# Thread: CVDATA - TKO vs Hi-Lo Results

1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by RatherNotGiveMyRealName
That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks so much. You are correct that the imbalance should be the factor in the equation and not the pivot to account for all IRC's. In my case, I can just set the IRC to 0 rather than -20 and get the same result. I appreciate it.
Just replace the running count of your system (which is of course dependent on your IRC) by the "relative" running count (= your RC minus your IRC). Which is logical because the relevant question is, how much is your RC above or behind the average RC, or par, as a golf player would say. For the KO count, the imbalance per deck is +4, so the average RC of a neutral pack would be IRC plus 4 times number of decks played.

Subtract that from your actual RC to get the "excess" of high cards versus low cards. This would be the RC of a balanced system starting at IRC = 0, like Hi-Lo count. The rest is equal to Hi-Lo count: divide by the number of remaining decks. The same formula is contained in Daniel Dravot's "The Color of Blackjack", but he starts at IRC = 0, so he doesn't need to subtract his IRC from his RC.

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by PinkChip
Well, if you cannot afford CVCX or CVData right now, you even less can afford card counting. Building up sufficient bankroll is the crucial thing.
My bankroll is replenishable so I can afford to start counting.

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by RatherNotGiveMyRealName
That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks so much. You are correct that the imbalance should be the factor in the equation and not the pivot to account for all IRC's. In my case, I can just set the IRC to 0 rather than -20 and get the same result. I appreciate it.
Yes. For a true counted KO, you can use any IRC but only 2 are logical : 0 or -4*decks

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by RatherNotGiveMyRealName
My bankroll is replenishable so I can afford to start counting.
OK, provided that your income is secure (unfortunately not always predictable nowadays)

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Phoebe
Yes. For a true counted KO, you can use any IRC but only 2 are logical : 0 or -4*decks
I use some IRC of about 100, for other logical reasons. But there are many options.

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by PinkChip
I use some IRC of about 100, for other logical reasons. But there are many options.
I could understand exactly 100. Not about 100.

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by RatherNotGiveMyRealName
I am planning to. Waiting for my next paycheck.
Are you poor? If so you shouldn't be playing Blackjack!!! It is not very wise to play Blackjack if you lack the money.

8. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by PinkChip
I use some IRC of about 100, for other logical reasons. But there are many options.
I use an IRC of -20 for 6 deck. One perk of that is that with one deck left, the running count is the true count. And it’s simpler for my chart of RC/TC’s. Also, the pivot of 4 is always a true count of 4.

9. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by PinkChip
Well, if you cannot afford CVCX or CVData right now, you even less can afford card counting. Building up sufficient bankroll is the crucial thing.
Easiest way to do this is to combine bankrolls with someone else. Two people can play on the same bankroll, the cards don't know! Also, this strategy helps to get to N0 faster. For example, if you can play 25 hours a week and buddy plays 25 hours a week, its the same as playing 50 hours a week. You must trust their play and strategy!

10. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by DannyOcean
Easiest way to do this is to combine bankrolls with someone else. Two people can play on the same bankroll, the cards don't know! Also, this strategy helps to get to N0 faster. For example, if you can play 25 hours a week and buddy plays 25 hours a week, its the same as playing 50 hours a week. You must trust their play and strategy!
Yes, that's one of the advantages of team play. Plus, it should reduce variance.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•