"The Color of Blackjack" – My Observations

[Phoebe]

C'est tres bien ecrit et ca vaut certainement la peine qu'on le lise.

Don

Merci !
C'est fait.
A new link to "english version" on the page.

[seriousplayer]

That is a page written about the Red Seven count. I’m wondering about an easier version of true-counted KO, like CKO or EZ-TKO.

I am sure what your intention is for looking into that my versions of KO. I already told you the most optimal version of KO.

1. Use depth-based betting strategy generated in CVCX for betting and convert true counted KO indices to running count for each individual decks.
2. You can convert your betting to true count and doing kelly betting and also convert true counted KO indices to running count for each individual decks.

Doing those two things is almost equivalent of using the true counted version of KO. I couldn't find any other way or version of KO that would perform in the same in SCORE to the original true counted version of KO. You keep looking but there is nothing there!!!

Believe me I know about EZ-TKO, also. The purpose of EZ-TKO is as follows:

"Instead of using the standard KO "key" to raise your bet, use a "current key" that starts out exactly halfway between your IRC and your pivot. If you're using standard KO for a 6-deck game, for example, the IRC is -20 and the pivot is 4, so your current key would start halfway between: -8."

This version of KO would not perform even close to the original version of True Count KO in SCORE. You can simulate it and find out for yourself.

[Optimus Prime]

I don't fully understand how "true counted KO" works - but it sure sounds a lot like Hi-Low. What is the reason for taking a simple system like KO and adding complexity? Why not just use a balanced count?

[seriousplayer]

I don't fully understand how "true counted KO" works - but it sure sounds a lot like Hi-Low. What is the reason for taking a simple system like KO and adding complexity? Why not just use a balanced count?

You are right! We are adding complexity to KO.

Why not just use a balanced count?

Good question because balanced counts are more "complicated" than unbalanced counts for some people. I rather make something complex than complicated. Complexity could still be easy but tedious. Complicated is difficult and not easy.

[RatherNotGiveMyRealName]

I am sure what your intention is for looking into that my versions of KO. I already told you the most optimal version of KO.

1. Use depth-based betting strategy generated in CVCX for betting and convert true counted KO indices to running count for each individual decks.
2. You can convert your betting to true count and doing kelly betting and also convert true counted KO indices to running count for each individual decks.

Doing those two things is almost equivalent of using the true counted version of KO. I couldn't find any other way or version of KO that would perform in the same in SCORE to the original true counted version of KO. You keep looking but there is nothing there!!!

Believe me I know about EZ-TKO, also. The purpose of EZ-TKO is as follows:

"Instead of using the standard KO "key" to raise your bet, use a "current key" that starts out exactly halfway between your IRC and your pivot. If you're using standard KO for a 6-deck game, for example, the IRC is -20 and the pivot is 4, so your current key would start halfway between: -8."

This version of KO would not perform even close to the original version of True Count KO in SCORE. You can simulate it and find out for yourself.

I appreciate the enthusiasm.

The system that I use circumvents having a whole set of indices for every depth (I believe that to be an insane amount information to remember). I have memorized certain points at each depth that correspond to Hi-Lo true counts. Because of this, I can just memorize Hi-Lo indices. For example, at one deck in, my running count needs to be -11 for me to be at a true 1. At a running count of -2 at deck 3, we are at a Hi-Lo true count of 2. I then use my bet spread and indices accordingly.

I was not sure about the specifics of EZ-TKO, but from what you described it doesn’t seem much like the system I’m using.

[Phoebe]

Why not use the original TKO ?

[RatherNotGiveMyRealName]

Why not use the original TKO ?

That’s a good question. The purpose of me using a depth-based true count is to avoid calculating division problems at the table. It’s taken me a while to memorize the points at which each RC become each true count but it’s now much less mentally taxing for me to count at the table. Because of this, I can focus on other aspects of my game like cover.

[Phoebe]

If you have the exact TC at any time (by calculation or table is irrelevant) you already play the TKO.
What do you want more ?

[seriousplayer]

I appreciate the enthusiasm.

The system that I use circumvents having a whole set of indices for every depth (I believe that to be an insane amount information to remember). I have memorized certain points at each depth that correspond to Hi-Lo true counts. Because of this, I can just memorize Hi-Lo indices. For example, at one deck in, my running count needs to be -11 for me to be at a true 1. At a running count of -2 at deck 3, we are at a Hi-Lo true count of 2. I then use my bet spread and indices accordingly.

I was not sure about the specifics of EZ-TKO, but from what you described it doesn’t seem much like the system I’m using.

Why not do circumvent a whole set of indices for every depth based on true counted KO indices and not Hi-lo. What make you choose to use Hi-lo indices over True counted KO indices?

[RatherNotGiveMyRealName]

If you have the exact TC at any time (by calculation or table is irrelevant) you already play the TKO.
What do you want more ?

I originally asked about modifications to the strategy presented in “Color of Blackjack” that people have made but I’m open to any questions or comments on the system I use. I don’t use TKO, as that would involve the use of dividing to calculate the TKO true count, which is 4 more than any Hi-Lo true count. I am using a depth-based true counting system that requires no division and produces the equivalent Hi-Lo true count.

[RatherNotGiveMyRealName]

Why not do circumvent a whole set of indices for every depth based on true counted KO indices and not Hi-lo. What make you choose to use Hi-lo indices over True counted KO indices?

Good question. I chose to use the version that produces a Hi-Lo true count so that I can use more common groups of indices like the I18 and Fab4. I also like that my RC is my TC with one deck left if my IRC is -20.

[seriousplayer]

Good question. I chose to use the version that produces a Hi-Lo true count so that I can use more common groups of indices like the I18 and Fab4. I also like that my RC is my TC with one deck left if my IRC is -20.

Which casino would let you play through all six deck of the shoe to the last card? Sometime the casino would deal to 1/2 deck left then reshuffle. But to the last card in the shoe I haven't found one yet nowadays. If you found one that does let me know.

[Phoebe]

But to the last card in the shoe I haven't found one yet nowadays. If you found one that does let me know.

I saw it once, in France.
The dealer forgot that it was a CSM