No, I really have no idea. Hopefully, after lots of errors, I will know for certain which is best.Originally Posted by seriousplayer
Muckz
Not only that but he is deviating from the KO indices. He changes what he think is right without confirming it with simulations or calculations. This is devastating. For example, he changed the 12 vs 3 to stand on the key count when the table said to stand two above the key count. If he play that wrong he will lose some EV. Without simulation or hand calculation he just don't know if the play is correct or not using the key count as the deviation from basic strategy. Even worse he uses a different key count based on different decks remaining to deviate from some indices plays he don't have any idea of the accuracy.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 12-06-2013 at 03:44 PM.
I have read the color of blackjack. There is one fatal flaw with TCOB, Dravot has his "Warm Line" at a tc of 1 which with most of today's rules on 6/4D games is at break even or even negative EV. This is the first reason I have deviated from Dravots system. TCOB uses the same preferred strategy as KO blackjack except 16 v 10 is the Warm line (Moving Key count). What I am trying to do is to better reflect these index plays from the data in Modern Blackjack and the KO-full system. Dravot makes no attempt to deviate from KO-Preferred strategy. I feel this is a mistake and was only done to keep the system as simple as possible. Why would I want to use extremely rounded index plays? For example, 11 vs A in the preferred and TCOB strategy says Double if > Pivot point. Lets relate this to using the key count instead (Attached spreadsheet). As you can see using the key count instead of Pivot point for 11 vs A is clearly more accurate.
Also, i do use different key counts and pivots for 4D they are listed as notes on the spreadsheet. My goal is to not learn KO-P or TCOB I want to make both of them a little bit better by how they correlate to the TC.
Muckz
Please show me the simulations or hand calculations that you did to determine that your modification is more accuracy compare to the deviations in the "Color of Blackjack". Just plain assumption that you think your index plays are better is not good enough. You will need proof to backup your claim. My request: Please do a simulation comparing your system modification to TKO in the Color of Blackjack and the TKO in Modern Blackjack. Then attach the data in this thread. Use chart it in CVCX or CVDATA to compare and compare it using SCORE methodology.
Question: What is the TC play for 11 vs A in TKO? Do you know? If not just altering the plays base on your assumption is not correct?
How did you come to a conclusion that the indices in "The Color of Blackjack" was a mistake? You have to understand that compromise indices in "The Color of Blackjack" does not mean it is an inferior compromise.
What is the EV of each of your key counts at each corresponding decks played? For example you have a running count of 12 for one decks played to double if it is greater than or equal to 12. What is the EV for the played at that point?
Last edited by seriousplayer; 12-07-2013 at 03:54 PM.
I've reread the Color of Blackjack. The fatal flaw that you state is not valid. In the book on page 18 under the note section it clearly states that in bad games with high house edge you must wait to increase your bet until the RC moves slightly past the Warm line. In addition it also teach you how to calculate the house edge by subtracting by the Warm line to determine the house advantage. The book give an example of a game with house edge -.3% with prefect basic strategy. The Warm line at TC= 1 has a .5% player's edge. To find the approximate house advantage you subtract the house advantage of -.3% from the player advantage of .5% which give you a .2% edge. Have you read that part of the text??? If you are playing with a higher house edge you must wait to increase your bet until the RC moves slightly past the Warm line. As state in "Color of Blackjack.I can't quote it directly from the book because of copyright issues. The note section is under the bold proof section. I think you should reread the book.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 12-07-2013 at 07:07 PM.
Muckz i think your on the right track, you have gone pretty much the same way as me(atleast i hope we are both on the right track). I use different Rcs based on depth for indices corresponding to the Tcs i have taken mostly from Modern Blackjack from the T-Reko section and the end of that chapter with the different running counts that i think you were alluding to in one of your posts. I started out after reading COBJ and wanting more accurate indices , took hi-lo indices and used them as if they were TKO indices. I was pretty confident that at the least they were a little more accurate than the regular compromise indices, but i wasnt sure. But after reading Modern Blackjack and seeing that the T-reko indices matched mine very closely i became assured. So this is what i have settled on for now, and i will see after more experience if TKO in this way i use it is worth sticking with. I definitely want the accuracy of true counting so iam not sure yet if it is worth switching to something like hi-lo or Zen.
For the 11vA index you gave that seems fine as it matches the running count indexes given in Modern Blackjack. Plus as you can see the TKO indices are very similiar to hi-lo. It is definitely more accurate for that play using that than just doubling at pivot. But you said you play H17 games where 11vA is basic strategy so you dont even need to worry about an index for the games you are playing right now. I dont know if you do any wonging out(which you should do as much as you can) but you could just use the wongout numbers from COBJ as the index to double 11vA for the H17 games you play.
Also you said you just use basic for surrender. It is very easy to add surrender indices. Just use the indices for surrender seriousplayer listed which i think are the same as KO Preferred and the COBJ.
Last edited by tawny; 12-07-2013 at 09:18 PM.
I was under the impression that you should deviate from basic strategy if your index says so. Even if basic strategy says Double 11vA.
In response to seriousplayer, i am working on getting these sims going. I am not great with using the program and its taking me awhile to figure out how to get what I want it to sim and to fix the preset TCOB.
Also, the Real KO index from Modern Blackjack is a short section that was the data for the absolute correct play. It is not a system but, I think I could try to sim it, I just am not sure how to right now.
Oh and also, I did miss the section about adjusting the Warm Line for rules.
Muckz
Generally i believe that is true. But i think if you were to get a true count index for a shoe game H17 it would be right around 0 or a little less. If you look at REKO-F the index for 6 deck H17 is right around the same place as the index for 12v4 which is right around 0 TC.
I use the same index for 16v10, 12v4, 11vA(h17), 19v6(h17), 18v2(H17). I use 4,8,12,16,20 for decks 1....5. For S17 i just use the key counts like you gave.
Last edited by tawny; 12-07-2013 at 09:59 PM.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks