K-O Full 6D

[Aristotle]

The authors do not explain how one must play at or above the count for the various hands in the Full version as they do for the Preferred version. Below are what I think are the correct decisions, but, since I am unsure as to their validity, I would appreciate it if any K-O players would point out any inaccuracies.

• For the 6 plays from Hard 14 to 16, at or above the count I stand; otherwise I hit.
• Hard 13 vs. 2, at or above the count I stand; otherwise I hit.
• Hard 12 vs. 2, 3 or 4 at or above the count I stand; otherwise I hit.
• For the 8 plays from 8 to 11, at or above the count I double down; otherwise I hit.

Furthermore, could you please explain why the K-O Preferred and Full versions as well as REKO Full version have the same BC, PE and IC?

Thank you.

EDIT: I found the indices on Casino Vérité. For the Hard Hit/Stand plays (i.e. Hard 12 to Hard 16), one must Hit when the RC is less than the Value. What happens if the RC is equal to the Value? I also checked the Hard Double Down plays (i.e. Hard 8 to 11) and for those one must DD when the RC is greater than or equal to the Value.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I disdain Unbalanced Level One Counts, including the
"Knock Out" Count ~ but here is a good True Counting
spreadsheet in .pdf format:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rizoi9rzlv...nting.pdf?dl=0

[Aristotle]

How come you disdain these types of counts?

I am not interested in learning TKO at the moment, but thanks anyway for the spreadsheet.

[Norm]

There is nothing wrong with KO.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"How come you disdain these types of counts?"

The inaccuracies are fairly extreme, in betting and especially in the playing of one's hand.

[lij45o6]

Both Norm and Flash are correct concerning KO.

Norm is correct that for the average counter, you will have an advantage. Furthermore, you are not required to perform a "Tru Count" conversion. That means less computational complexity; freeing resources in the AP's mind to analyse his/her environment and look more natural. I, as a KO player, can attest to its powers. I feel it is a good count for an introductory counter. I say good because:


Flash makes a point. The problem with KO, as well as other level one counts, is that you are sacrificing a lot of betting and playing opportunities for simplicity. Concerning KO, you will be betting later in the shoe more often than most. This is usual for all counts as the AP has to wait for an advantage. However; KO is unique as you will be betting 'too heavy' early in the game and 'too light' at the end. The authors, (if I am not mistaken, ) have attested to this weakness. You will not be betting over your actual advantage rather than the perceived advantage provided by KO. True counting KO will allow you to 'reconcile' this missing info and allow you to see where your 'true' advantage is and to what extent. Another issue with KO is the fact that it is a level one count. L1 counts are known for being varying in perception of advantage. Basically, you will have a lower BC relative to what your advantage is. You will also be missing certain playing decisions that a level one count will not offer as per information concerning the composition of the deck. Especially if it is Ace reckoning, you will again sacrifice EV for simplicity.

That is why Flash offers 'serious' players to look into L2 counts with an ASC. You will see an increase in BC and your PE, allowing you to deviate basic strategy in a more efficient manner and allow you to be in more favourable opportunities while offering to keep you spread 'polite'! HO2 is a good count to use for double deck with DAS and good pen. Playing 2D with and ASC using HO2 or Zen would offer you so much more money for less issues offered by Level one counts. However; if you feel a L1 count offers you the best advantage, by all means go use a L1 count! Just be warned you are sacrificing EV!


I can only assume, as I do not posses the correct answer to you last question, is due to the fact that for BC: the count is indexed to the value of the cards, no matter what style of KO you use 2-7=1; 8,9=0, and 10-A=-1. If you change any of these values, so will your BC! PE is the same do to using the same deviation indicies...I believe. IC is the same as BC...change the tags of each card changes the IC.

TL;DR: KO is a level one count that is best for recreational and semi-serious players...like me! It is great to beat a variety of games; however, EV is sacrificed for simplicity. HO2 or Zen with an ASC beating 2D games with DAS would be the best next step in your game. Flash et.al can help you with that. BC, PE, IC are the same due to the fact that the KO system uses the same tags for all cards; regardless of method of computing the perceived advantage relative to the actual advantage. Read Griffin's Theory of Blackjack!!!

[Aristotle]

Both Norm and Flash are correct concerning KO.

Norm is correct that for the average counter, you will have an advantage. Furthermore, you are not required to perform a "Tru Count" conversion. That means less computational complexity; freeing resources in the AP's mind to analyse his/her environment and look more natural. I, as a KO player, can attest to its powers. I feel it is a good count for an introductory counter. I say good because:


Flash makes a point. The problem with KO, as well as other level one counts, is that you are sacrificing a lot of betting and playing opportunities for simplicity. Concerning KO, you will be betting later in the shoe more often than most. This is usual for all counts as the AP has to wait for an advantage. However; KO is unique as you will be betting 'too heavy' early in the game and 'too light' at the end. The authors, (if I am not mistaken, ) have attested to this weakness. You will not be betting over your actual advantage rather than the perceived advantage provided by KO. True counting KO will allow you to 'reconcile' this missing info and allow you to see where your 'true' advantage is and to what extent. Another issue with KO is the fact that it is a level one count. L1 counts are known for being varying in perception of advantage. Basically, you will have a lower BC relative to what your advantage is. You will also be missing certain playing decisions that a level one count will not offer as per information concerning the composition of the deck. Especially if it is Ace reckoning, you will again sacrifice EV for simplicity.

