"The Color of Blackjack" – My Observations

[Bigdaddy]

Just finished this short book. I liked it – very quick read, cogently presented, informative and entertaining.

It basically shows the KO counter where TC +1 is in the KO running count as decks are played (e.g., in a six-deck game, TC of +1 is at RC of +9 after one deck, RC of +12 after two decks, +15 after three decks, etc.). By tracking where TC of +1 is throughout the shoe, the player knows when to start increasing the bet. This helps the player avoid a significant weakness of KO, which is determining the bet ramp purely on the KO running count. Relying on the KO running count, a player is liable to under bet in the early part of the shoe and possibly over bet in the latter part.

As a long-time KO user, I figured these principles out pretty quick and learned to modify for true count principles. But I like to follow true count of zero throughout the shoe so I know if I’m "above or below water" at any point in time. I find this more helpful, because not only does it allow me to correct the betting ramp, but it also helps with all the index plays in the –1 to +1 range (we all know that there are a lot of them).

Ok – that’s the cliff notes version. Beyond that, I found a few interesting and/or entertaining points that I thought I’d share with the forum to solicit some comments.

• In making the insurance decision, disregard the dealer’s Ace in the running count (makes sense – I didn’t know that).
• Computer simulations purportedly show that it is always better to play two hands – even in negative TC situations (I doubt this one – tell’m Don).
• In comparing the H17 game to the S17 game, the S17 advantage is not as great as the book would indicate, because there will be fewer small cards to make a hand when max bet is out (I like this - makes sense. But I would think that the SCORE charts encompass this notion more accurately).
• When playing long hours at the same casino, it’s best to leave about every 45 minutes and make some small change to your appearance when you return; e.g., shoes, glasses, watches, rings, etc. (good advice – keep the eye off balance).
• The author notes that the AP group in general has great character and integrity (I agree), and only a few occasionally have a social drink (he doesn’t know Bigdaddy).

[Norm]

The author notes that the AP group in general has great character and integrity (I agree), and only a few occasionally have a social drink

Does this mean they don't drink much -- or that they're anti-social when they drink?

[Bigdaddy]

Does this mean they don't drink much -- or that they're anti-social when they drink?

LOL - Thx Norm. Bigdaddy walks around Vegas with a big mug of beer and the last known count still flashing in the mind's eye.

Thanks to all the comments - I knew the "always play two hand" comment would start a firestorm.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Just finished this short book. I liked it – very quick read, cogently presented, informative and entertaining.

It basically shows the KO counter where TC +1 is in the KO running count as decks are played (e.g., in a six-deck game, TC of +1 is at RC of +9 after one deck, RC of +12 after two decks, +15 after three decks, etc.). By tracking where TC of +1 is throughout the shoe, the player knows when to start increasing the bet. This helps the player avoid a significant weakness of KO, which is determining the bet ramp purely on the KO running count. Relying on the KO running count, a player is liable to under bet in the early part of the shoe and possibly over bet in the latter part.

As a long-time KO user, I figured these principles out pretty quick and learned to modify for true count principles. But I like to follow true count of zero throughout the shoe so I know if I’m "above or below water" at any point in time. I find this more helpful, because not only does it allow me to correct the betting ramp, but it also helps with all the index plays in the –1 to +1 range (we all know that there are a lot of them).

Ok – that’s the cliff notes version. Beyond that, I found a few interesting and/or entertaining points that I thought I’d share with the forum to solicit some comments.

• In making the insurance decision, disregard the dealer’s Ace in the running count (makes sense – I didn’t know that).
• Computer simulations purportedly show that it is always better to play two hands – even in negative TC situations (I doubt this one – tell’m Don).
• In comparing the H17 game to the S17 game, the S17 advantage is not as great as the book would indicate, because there will be fewer small cards to make a hand when max bet is out (I like this - makes sense. But I would think that the SCORE charts encompass this notion more accurately).
• When playing long hours at the same casino, it’s best to leave about every 45 minutes and make some small change to your appearance when you return; e.g., shoes, glasses, watches, rings, etc. (good advice – keep the eye off balance).
• The author notes that the AP group in general has great character and integrity (I agree), and only a few occasionally have a social drink (he doesn’t know Bigdaddy).

Although I disdain the K.O. Count, I will respond to your listed points:

Insurance. "Disregard the dealer's Ace." Why disregard any card ?

Playing two hands. Playing heads-up one hand is preferred.

