Hi-Lo vs. KO - The Effect of 7s in a DD game?

[Bigdaddy]

I originally learned to count using KO, but have since learned to modify the KO running count to convert it to a true count (e.g., "TKO"). This was to gain more accurancy in my bet ramp and index plays, since most of the good literature out there is stated in terms of the Hi-Lo system (I18, etc.).

So here's a hypothetical situation -
In a DD game, after one deck has been dealt, the running count using KO has increased by 6, which means that the converted TC (TKO) is +2. Now what if all eight of the 7s had come out in that one deck that was dealt? Hi-Lo would have the TC at -2 because 7s are counted as zero, but TKO puts the count at +2 because the 7s are counted as +1.

So I guess my question is - am I playing with fire using TKO in a DD game due to the chance that with only two decks, my TC approximation could be way off due to a disproportionate appearance of 7s? I must say that I have had very good success with this system so far, but maybe just variance? Of course let's assume that I don't want to start keeping a side count of 7s to improve the TC conversion.

Also, it occurs to me that where the TKO count differs significantly from the Hi-Lo TC (due to a disporportionate appearance of 7s) this might be effective cover against the eye in the sky? Do they evalauate play under multiple counting systems?

[muckz]

I originally learned to count using KO, but have since learned to modify the KO running count to convert it to a true count (e.g., "TKO"). This was to gain more accurancy in my bet ramp and index plays, since most of the good literature out there is stated in terms of the Hi-Lo system (I18, etc.).

So here's a hypothetical situation -
In a DD game, after one deck has been dealt, the running count using KO has increased by 6, which means that the converted TC (TKO) is +2. Now what if all eight of the 7s had come out in that one deck that was dealt? Hi-Lo would have the TC at -2 because 7s are counted as zero, but TKO puts the count at +2 because the 7s are counted as +1.

So I guess my question is - am I playing with fire using TKO in a DD game due to the chance that with only two decks, my TC approximation could be way off due to a disproportionate appearance of 7s? I must say that I have had very good success with this system so far, but maybe just variance? Of course let's assume that I don't want to start keeping a side count of 7s to improve the TC conversion.

Also, it occurs to me that where the TKO count differs significantly from the Hi-Lo TC (due to a disporportionate appearance of 7s) this might be effective cover against the eye in the sky? Do they evalauate play under multiple counting systems?

In that situation KO shows an advantage for you that Hi-lo failed to. You want a higher density of 10's 9's and A's than 2-7's. Avoid comparing system to system on an instance basis, compare using a general method such as SCORE.

KO having a benefit of cover is negligible. Most of the time the counts will be relatively close to each other for representing advantage. Only on a few occasions it might fool a floor counting a deck or the occasional patrol of EITS. If they suspect AP play they will measure your patterns against multiple shoes and no matter what count system, if you are showing bet variation, will either show you at an advantage or not at an advantage.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Forget about what 7's are "counted" as. That matters little indeed.

In a DD game 7's (and Aces) I always side-count (with Hi-Opt II)

I refer you to THE THEORY of BLACKJACK" by the immortal Dr. Griffin.

The tables of E.O.R. PER HAND match-up is priceless for BJ aficionados.

Perhaps the best of these, displays the amazing "value" of 7's and Aces

for "playing efficiency" in some hands. For betting correlation 7's are worth little.

At a True Count of ZERO if you are missing ½ of the 7's you STAND on 14 vs. 10 !

This is actually Basic Strategy, so in a Single Deck game if you are dealt 7-7

and are facing a Face Card (pun intended) on the first hand (off the top) you stand

Give me some surplus Aces and I am splitting 9's, not only against 7, but against the Ace !

This resource can be had for the price of a cup of Java:

http://product.half.ebay.com/The-The...119123&tg=info

Ask Tarzan.

[seriousplayer]

Forget about what 7's are "counted" as. That matters little indeed.

In a DD game 7's (and Aces) I always side-count (with Hi-Opt II)

I refer you to THE THEORY of BLACKJACK" by the immortal Dr. Griffin.

The tables of E.O.R. PER HAND match-up is priceless for BJ aficionados.

Perhaps the best of these, displays the amazing "value" of 7's and Aces

for "playing efficiency" in some hands. For betting correlation 7's are worth little.

At a True Count of ZERO if you are missing ½ of the 7's you STAND on 14 vs. 10 !

This is actually Basic Strategy, so in a Single Deck game if you are dealt 7-7

and are facing a Face Card (pun intended) on the first hand (off the top) you stand

Give me some surplus Aces and I am splitting 9's, not only against 7, but against the Ace !