That is why Flash offers 'serious' players to look into L2 counts with an ASC. You will see an increase in BC and your PE, allowing you to deviate basic strategy in a more efficient manner and allow you to be in more favourable opportunities while offering to keep you spread 'polite'! HO2 is a good count to use for double deck with DAS and good pen. Playing 2D with and ASC using HO2 or Zen would offer you so much more money for less issues offered by Level one counts. However; if you feel a L1 count offers you the best advantage, by all means go use a L1 count! Just be warned you are sacrificing EV!


I can only assume, as I do not posses the correct answer to you last question, is due to the fact that for BC: the count is indexed to the value of the cards, no matter what style of KO you use 2-7=1; 8,9=0, and 10-A=-1. If you change any of these values, so will your BC! PE is the same do to using the same deviation indicies...I believe. IC is the same as BC...change the tags of each card changes the IC.

TL;DR: KO is a level one count that is best for recreational and semi-serious players...like me! It is great to beat a variety of games; however, EV is sacrificed for simplicity. HO2 or Zen with an ASC beating 2D games with DAS would be the best next step in your game. Flash et.al can help you with that. BC, PE, IC are the same due to the fact that the KO system uses the same tags for all cards; regardless of method of computing the perceived advantage relative to the actual advantage. Read Griffin's Theory of Blackjack!!!

Thanks Dogman for the very insightful explanation. I too am a recreational player who believes that K-O is a great count to use. As I feel comfortable with the Preferred system, I wanted to try the Full version. Which version do you employ, and would you know if my assumptions regarding the Full version's indices are correct? Furthermore, do you think that it is more beneficial to employ the Full version for a 6D game?

[Norm]

KO is not as good at finding opportunities early in the shoe and is slightly less accurate at deep penetrations than HiLo. The thing is, there aren't all that many opportunities in the early part of the shoe anyhow, and deep penetration is no longer common. KO is actually slightly more accurate two-thirds through the shoe, which is where more of the opportunities exist. This is why KO-Full and HiLo are extremely close in overall performance.

[Bigdaddy]

I disdain Unbalanced Level One Counts, including the
"Knock Out" Count ~ but here is a good True Counting
spreadsheet in .pdf format:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rizoi9rzlv...nting.pdf?dl=0

ZMF - I took a look at the spreadsheet and maybe I'm not reading it right, but there appear to be some inaccuracies. For instance, at a RC of 4 and 5 decks remaining, the TC should be zero. Check the formulas in the spreadsheet.

The formula for true counting KO is :TC = (RC - IRC - 4xDP)/DR.

[stopgambling]

If i am only gonna count i would like to use a level 2 system or use a level 1 with with a very aggressive strategy with either wong in or wong outs.,counting multiple tables , call in ,etc... play all with average condition is gonna SUCK . So higher level count does merit attention if one is serious about winning by only card counting.

[seriousplayer]

Both Norm and Flash are correct concerning KO.

Norm is correct that for the average counter, you will have an advantage. Furthermore, you are not required to perform a "Tru Count" conversion. That means less computational complexity; freeing resources in the AP's mind to analyse his/her environment and look more natural. I, as a KO player, can attest to its powers. I feel it is a good count for an introductory counter. I say good because:


Flash makes a point. The problem with KO, as well as other level one counts, is that you are sacrificing a lot of betting and playing opportunities for simplicity. Concerning KO, you will be betting later in the shoe more often than most. This is usual for all counts as the AP has to wait for an advantage. However; KO is unique as you will be betting 'too heavy' early in the game and 'too light' at the end. The authors, (if I am not mistaken, ) have attested to this weakness. You will not be betting over your actual advantage rather than the perceived advantage provided by KO. True counting KO will allow you to 'reconcile' this missing info and allow you to see where your 'true' advantage is and to what extent. Another issue with KO is the fact that it is a level one count. L1 counts are known for being varying in perception of advantage. Basically, you will have a lower BC relative to what your advantage is. You will also be missing certain playing decisions that a level one count will not offer as per information concerning the composition of the deck. Especially if it is Ace reckoning, you will again sacrifice EV for simplicity.

That is why Flash offers 'serious' players to look into L2 counts with an ASC. You will see an increase in BC and your PE, allowing you to deviate basic strategy in a more efficient manner and allow you to be in more favourable opportunities while offering to keep you spread 'polite'! HO2 is a good count to use for double deck with DAS and good pen. Playing 2D with and ASC using HO2 or Zen would offer you so much more money for less issues offered by Level one counts. However; if you feel a L1 count offers you the best advantage, by all means go use a L1 count! Just be warned you are sacrificing EV!

I understand level 2 counts with side counting of aces will increase BC and PE. But I don't understand why you have to choose to use a level 2 count system if you choose to side count? If you are going to side count aces why not use Hi-opt 1 and side count aces, 3 and six? Or the Gordon Count side counting Aces, 6, 7, 8, and 9? Which would outperform the Hi-opt 2 count with side count of aces alone.

[seriousplayer]

ZMF - I took a look at the spreadsheet and maybe I'm not reading it right, but there appear to be some inaccuracies. For instance, at a RC of 4 and 5 decks remaining, the TC should be zero. Check the formulas in the spreadsheet.

The formula for true counting KO is :TC = (RC - IRC - 4xDP)/DR.

The spreadsheet maybe using a different IRC other than 0.

[Phoebe]

Yes, IRC=2

ScreenShot1.jpg

Adaptation in a hurry. "Advantage à la fin du jeu" should be "TC after deck"

Real printout is

ScreenShot114.jpg

to match first spreadsheet :
EV initial=0
IRC COB=2
Avantage/TC=1