FrankC: Backcounting : Hi-LO vs KO

[FrankC]

I was wondering if you get more playing time if you backcount with Hi-LO vs KO.

IN BJA2 using the tables for 4.5/6, 1-8 spread and S17DAS both KO and Hi-LO will give approximately $40/100 observed. However, you cannot enter until -4 in KO where you can enter with +1 in Hi-Lo. I presently use KO and you can wait a long time to get to a -4 count. Sometimes a shoe never gets there. It seems like it would be easier to enter using Hi-Lo and a +1 count. If you started and got six low cards off the deal Hi-Lo would be at +1, where KO would be at -14. I am thinking that you would get more playing opportunity for the same money in Hi-Lo which is important to me as it would be less conspicuous than standing around watching the tables.

Any Comments?

[illsur5]

Blackjack is a game with a mind of its own. I have won money playing in shoes that were negative, but I was winning hand after hand after hand at a NEGATIVE COUNT! Sometimes you EAT THE BEAR! (Im not saying go and play in negative shoes) It sounds to me like you are an action player and wonging goes against youre gambling instincts. Although I know wonging is a winning technique, if you are a lower limit player than wonging is best left to those with bigger bankrolls. Get in the Game!

Illsur5

[Hilo fan]

> I was wondering if you get more playing time
> if you backcount with Hi-LO vs KO.

> IN BJA2 using the tables for 4.5/6, 1-8
> spread and S17DAS both KO and Hi-LO will
> give approximately $40/100 observed.
> However, you cannot enter until -4 in KO
> where you can enter with +1 in Hi-Lo. I
> presently use KO and you can wait a long
> time to get to a -4 count. Sometimes a shoe
> never gets there. It seems like it would be
> easier to enter using Hi-Lo and a +1 count.
> If you started and got six low cards off the
> deal Hi-Lo would be at +1, where KO would be
> at -14. I am thinking that you would get
> more playing opportunity for the same money
> in Hi-Lo which is important to me as it
> would be less conspicuous than standing
> around watching the tables.

> Any Comments?

Switch to hilo. True counting is not hard at all, since you are dividing two small numbers together. It has more power than the KO count and once you are acustomed to it you will not think twice. You also do not have to remember your key count with regard to the different number of decks.

[Parker]

> I was wondering if you get more playing time
> if you backcount with Hi-LO vs KO.

> IN BJA2 using the tables for 4.5/6, 1-8
> spread and S17DAS both KO and Hi-LO will
> give approximately $40/100 observed.
> However, you cannot enter until -4 in KO
> where you can enter with +1 in Hi-Lo. I
> presently use KO and you can wait a long
> time to get to a -4 count. Sometimes a shoe
> never gets there. It seems like it would be
> easier to enter using Hi-Lo and a +1 count.
> If you started and got six low cards off the
> deal Hi-Lo would be at +1, where KO would be
> at -14. I am thinking that you would get
> more playing opportunity for the same money
> in Hi-Lo which is important to me as it
> would be less conspicuous than standing
> around watching the tables.

> Any Comments?

It is a characteristic of KO (and all unbalanced counts used in running count mode, for that matter) that they tend to underestimate one's advantage early in the shoe. They also tend to overestimate it late in the shoe, but in these days of mediocre penetration, that is usually not as big a problem.

What to do? You can simply accept it, secure in the knowledge that, overall, the count will still perform about as well as Hi-lo. You can even look at the bright side: Since you're not throwing the big bets out as often, variance is decreased - your swings will not be as wild.

Or, you can adjust for it. If you notice a large number of small cards coming out very early, you can ramp up a little more agressively. There are various "tweaks" for KO floating around cyberspace.

You could use a true-count conversion with KO, or as others have suggested, you can stop counting those 7's and switch to Hi-lo.

It's up to you.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Blackjack is a game with a mind of its own.
> I have won money playing in shoes that were
> negative, but I was winning hand after hand
> after hand at a NEGATIVE COUNT! Sometimes
> you EAT THE BEAR! (Im not saying go and play
> in negative shoes) It sounds to me like you
> are an action player and wonging goes
> against youre gambling instincts. Although I
> know wonging is a winning technique, if you
> are a lower limit player than wonging is
> best left to those with bigger bankrolls.
> Get in the Game!

With all due respect, thinking the way you are is going to get you in trouble. If there is a right way to play and a wrong way to play, that methodology doesn't change with the color of the chips (camouflage questions aside).

Any time you feel the urge to "get in the game" in order to satisfy your "gambling instincts" (whatever that means), I suggest you go take a long walk. :-)

Don

[just a counter]

Switch to hi-lo. You'll get in the game quicker and wont have to worry about raising bets at the end of the shoe in negative territory because a rookie count system told you so.

KO is mostly used by rookies because it's touted for it's simplicity. However, by the time you make all the adjustments and conversions neccessary for an upgrade,you may as well be playing the Uston APC.

A funny note about KO is it starts off with very high negative numbers. An easier count would simply start at 0 and adjust the pivot #. Ko is not as "simply" great as the newbies believe it to be.

JAC

> I was wondering if you get more playing time
> if you backcount with Hi-LO vs KO.

> IN BJA2 using the tables for 4.5/6, 1-8
> spread and S17DAS both KO and Hi-LO will
> give approximately $40/100 observed.
> However, you cannot enter until -4 in KO
> where you can enter with +1 in Hi-Lo. I
> presently use KO and you can wait a long
> time to get to a -4 count. Sometimes a shoe
> never gets there. It seems like it would be
> easier to enter using Hi-Lo and a +1 count.
> If you started and got six low cards off the
> deal Hi-Lo would be at +1, where KO would be
> at -14. I am thinking that you would get
> more playing opportunity for the same money
> in Hi-Lo which is important to me as it
> would be less conspicuous than standing
> around watching the tables.

