Another Lucky ladies thread

**seal89** · 10-05-2019, 07:01 AM

Her it is, last night I was at my local casino and had a better look at this side bet. I must say first that the game I play there is 8D, H17, 75% pen. Now the very interesting thing here is that the lucky ladies pay table is actually the good one so the game is very countable. Also, I think the max bet on the lucky ladies is at least 50$ (25$ blackjack table). I am using KO and only wong in on positive counts. As I saw on 888casino, its seems that the 8D LL with the good pay table is a positive game at TC +4 on hi-lo. I started playing it yesterday at RC 31 on KO (IRC 0). Am I doing this right? What is the KO 8D RC equivalent to TC+4 of hi lo? Thanks!

**stringer** · 10-05-2019, 08:19 AM

there is some chatter about this in the "similar threads" window that shows up on my screen below... including posts from 02-03-2014. I don't use KO but I don't know what the huge fascination with this side-bet is. The house edge is ridiculous and the count for it goes positive only once in a blue moon. My local very large casino years had it on all the BJ table years ago but they are all now gone. I guess people went broke and refused to play it anymore. Anyway, gaming commissions should not even be allow casinos to offer a SB with such a huge HE in my opinion.

**Phoebe** · 10-05-2019, 08:31 AM

Norm talks about LL in Modern Blackjack.

Originally Posted by seal89

What is the KO 8D RC equivalent to TC+4 of hi lo? Thanks!

The pivot (IRC+32)

**seal89** · 10-05-2019, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Phoebe

Norm talks about LL in Modern Blackjack.

The pivot (IRC+32)

Exactly what I was looking for! Thanks a lot! So my intuition to start playing it se 31 wasn’t far off good to know. I did make money with it anyway (I know it’s just variance)

**PinkChip** · 10-05-2019, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by seal89

Exactly what I was looking for! Thanks a lot! So my intuition to start playing it se 31 wasn’t far off good to know. I did make money with it anyway (I know it’s just variance)

If you are using KO (like I do basically), you should actually know that you put out your max bet at TC=4, which is equal to RC=4 in the original version and generally at IRC + 4*NumberOfDecks, which is in your case 0 + 4*8 = 32. Do you have the Fuchs/Vancura book? They call it the "pivot point". Btw. 31 (one less than the pivot point) is the point where you should take insurance.

**seal89** · 10-05-2019, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by PinkChip

If you are using KO (like I do basically), you should actually know that you put out your max bet at TC=4, which is equal to RC=4 in the original version and generally at IRC + 4*NumberOfDecks, which is in your case 0 + 4*8 = 32. Do you have the Fuchs/Vancura book? They call it the "pivot point". Btw. 31 (one less than the pivot point) is the point where you should take insurance.

I don't have one book in particular. However the index I always used for insurance is +2 (29 in my case) as I see in modern blackjack reKO. Its +2 for all indexes. I might also add that I use no spread whatsoever. I only wong in at RC 24 (IRC 0)

**PinkChip** · 10-05-2019, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by seal89

I don't have one book in particular. However the index I always used for insurance is +2 (29 in my case) as I see in modern blackjack reKO. Its +2 for all indexes. I might also add that I use no spread whatsoever. I only wong in at RC 24 (IRC 0)

OK, REKO uses +2 as the only index (which is a compromise between lower and higher indices).

I just wanted to point out that the "pivot point" (IRC + 4 * NumberOfDecks) is the Running Count you get when you count through the whole pack (e.g. in your example, when you count through all 8 decks, you will land at a Running Count of 32 above your IRC), and the remarkable thing is, although we never have to compute the true count, we know that at this "pivot point" we have always a true count of exactly +4 (which corresponds to about 1.5 percent advantage, given a house edge of 0.5 percent).