H17 vs. S17 Most of the problem is that the dealer's Ace or 6 will bust about 2% less in a H17 game.
You are correct. At negative counts with small bets out this worsens and at positive counts this penalty lessens.

Appearance: Too silly to be worthy of response. Learn to "respect your enemy."

AP Group character / integrity: Nonsense if applied to self-described AP's, e.g. zeebar

[ZeeBabar]

Although I disdain the K.O. Count, I will respond to your listed points:

Insurance. "Disregard the dealer's Ace." Why disregard any card ?

Playing two hands. Playing heads-up one hand is preferred.

H17 vs. S17 Most of the problem is that the dealer's Ace or 6 will bust about 2% less in a H17 game.
You are correct. At negative counts with small bets out this worsens and at positive counts this penalty lessens.

Appearance: Too silly to be worthy of response. Learn to "respect your enemy."

AP Group character / integrity: Nonsense if applied to self-described AP's, e.g. zeebar

You spoiled a great post by trying to bring in personal shit and bringing me in to this thread. Sad that you can learn so much from the masters about being an AP and so little about being a good human being. Folks such as Don S or Stanford Wong or Norm never address a poster, only the post. Could you not learn from them. You talk about discipline at the tables and yet you cannot delete the threads of people, me and others, where you think the post is not worth addressing? Sad!

[Norm]

You spoiled a great post by trying to bring in personal shit and bringing me in to this thread.

Have to agree. I would've edited out the last line if you hadn't responded first.

[Three]

Have to agree. I would've edited out the last line if you hadn't responded first.

Well I wouldn't have commented on what I think of Z's character but his posts about extorting money from backliners calling it an AP play says wall anyone needs to know about is character. People can decide for themselves just what that is. If they think it is a good move perhaps they should examine their own character. I know if you actually try this you will quickly get on the casino's undesirable player list and they will be quick to back you off thereafter. That is definitely not a good idea.

[ZeeBabar]

Well I wouldn't have commented on what I think of Z's character but his posts about extorting money from backliners calling it an AP play says wall anyone needs to know about is character. People can decide for themselves just what that is. If they think it is a good move perhaps they should examine their own character. I know if you actually try this you will quickly get on the casino's undesirable player list and they will be quick to back you off thereafter. That is definitely not a good idea.

T3, your posts and eagerness to pile on me shows far more about your character than anything else. Moreover, taking things out of context and hypothetical I had used a very long time ago and putting it here shows you r character as well. There were periods when a lot of AP's made an issue of your long posts but I won't get into it.

[Norm]

Insurance. "Disregard the dealer's Ace." Why disregard any card ?

Insurance bet with an ace-reckoned count. Think about it.

[Bodarc]

Playing two hands. Playing heads-up one hand is preferred.

I have never quite understood this even though I have heard it many times. To me it seems if there is a high count and you play 1 hand, you'd get 50% of the good hands and the dealer would get the other half. If you played 2 hands, you'd get 66 2/3 of the good hands. Will someone explain this to me?

[Freightman]

I have never quite understood this even though I have heard it many times. To me it seems if there is a high count and you play 1 hand, you'd get 50% of the good hands and the dealer would get the other half. If you played 2 hands, you'd get 66 2/3 of the good hands. Will someone explain this to me?

Heads up, Betting optimally, you would have a lower bet per hand, though fairly well in excess of the single unit bet. Accordingly, in advantageous counts, the sum total of your bets on 2 hands will be less than the sum total of your single unit hands when taking into account that you will reach the cut card much more quickly. Card eating effect. So, from a math perspective, heads up, the only time it really makes sense to go to 2 hands is when you're at table max. Example, I was playing at a small town casino with a 200 max bet. Last hand went to 3x200 since count justified. To put this into slightly more perspective, heads up, 2x16 is really not 32-1, depending on specifics, more like 24-1.

Using the same logic, if you can play 2 hands at the same minimum as 1 hand, it makes sense in negative situations to play 2 hands, since you are eating cards At faster rate and will reach the cut card more quickly.

[Stealth]

To put this into slightly more perspective, heads up, 2x16 is really not 32-1, depending on specifics, more like 24-1.

It is the same as 32:1 from an EV perspective. The 24:1 view is the effect on variance.

[Freightman]

It is the same as 32:1 from an EV perspective. The 24:1 view is the effect on variance.

Agreed for the most part - though 24-1 would be your EV for the balance of the shoe, unless of course, you are at table max.