This resource can be had for the price of a cup of Java:

http://product.half.ebay.com/The-The...119123&tg=info

Ask Tarzan.

The truth of the fact is that without counting the 7's counts like Hi-lo will not be accurate enough to make the playing deviation 14 vs 10. 14 vs 10 is an important Ill18 playing deviation especially in DD and single deck play. From "The Theory of Blackjack" adding the seven raises the system correlation.

[seriousplayer]

I originally learned to count using KO, but have since learned to modify the KO running count to convert it to a true count (e.g., "TKO"). This was to gain more accurancy in my bet ramp and index plays, since most of the good literature out there is stated in terms of the Hi-Lo system (I18, etc.).

So here's a hypothetical situation -
In a DD game, after one deck has been dealt, the running count using KO has increased by 6, which means that the converted TC (TKO) is +2. Now what if all eight of the 7s had come out in that one deck that was dealt? Hi-Lo would have the TC at -2 because 7s are counted as zero, but TKO puts the count at +2 because the 7s are counted as +1.

So I guess my question is - am I playing with fire using TKO in a DD game due to the chance that with only two decks, my TC approximation could be way off due to a disproportionate appearance of 7s? I must say that I have had very good success with this system so far, but maybe just variance? Of course let's assume that I don't want to start keeping a side count of 7s to improve the TC conversion.

Also, it occurs to me that where the TKO count differs significantly from the Hi-Lo TC (due to a disporportionate appearance of 7s) this might be effective cover against the eye in the sky? Do they evalauate play under multiple counting systems?

Fully true counting KO is good but playing full indices KO using the running count is equally as good in some DD games.

[Three]

The truth of the fact is that without counting the 7's counts like Hi-lo will not be accurate enough to make the playing deviation 14 vs 10. 14 vs 10 is an important Ill18 playing deviation especially in DD and single deck play. From "The Theory of Blackjack" adding the seven raises the system correlation.

The power comes from side counting the 7's not whether or not they are in your main count. Flash's main count includes the 7 yet he can only make the play by side counting the 7. If I remember right each 7 away from expectation affects the RC by 6 for 14vT in HIOPT2. The seven info is diluted in the main count because you don't know what low card moved the count. Only by side counting do you reap the benefit of the actual 7 density.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

The truth of the fact is that without counting the 7's counts like Hi-lo will not be accurate enough to make the playing deviation 14 vs 10. 14 vs 10 is an important Ill18 playing deviation especially in DD and single deck play. From "The Theory of Blackjack" adding the seven raises the system correlation.

There is NO "Ill' 18" index for any hand of 14 !

Illustrious 18

Order	Play	Index
1	Insurance	+3
2	16 Vs. 10	+0
3	15 Vs. 10	+4
4	10,10 Vs. 5	+5
5	10,10 Vs. 6	+4
6	10 Vs. 10	+4
7	12 Vs. 3	+2
8	12 Vs. 2	+3
9	11 Vs. A	+1
10	9 Vs. 2	+1
11	10 Vs. A	+4
12	9 Vs. 7	+3
13	16 Vs. 9	+5
14	13 Vs. 2	-1
15	12 Vs. 4	0
16	12 Vs. 5	-2
17	12 Vs. 6	-1
18	13 Vs. 3	-2

The player should stand/double/split if the True Count equals or exceeds the Index Number,
otherwise hit. The player should take insurance if the True Count is +3 or greater.

Fab 4 Surrenders

Order	Play	Index
1	14 Vs. 10	+3
2	15 Vs. 10	+0
3	15 Vs. 9	+2
4	15 Vs. A	+1

[seriousplayer]

There is NO "Ill' 18" index for any hand of 14 !

Illustrious 18

Order	Play	Index
1	Insurance	+3
2	16 Vs. 10	+0
3	15 Vs. 10	+4
4	10,10 Vs. 5	+5
5	10,10 Vs. 6	+4
6	10 Vs. 10	+4
7	12 Vs. 3	+2
8	12 Vs. 2	+3
9	11 Vs. A	+1
10	9 Vs. 2	+1
11	10 Vs. A	+4
12	9 Vs. 7	+3
13	16 Vs. 9	+5
14	13 Vs. 2	-1
15	12 Vs. 4	0
16	12 Vs. 5	-2
17	12 Vs. 6	-1
18	13 Vs. 3	-2

The player should stand/double/split if the True Count equals or exceeds the Index Number,
otherwise hit. The player should take insurance if the True Count is +3 or greater.

