ko_user: Enhancing KO

[ko_user]

I'm new at counting.

I have been using KO for a month.

I understand the method is not prefect , is based on averages, although where most relevant, these averages are generally fine. However, the method can be theoretically enhanced with some finetuning. These adjustments may not produce significant higher expectations, but to the extent these adjustements are relatively simple to apply in pratice, why not. It is on this basis that I post. I would like to know if my list of adjustments is complete or if you have any comments.

I play 8 shoe deck with penetration of about 5 decks out of 8 and I do back-counting; enter only when I have an advantage. Covering is not an issue at all. I begin my running count at 0, I enter the game at 22 (key).

Finetuning adjustments:

(1) enter the game at 18 if very early, at 20 if early, 22 if mid-shoe or 24 if later.

(2) get out (possibly temporarily)or lower bet at table minimum at these running counts as well;

(3) modify the indices to reflect the Hit Soft 17 rule of my casino rather than the assumed Stand on Soft 17 the book uses. At neutral deck (although I do not specifically play at neutral deck), I have added three changes (double 11 versus Ace, double A8 versus 6, double A7 versus 2). Further adjustments made to indices published in the book (lowered the 16 versus A and the 8 versus 6 indices) The last adjustments are approximations from the Hi-lo indices based on the hit-stand soft 17 variations.

(4) expand the indices to reflect doubling on soft hands and splitting, which the book does not use. I have approximated these KO unpublished indices from the Hi-lo indices. Is there some KO indices for splitting and soft hands on the internet ? To date in pratice, I have only used a few additional plays (the ones with the lower indices derived from my approximations, which are close to or slightly larger than the key point). They are :

split 99 versus Ace
double A3 versus 4
double A6 versus 2
double A8 versus 5

There are additional similar plays (splits and doubling of soft hands) around pivot and after, that I plan to use in the future (example 99 versus 7)although I may delay some others (example splitting 1010 versus 4-5-6).

(5) Given the poor penetration of the decks, I should probably reduce the value of each indices by 1 (from the analysis found in Appendix V of the book), as the book assumes penetration of 75%. These include the indices published in the book as well as the additional indicies that I use described above.

Note : at this point, I did not modify the indices as a function of how many cards remain to be dealt. As such, the indices remain fix throughout the shoe. I was thinking of doing it with the insurance index but given that it is near pivot (where the KO's underlying approximations are just fine), I gather it is not necessary.

Thanks for commenting.

[Parker]

> I'm new at counting.

> I have been using KO for a month.

> I understand the method is not prefect , is
> based on averages, although where most
> relevant, these averages are generally fine.

This could be said of all systems, and for that matter, of card counting in general.

> However, the method can be theoretically
> enhanced with some finetuning. These
> adjustments may not produce significant
> higher expectations, but to the extent these
> adjustements are relatively simple to apply
> in pratice, why not. It is on this basis
> that I post. I would like to know if my list
> of adjustments is complete or if you have
> any comments.

> I play 8 shoe deck with penetration of about
> 5 decks out of 8 and I do back-counting;
> enter only when I have an advantage.

This is a terrible game, even with back-counting. But if you must play, back-counting is an absolute must.

> Covering is not an issue at all.

Obvious to see why. :-)

> I begin my
> running count at 0, I enter the game at 22
> (key).

> Finetuning adjustments:

> (1) enter the game at 18 if very early, at
> 20 if early, 22 if mid-shoe or 24 if later.

> (2) get out (possibly temporarily)or lower
> bet at table minimum at these running counts
> as well;

These adjustments are fine.

As for adding/modifying indices, I think that it is more trouble than it is worth. With this game, nearly all of what little edge you may have comes simply from chunking out the big bets when you have the advantage. The gain from strategy variations, once you get past the KO Preferred matrix, is negligible.

Also remember that the further an index is from the pivot, the less accurate it is.

At the risk of repeating myself, KO works just fine right "out of the box," especially on mediocre (I'm being charitable here) games such as this one.