> Any Comments?

[jeddman]

If KO performs overall at a comparable level to Hi-lo despite the potential early/late shoe fall off in accuracy on the running count - are the possible "tweaks" not signifcant improvements? Possibly taking the KO performance beyond Hi-lo?

I would like to hear views on the best of these. Which is the best early shoe improvement without converting to a true count?

Could you point me to the source information for these Parker?

[Sun Runner]

> Switch to hi-lo. You'll get in the game
> quicker and wont have to worry about raising
> bets at the end of the shoe in negative
> territory because a rookie count system told
> you so.

Quite frankly to pass off KO as a "rookie" system is simply irresponsible. Furthermore,you may chose to raise bets at the end of a shoe in negative territory, but that is your choice, not the counts.

> KO is mostly used by rookies because it's
> touted for it's simplicity.

Parker played it for years. He accepts your apology.

> However, by the time you make all the
> adjustments and conversions neccessary for an
> upgrade, you may as well be playing the Uston APC.

Maybe, but weren't we comparing KO and Hilo? And the Uston APC is a level three count, I beleive requiring an Ace side count. It would be easier to just print your own money.

> A funny note about KO is it starts off with
> very high negative numbers. An easier count
> would simply start at 0 and adjust the pivot
> #.

Which is exactly what I and many others do. Nothing funny, difficult, or magical about that.

> KO is not as "simply" great as the newbies believe it to be.

Actually, it is.

BJmath.com rates KO superior to Hilo in betting correlation, playing efficency, insurance correlation, and ease of use.

I think with BJAII it is a push, depending on the game you are playing -no doubt Mr Schlesinger will correct me if I am wrong.

So, while you and others take the fasionable route and dismiss KO out of hand, what empirical data are you relying on?

SR

[T-Hopper]

Making irritating or offensive remarks hoping to start a big thread. Some people do this attempting to trash the board, others think it is a good way to make the board more active. The best thing to do with posts like this is ignore them.

[Bert Nommel]

With improvements, KO has has PE of 0.65 and IC of 0.87. Not shabby. This does require a little side counting, but no estimation of excess or deficit of certain cards. Just a running count of Aces (counted +1) and deuces (counted -1). This count is added to the main count for playing decisions and insurance.

Just a simple TC of the KO will beat the Hi-Lo. Here is the numbers for KO with TC: BC 0.98, PE 0.55 and IC 0.78. These numbers are the same as the numbers for the level 2 system Schlesinger uses (don't remeber the name), tags(A thru T): -1,0.5,1,1,1,1,0.5,0,0,-1.

To true count KO just start count at -4*(number of decks used) and divide running count by remaining decks. Generate the indices with SBA (takes about 20 minutes for 30-40 indices at sigma 2).

Good Luck

Bert

[Cacarulo]

> With improvements, KO has has PE of 0.65 and
> IC of 0.87. Not shabby. This does require a
> little side counting, but no estimation of
> excess or deficit of certain cards. Just a
> running count of Aces (counted +1) and
> deuces (counted -1). This count is added to
> the main count for playing decisions and
> insurance.

I think you're referring here to Pete Moss' count system. It not only requires a secondary count but also a TC conversion.
The parameters for this count are a little different than yours:

BC = 0.977/0.977 (S17/H17) 

PE = 0.618/0.622 (S17/H17) 

IC = 0.872

> Just a simple TC of the KO will beat the
> Hi-Lo. Here is the numbers for KO with TC:
> BC 0.98, PE 0.55 and IC 0.78. These numbers
> are the same as the numbers for the level 2
> system Schlesinger uses (don't remeber the
> name), tags(A thru T):
> -1,0.5,1,1,1,1,0.5,0,0,-1.

Again, my numbers differ:

1) Hi-Lo

BC = 0.968/0.972 (S17/H17) 

PE = 0.509/0.513 (S17/H17) 

IC = 0.789

2) TKO

BC = 0.977/0.977 (S17/H17) 

PE = 0.522/0.531 (S17/H17) 

IC = 0.813

3)

-1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 -1

BC = 0.984/0.985 (S17/H17) 

PE = 0.533/0.540 (S17/H17) 

IC = 0.810

4) Just for the record: Cac/7 (which is Hi-Lo with a side count of sevens)

BC = 0.984/0.985 (S17/H17) 

PE = 0.509/0.513 (S17/H17) 

IC = 0.810

As you can see, the TKO numbers are not the same of a level 2 count. A BC of 0.984 is not nearly close to 0.977.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[Wildcard]

Was wondering if you could provide a little proof of your allegations re: the subject line.

KO preferred pretty much holds its own - no?

Should you think "no", on this point also, could you provide some statistical analysis to support your position?

[Sun Runner]

> A BC of 0.984 is not nearly close to 0.977.

TKO BC =0.977
Cac/7 BC =.984

Would it be correct to evaluate the difference in EV as $100 avg bet @ 50 hands per hour @.007 equalling $35 per hour differential? If not, maybe you could, in laymens terms, describe the difference for me as it relates to something tangible?

Also -Cac/7 is a new concept for me. Is this a Hilo enhancement you developed or has it been around?

Where would a man find the TC adjustments for the side count of sevens.

Realizing that I will be trapped in 6D hell most of my life and probably will never play a L2 system, I am always looking for the premium L1 count with the highest BC.

Thanks for bringing a reasonable response to the current string.

SR