Fab 4 Surrenders

Order	Play	Index
1	14 Vs. 10	+3
2	15 Vs. 10	+0
3	15 Vs. 9	+2
4	15 Vs. A	+1

I've mistaken the hand 14 vs 10 with Fab 4 Surrender when I said Ill 18 my previous post. My mistake! Anyway I find 14 vs 10 an important deviation in a DD and Single Deck game.

[mofungoo]

Zero is the index for 16 v 10 in most counts. The index for 14 v 10 will be much higher, +10 for halves, +15 for AOII.

[Three]

Zero is the index for 16 v 10 in most counts. The index for 14 v 10 will be much higher, +10 for halves, +15 for AOII.

Sorry. Thanks for pointing out my brain fart. I have been thinking 14v4 the entire time I have been reading this thread. I guess I will have to review my posts and possibly delete or at least edit some.

PS: The side count post my head was right but just the post you quoted was I seeing T and thinking 4.

[Tarzan]

I originally learned to count using KO, but have since learned to modify the KO running count to convert it to a true count (e.g., "TKO"). This was to gain more accurancy in my bet ramp and index plays, since most of the good literature out there is stated in terms of the Hi-Lo system (I18, etc.).

So here's a hypothetical situation -
In a DD game, after one deck has been dealt, the running count using KO has increased by 6, which means that the converted TC (TKO) is +2. Now what if all eight of the 7s had come out in that one deck that was dealt? Hi-Lo would have the TC at -2 because 7s are counted as zero, but TKO puts the count at +2 because the 7s are counted as +1.

So I guess my question is - am I playing with fire using TKO in a DD game due to the chance that with only two decks, my TC approximation could be way off due to a disproportionate appearance of 7s? I must say that I have had very good success with this system so far, but maybe just variance? Of course let's assume that I don't want to start keeping a side count of 7s to improve the TC conversion.

Also, it occurs to me that where the TKO count differs significantly from the Hi-Lo TC (due to a disporportionate appearance of 7s) this might be effective cover against the eye in the sky? Do they evalauate play under multiple counting systems?

Short answer to the question is Stand. At around +2 or better, all (7) have been removed with one deck remaining you would surrender if available and stand if surrender is unavailable. I answered your question so now you have to answer mine! Why does it matter? You said you don't wish to track or count (7), so how would you ever know? With that being the situation you would always surrender at +3 or more and always Hit otherwise because when the situation pops up in which you would stand it would be imperceptible to you anyway but now you know the answer to the hypothetical question.

The most valuable card for this hand is a (7), with the (6) right behind it at 2nd place. If you had one deck remaining but an even distribution of eight {6-9}, with two or more of (7) removed it puts you just on top of the index to stand. Surplus (7) push you more in the direction to hit, deficit (7) push you more in the direction to stand. This is a hand that shows the differences between sidecounting (9) within {6-9} or simply splitting (6,7) compared to (8,9) within the {6-9} grouping, something that I've been fooling around with as far as practical application and liking the (6,7) to (8,9) ratio to one another within the {6-9} grouping. It doesn't even have to be exact if there are sufficient deficit {6-9}, it becomes overkill. In the case of this hand if there are sufficiently deficit {6-9} in even distribution you would Stand, if there are surplus (7) this pushes you back into the direction to hit, if there are deficit (7) this pushes you farther in the direction to Stand.14vsT.jpg

[ZenMaster_Flash]

The reader should note that Tarzan's reply purposely ignores the density of 10's -- which all standard True Counts are keyed to !

That is because standard popular Card Counting Systems can only tell you when there are so many SURPLUS Face Cards that the

Player's chances of losing his bet, via a busted hand, has increased to an almost absurd degree, resulting in there only being a

(minimally useful) index for the Hit / Stand decision (with a more useful index for the LS decision). What the reader can easily miss

is that even with a fairly extreme True Count - the (standard) indices can be far off - in either direction), due to a possibly anomalous

distribution of the middle cards.

Note: Somewhat tangential, but interesting nonetheless: Dr. Griffin stated in The Theory of Blackjack

that knowing if there are more 5's than 6's remaining (or vice versa) gives a more accurate decision

for playing 16 vs. 10 than ANY card counting index can.

[Three]

It's seem most everything I've read is the Tarzan count is more PE related. Likely, to win a higher percentage of minimum or small bets hands. In a 4-column count in single deck the surplus of tens is still the primary indicator for a large bet as long as 1 or 2 Aces remain - depending on pen. So if Tarzan purposely ignores the density of tens - then what are his qualifiers for large bets? and how much?

Flash was referring to some specific hand matchups for playing decisions.