out. (and after I pay you for it)...of course.
Can hardly wait.
Radar
> I play mainly DD and start at zero. If you
> adjust the numbers to start at zero, in
> order to use your pivot of zero, we would
> have to revert back to negative numbers to
> start, correct? This includes single decks,
> as well, right?
Yes, indeed. Your IRC's will look like this:
1D: -4
2D: -8
6D: -24
8D: -32
> I prefer starting at zero with DD, if at all
> possible. I would also welcome a new set of
> tables showing all the games starting at
> zero and the indexes, etc., adjusted
> accordingly.
That's actually the way I did it when I was using KO. I started at zero, because, well, it seemed like a logical place to start, and adjusted my key counts and pivot points according to the number of decks in play.
> There could be a number of
> charts for others, as well. Some players
> don't like dealing with negative number,
> perhaps, charts could be drawn up showing
> how this can be done.
Personally, I don't understand this aversion to negative numbers. I don't see how adding and subtracting small negative numbers is any more difficult than small positive numbers.
Admittedly, that's just me, and other people's minds undoubtedly work differently. However, I feel that this can easily be overcome with a little practice.
> You can think of many
> different scenarios for charts. For example,
> you may have a chart for starting at zero in
> DD games, -4, etc. Then readjust all the
> charts and indexes to coincide with whatever
> count you begin with. This could be done
> with SD and shoe games, alike. Just the
> thought of readjusting the tables to play
> other games other than DD really discourages
> me from playing those games. BUT...if there
> is a book, ala BJA that has all these charts
> ready made, I may be persuaded to study and
> use them...hint!
Here you go:
IRC=0 (all decks)
Key counts, Pivots:
1D: 2, 4
2D: 5, 8
6D: 16, 24
8D: 22, 32
That's all you need, since the KO Preferred Strategy matrix keys all indices to the pivot, key count, and IRC.
If you want to use a higher IRC to avoid negative numbers, just add that number to the above key counts and pivot points.
> If someone with a great mind like yours can
> put these charts together for all players,
> beginners and Hollywoods
> greatly improve the KO book and the ease of
> learning for the player.
I just did it for you. This is the beauty of the KO system, just as much as the fact that you don't need a true count conversion: You don't need to memorize a bunch of indices. All you need to know is what the plays are, and whether they happen at the pivot, IRC or key count. Since most of them happen at the pivot, and you don't use the IRC ones when playing shoes, this becomes trivial.
> Please make the indexes a little clearer to
> the feeble minded, like myself. That would
> also be a vast improvement over the book.
Hopefully that clears things up a little.
As the books says, you can make the IRC any number you want, as long as you adjust the key count and pivot accordingly.
My whole reason for standardizing to a pivot of zero is so that, when/if the individual decides to move to the "next level," true counting will be an almost effortless transition.
If you are certain that you do not plan to true-count KO in the foreseeable future, then there is no reason not to make the IRC anything you want.
> btw, I EXPECT an authographed copy of the
> book when it comes out. (and after I pay you
> for it)...of course.
I'm certain that Viktor will come up with some sort of way cool deal for Don's Domain members.
But I have to point out that most of the readers of this forum will find it pretty basic.
Anyway, first I have to finish it. :-)
> My whole reason for standardizing to a pivot
> of zero is so that, when/if the individual
> decides to move to the "next
> level," true counting will be an almost
> effortless transition.
Which is why I am waiting for your book. I had thought of moving to another system and have looked at many, but KO is so easy and I have been so successful that I can't think of a good, logical reason to switch. I do want to maybe TC it, if it isn't too difficult.
> If you are certain that you do not plan to
> true-count KO in the foreseeable future,
> then there is no reason not to make the IRC
> anything you want.
I like starting at zero, but if I want to TC, I guess I will have to start with negs, afterall.
About the charts. I was mainly implying that you could elaborate MORE on the indexes. The KO book is very awkward in dealing with this. Yes, they have a chart, but it not for the layman. It was really difficult for me to understand. A more simple explanation of the indexes would be a big IMPROVEMENT to the book.
> Anyway, first I have to finish it. :-)
That you do...and HURRY!
Thanks for your response.
Radar
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks