creatureman: Customizing the KO count

[creatureman]

I was wanting to get some input from some KO er's out there. What they use for the irc's, pivots insurance and indexes when customized to avoid some or little use of negatives, on 6D game Thanx

[Kasey]

> I was wanting to get some input from some KO
> er's out there. What they use for the irc's,
> pivots insurance and indexes when customized
> to avoid some or little use of negatives, on
> 6D game Thanx

I didn't care for all the negative numbers either, plus I wanted to be able to "figure out" my IRC's, Pivot's and Key counts rather than memorize a table.

People here are going to hate this, but to avoid the negative numbers, I reversed the card values:

A = +1
X = +1
9 = 0
8 = 0
7 = -1
6 = -1
5 = -1
4 = -1
3 = -1
2 = -1

Then I set my Key count to be 1 for all numbers of decks.

Once you have calibrated the Key count like this, the following is true:

IRC = NumberOfDecks * 3
Pivot = -NumberOfDecks
Insurance = Pivot + 1

So for 6 decks:
Key = 1
IRC = 18 (6 decks * 3)
Pivot = -6 (-6 decks)
Insurance = -5 (Pivot + 1)

This keeps the majority of the counting in positive numbers, since every deck starts in positive territory and makes it possible to determine all the KO count values quickly from the number of decks.

Kasey

[Parker]

> I didn't care for all the negative numbers
> either, plus I wanted to be able to
> "figure out" my IRC's, Pivot's and
> Key counts rather than memorize a table.

> People here are going to hate this, but to
> avoid the negative numbers, I reversed the
> card values:

> A = +1
> X = +1
> 9 = 0
> 8 = 0
> 7 = -1
> 6 = -1
> 5 = -1
> 4 = -1
> 3 = -1
> 2 = -1

> Then I set my Key count to be 1 for all
> numbers of decks.

> Once you have calibrated the Key count like
> this, the following is true:

> IRC = NumberOfDecks * 3
> Pivot = -NumberOfDecks
> Insurance = Pivot + 1

> So for 6 decks:
> Key = 1
> IRC = 18 (6 decks * 3)
> Pivot = -6 (-6 decks)
> Insurance = -5 (Pivot + 1)

> This keeps the majority of the counting in
> positive numbers, since every deck starts in
> positive territory and makes it possible to
> determine all the KO count values quickly
> from the number of decks.

> Kasey

This seems like a huge amount of work to go through merely to avoid negative numbers. Just reading it made my head spin - and I used to use KO!

This also means that you will have to ramp your bets in reverse - the lower the count, the more you bet!

Seems like it would make conversing with other counters confusing, to say the least.

[Parker]

> I was wanting to get some input from some KO
> er's out there. What they use for the irc's,
> pivots insurance and indexes when customized
> to avoid some or little use of negatives, on
> 6D game Thanx

Personally, I don't see the big deal about negative numbers. When I used KO, I just always started the running count at 0, because it seemed natural. Then I simply adjusted the key count and pivot point for the number of decks:

IRC=0 (always)

1 deck: key=2 pivot=4
2 deck: key=5 pivot=8
6 deck: key=16 pivot=24

(I avoid 8 deck games)

Funny how I still remember those numbers, even though I have not used KO for several years.

[kasey]

> Seems like it would make conversing with
> other counters confusing, to say the least.

This is true, I almost put this in my original post. When I talk to other counters, I use the normal +- terminology or it is hopeless.

Of course, I don't actually know any other counters, other than here, and I rarely post because I rarely have anything of value to add.

It may well be I tried to be too smart by half.
;^)

[BJGold]

> I was wanting to get some input from some KO
> er's out there. What they use for the irc's,
> pivots insurance and indexes when customized
> to avoid some or little use of negatives, on
> 6D game Thanx

I also found it more difficult to count with negative numbers and start with an IRC of 5 in 6D shoes. Key count is 21 and pivot is 29, insurance at 28.

If you use the betting-ramp described in the book it is also easier to recall the right wager: 1 unit at 20 or less, 2 at 21 and 22, 3 at 23...6 at 26, 8 at 27...10 at 30. In a SD game I start with IRC 10 betting 1 unit, 2 units at a count of 12, 3 at 13 and 4 at 14 and over.

In the meantime I don?t use this 1-10 spread in 6D anymore, but still the same IRC, cause it?s easy to customize it to most betting-ramps. Like betting 5 to 100 ? with pen. of 4.0/6: Add 3 to the count less 20 makes 10 ? at a count of 18, 20 at 19...100 at 27 (5 ? at <=17).

Why I increase my bet 3 numbers below the key-count? Because KO, as you know, is an unbalanced count and underestimates the advantage in the first part of the shoe, but overrates it in the last part. Advantage at the pivot point is always the same with same rules being applied. Increasing the wager at the key count is calculated for a pen. of 4.5/6. With pen 5.0/6 you should wait until key count +2 (in my example 23) to raise the bet. This is only true for 6D games.

Another possibility to reach more accuracy with KO is to add 3 to the count until the pivot point is reached in the first third of the shoe and subtract 3 in the last third of the shoe, if more than 4 decks are dealt.

[Shadow]

I use a fix key count of 16 - so I have a fix value for increasing my betsize.

IRC 0 / Pivot 24 for 6D
IRC 11 / Pivot 19 for DD
IRC 14 / Pivot 18 for SD

Shadow

[creatureman]

thanx for the input guys.

[ZOD]

> Another possibility to reach more accuracy
> with KO is to add 3 to the count until the
> pivot point is reached in the first third of
> the shoe and subtract 3 in the last third of
> the shoe, if more than 4 decks are dealt.

This is one of those things that certainly doesn't add complexity to the system. I've used a similar adjusting of the KO for some time now. I began doing this after finding a 6D game with 5+ decks being dealt. I was maxing my bet at the end almost every shoe and dropped substantial bankroll in a short time.

Intuitively, this adjustment seems to be an improvement. But the only way I can think to test it is by dividing the shoe into thirds and running comparative sims. Doing this shows some improvement next to standard KO. If any of the math gurus have played around with this, I'd like to hear their results.

Best,

ZOD