K-O Blackjack vs HiLo

[Ronster]

The PE, BC, and IC numbers for KO are all higher than are the numbers for Hi-Lo....Not to mention the KO system is waaay easier to learn. Does anyone here on the site have any thoughts on the above?....Personally, I find those high KO numbers hard to believe, but they are what they are, aren't they?......ronster

[ZenMaster_Flash]

An unbalanced level one count like K.O. suffers from
poor betting correlation and limited dubious playing
efficiency and Insurance correlation. Its sole strength
is its ease-of-use.

[Ronster]

In that case, how do you account for the very high pe, bc and ic numbers for ko?

An unbalanced level one count like K.O. suffers from
poor betting correlation and limited dubious playing
efficiency and Insurance correlation. Its sole strength
is its ease-of-use.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"how do you account for the very high pe, bc and ic numbers for ko?"

BC=.977, PE=.55, IC=.78

These are weak numbers !

The P E is basically "as bad as you can get."

If you could play a typical commonplace shoe games
with big betting ramps, e.g. 20-1, then your reasonable
betting correlation will see you through. Good Luck.

[Ronster]

BC=.977, PE=.55, IC=.78

These are weak numbers !

The P E is basically "as bad as you can get."

If you could play a typical commonplace shoe games
with big betting ramps, e.g. 20-1, then your reasonable
betting correlation will see you through. Good Luck.

"bad as you can get"???....wtf, all three are higher than Hi Lo's numbers!

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"bad as you can get" ... "Hi-Lo" Lo's numbers!

Exactly correct, insignificantly different
from other Recreational Counts like Hi-lo

[seriousplayer]

BC=.977, PE=.55, IC=.78

These are weak numbers !

The P E is basically "as bad as you can get."

If you could play a typical commonplace shoe games
with big betting ramps, e.g. 20-1, then your reasonable
betting correlation will see you through. Good Luck.

It is incorrect saying the PE is basically "as bad as you can get". No it is not! How about this system?

A-(-2)
2-(1)
3-(1)
4-(2)
5-(2)
6-(1)
7-(0)
8-(0)
9-(-1)
T-(-1)

BC = .95 PE= .41 IC = .53

I guess this level two card counting system is a recreational count system as well. This count system count the count the 4s and 5s as twice as more than other cards. Since have a weaker BC, PE and IC.

[Ronster]

It is incorrect saying the PE is basically "as bad as you can get". No it is not! How about this system?

A-(-2)
2-(1)
3-(1)
4-(2)
5-(2)
6-(1)
7-(0)
8-(0)
9-(-1)
T-(-1)

BC = .95 PE= .41 IC = .53

I guess this level two card counting system is a recreational count system as well. This count system count the count the 4s and 5s as twice as more than other cards. Since have a weaker BC, PE and IC.

At this point I'm fairly certain Zenmaster is toking a bong while he reads/replys to this forum....Seriously, is there something wrong with this guy???

[moses]

At this point I'm fairly certain Zenmaster is toking a bong while he reads/replys to this forum....Seriously, is there something wrong with this guy???

Of course there is something wrong. Lol. I gotta worry about the cheese on my own damn cracker. Flash is extremely bright. He just plays at a "high" level.

[seriousplayer]

Of course there is something wrong. Lol. I gotta worry about the cheese on my own damn cracker. Flash is extremely bright. He just plays at a "high" level.

Why won't Flash just quit using Hi-OPT 2 and use the Gordon Count since Hi-OPT 2 is inferior to the Gordon Count if he side count the A, 6,7,8 and 9?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Why won't Flash quit using Hi-OPT 2 ... use the Gordon Count ..."

The Gordon Count is surrealistically powerful, BUT ...
I am way too old to start over after these decades;
even IF I ever had the extensive memory required.

[seriousplayer]

The Gordon Count is surrealistically powerful, BUT ...
I am way too old to start over after these decades;
even IF I ever had the extensive memory required.

It seem like you already had experience or used the Gordon Count before otherwise I don't understand why you would say the Gordon Count is surrealistically powerful? Surrealistically meaning unreal. If not than how can you form a conclusion on something you haven't even used?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

" ... I'm fairly certain Zenmaster is ... something wrong with this guy?"

The so-called count provided BC = .95 *PE= .41 *IC = .53.

WHO in their right mind would scramble the E.O.R.'s of 9's, 10's and Aces
in such a bizarre fashion ~ unless they are trying to demonstrate the value
of understanding the E.O.R. of the (higher) ranks, by purposely creating a
truly dreadful count for comparison.

Note: BC < .985, P.E. < .560, and IC < .775 are all dreadful.