I recommend playing for several months and getting the system down to a near-subconscious level before you start worrying about "tweaking" or enhancing the system.

And try to find some better games to play. :-)

[fatcat519]

> I'm new at counting.

> I have been using KO for a month.

> I understand the method is not prefect , is
> based on averages, although where most
> relevant, these averages are generally fine.
> However, the method can be theoretically
> enhanced with some finetuning. These
> adjustments may not produce significant
> higher expectations, but to the extent these
> adjustements are relatively simple to apply
> in pratice, why not. It is on this basis
> that I post. I would like to know if my list
> of adjustments is complete or if you have
> any comments.

> I play 8 shoe deck with penetration of about
> 5 decks out of 8 and I do back-counting;
> enter only when I have an advantage.
> Covering is not an issue at all. I begin my
> running count at 0, I enter the game at 22
> (key).

> Finetuning adjustments:

> (1) enter the game at 18 if very early, at
> 20 if early, 22 if mid-shoe or 24 if later.

> (2) get out (possibly temporarily)or lower
> bet at table minimum at these running counts
> as well;

> (3) modify the indices to reflect the Hit
> Soft 17 rule of my casino rather than the
> assumed Stand on Soft 17 the book uses. At
> neutral deck (although I do not specifically
> play at neutral deck), I have added three
> changes (double 11 versus Ace, double A8
> versus 6, double A7 versus 2). Further
> adjustments made to indices published in the
> book (lowered the 16 versus A and the 8
> versus 6 indices) The last adjustments are
> approximations from the Hi-lo indices based
> on the hit-stand soft 17 variations.

> (4) expand the indices to reflect doubling
> on soft hands and splitting, which the book
> does not use. I have approximated these KO
> unpublished indices from the Hi-lo indices.
> Is there some KO indices for splitting and
> soft hands on the internet ? To date in
> pratice, I have only used a few additional
> plays (the ones with the lower indices
> derived from my approximations, which are
> close to or slightly larger than the key
> point). They are :

> split 99 versus Ace
> double A3 versus 4
> double A6 versus 2
> double A8 versus 5

> There are additional similar plays (splits
> and doubling of soft hands) around pivot and
> after, that I plan to use in the future
> (example 99 versus 7)although I may delay
> some others (example splitting 1010 versus
> 4-5-6).

> (5) Given the poor penetration of the decks,
> I should probably reduce the value of each
> indices by 1 (from the analysis found in
> Appendix V of the book), as the book assumes
> penetration of 75%. These include the
> indices published in the book as well as the
> additional indicies that I use described
> above.

> Note : at this point, I did not modify the
> indices as a function of how many cards
> remain to be dealt. As such, the indices
> remain fix throughout the shoe. I was
> thinking of doing it with the insurance
> index but given that it is near pivot (where
> the KO's underlying approximations are just
> fine), I gather it is not necessary.

> Thanks for commenting.

I play an 8-deck game, though with better pen. and better rules. I've used KO for about 3 years, and have added the tweaks of the type you mention, though some of my numbers are slightly different.
As Parker,(and KO authors), say, monetarily it's probably not worth the effort. But as you say, if you can do it, and you enjoy doing that kind of thing, why not.

[ET Fan]

Tell us where this game is, so we can all avoid it.

"I play 8 shoe deck with penetration of about 5 decks out of 8." ... and hit 17 to boot. :-O

Without backcounting, I doubt this could be played to an advantage. With backcounting, you're going to stand around a lot.

ETF

[ko_user]

> Tell us where this game is, so we can all
> avoid it.

> "I play 8 shoe deck with penetration
> of about 5 decks out of 8." ... and
> hit 17 to boot. :-O

> Without backcounting, I doubt this could be
> played to an advantage. With backcounting,
> you're going to stand around a lot.

> ETF

This is in Montreal. The casino is run by the government. They have recently switched from 6 to 8 shoe and introduced the hit soft 17. Unfortunately, you can't choose the casino around here unless you travel. There are always a few dealers that will have better deck penetration, but most will cut at about 5 out of 8 decks. Merci.