How much does Daniel Dravoit's upgrade to KO really improve SCORE for a typical shoe game? I'm wondering if you have any data you can share.
Also, would the indices for this style of KO be any different than KO out of the box?
MJ
How much does Daniel Dravoit's upgrade to KO really improve SCORE for a typical shoe game? I'm wondering if you have any data you can share.
Also, would the indices for this style of KO be any different than KO out of the box?
MJ
Haven't looked at it since it came out. His brother actually brought me the book. I don't remember the SCORE change. I think Ken Smith had some sims in the book. Not a great deal. The indices are simpler than KO's. It's the betting that's different. CVCX can Kelly optimize Dravot style betting strategies.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
If you have CVData, but do not have a CVCX license; you can still call CVCX to obtain optimal Kelly betting. However, this doesn't work with Dravot's KO Color of BJ. That requires a CVCX sim since CVCX keeps EV and Variance data for all reasonable penetrations at once and can group the data over multiple depths and use the groupings for optimal betting calcs.
A bit difficult to explain. For an attempt from 12 years ago, see: https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-Based-Betting
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
BennGunn,
A 10% increase in SCORE is substantial in my opinion. Some people learn 50 extra indices for a 5% increase in SCORE. Do you find it difficult to remember how much to bet at each depth? I did not realize CVData can simulate Color of KO.
MJ
Last edited by MJ1; 05-24-2022 at 09:18 AM.
Norm,
Do you think Dravoit's insurance tweak makes sense? I believe he says to ignore the dealer ace for counting purposes when making the insurance decision. I can understand why you would want to disregard it however isn't this index value based upon a simulation which factors the dealer upcard into the count? Don says index values should be used in the same manner that they were simulated.
MJ
Running count insurance data using KO tags is fairly simple:
1 deck
2 decksCode:Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,1} Decks: 1, IRC = -4 Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp) No subgroup (removals) are defined **** Player hand: x-x **** Cards RC TC ref 48 -2 -2.17 38 -1 -1.37 20 0 0.00 5 1 10.40 4 0 0.00 3 1 17.33 2 0 0.00 1 1 52.00
4 decksCode:Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,1} Decks: 2, IRC = -8 Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp) No subgroup (removals) are defined **** Player hand: x-x **** Cards RC TC ref 96 -3 -1.63 95 -2 -1.09 63 -1 -0.83 32 0 0.00 7 1 7.43 6 0 0.00 5 1 10.40 4 0 0.00 3 1 17.33 2 0 0.00 1 1 52.00
6 decksCode:Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,1} Decks: 4, IRC = -16 Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp) No subgroup (removals) are defined **** Player hand: x-x **** Cards RC TC ref 192 -3 -0.81 191 -2 -0.54 190 -3 -0.82 140 -2 -0.74 92 -1 -0.57 47 0 0.00 7 1 7.43 6 0 0.00 5 1 10.40 4 0 0.00 3 1 17.33 2 0 0.00 1 1 52.00
8 decksCode:Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,1} Decks: 6, IRC = -24 Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp) No subgroup (removals) are defined **** Player hand: x-x **** Cards RC TC ref 288 -3 -0.54 281 -4 -0.74 222 -3 -0.70 163 -2 -0.64 109 -1 -0.48 56 0 0.00 9 1 5.78 8 0 0.00 7 1 7.43 6 0 0.00 5 1 10.40 4 0 0.00 3 1 17.33 2 0 0.00 1 1 52.00
k_cCode:Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,1} Decks: 8, IRC = -32 Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp) No subgroup (removals) are defined **** Player hand: x-x **** Cards RC TC ref 384 -3 -0.41 381 -4 -0.55 369 -5 -0.70 310 -4 -0.67 240 -3 -0.65 178 -2 -0.58 119 -1 -0.44 61 0 0.00 9 1 5.78 8 0 0.00 7 1 7.43 6 0 0.00 5 1 10.40 4 0 0.00 3 1 17.33 2 0 0.00 1 1 52.00
Hmm, I think something is not right here.Originally Posted by k_c
I'm going to pass you my indices so you can check them with yours.
1) 1D, 20 cards remaining
2) 2D, 26 cards remainingCode:+----------+----------------------------+-----+-----+---------------------+ | Play | TC | RC | IRC | EV | +----------+--------------+-------------+-----+-----+---------------------+ | Ins | -2.666667 | -2/ 39 | -1 | -4 | 0.01868374178675136 | +----------+--------------+-------------+-----+-----+---------------------+
3) 4D, 52 cards remainingCode:+----------+----------------------------+-----+-----+---------------------+ | Play | TC | RC | IRC | EV | +----------+--------------+-------------+-----+-----+---------------------+ | Ins | -1.625000 | -2/ 64 | -1 | -8 | 0.01675762536870185 | +----------+--------------+-------------+-----+-----+---------------------+
Sincerely,Code:+----------+----------------------------+-----+-----+---------------------+ | Play | TC | RC | IRC | EV | +----------+--------------+-------------+-----+-----+---------------------+ | Ins | -1.118280 | -2/ 93 | -1 | -16 | 0.00704420683992346 | +----------+--------------+-------------+-----+-----+---------------------+
Cac
I am not clear on how you get TC indicies.
Let's go back to HiLo single deck for a moment. The first point where ins EV is positive is 47 cards remaining with a running count of +2 where probability of a ten with one ace specifically removed is .34043. With 48 cards remaining and a running count of +1 insurance is an even bet with probability of a ten = 1/3.
I consider TC as an afterthought. If any strategy can be based on TC that's fine though.
k_c
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks