For those of you that have BJRM, I was wondering what the index numbers are for splitting 10s vs 5 and 6(for 1, 2, 6, 8 decks)with the KO system. I think it should be under Systems 101. Thanks to anybody who can help me out!!!
-MJ
For those of you that have BJRM, I was wondering what the index numbers are for splitting 10s vs 5 and 6(for 1, 2, 6, 8 decks)with the KO system. I think it should be under Systems 101. Thanks to anybody who can help me out!!!
-MJ
> For those of you that have BJRM, I was
> wondering what the index numbers are for
> splitting 10s vs 5 and 6(for 1, 2, 6, 8
> decks)with the KO system. I think it should
> be under Systems 101. Thanks to anybody who
> can help me out!!!
In TC mode, they are all +1, for all numbers of decks. If you specify RC, then the values change for every whole deck remaining, and, frankly, I'm too lazy to list them all.
Don
> In TC mode, they are all +1, for all numbers
> of decks. If you specify RC, then the values
> change for every whole deck remaining, and,
> frankly, I'm too lazy to list them all.
Note that in TC mode, the pivot point is at 0. So, if one were to use "pivot +1" in RC mode for splitting 10's vs. 5 and 6, it would be in the ballpark.
I thought that all values for KO index plays are based upon an average running count. So why would BJRM provide indice plays for RC based upon the # of whole decks remaining? This seems to defeat the purpose of the KO system which is based upon simplicity. For example if I have 9 vs 7 and the RC is +4(Pivot), then I double down regardless of the number of decks remaining. One indice number, one play.
If you were to average all the indice numbers given for different decks remaining(in BJRM) would that average be accurate enough to split 10s with an enhanced EV?
What do you think of splitting 10s vs 5 and 6 at the Pivot point of +4 in RC mode? Is there anyway I can figure out one index # for each of these plays in running count mode? KO is such a popular system I figured somebody would have done it by now.
-MJ
> In TC mode, they are all +1, for all numbers
> of decks. If you specify RC, then the values
> change for every whole deck remaining, and,
> frankly, I'm too lazy to list them all.
> Don
> What do you think of splitting 10s vs 5 and
> 6 at the Pivot point of +4 in RC mode? Is
> there anyway I can figure out one index #
> for each of these plays in running count
> mode? KO is such a popular system I figured
> somebody would have done it by now.
Somebody has. See my comment. Use pivot +1 for both plays and you will be fine.
> Note that in TC mode, the pivot point is at
> 0. So, if one were to use "pivot
> +1" in RC mode for splitting 10's vs. 5
> and 6, it would be in the ballpark.
I'm confused how can you have a pivot of +1 in RC mode? The pivot is at +4 no? It seems to me like your trying to use TC indice numbers in RC mode which could be disastrous.
If BJRM is correct then in TC mode you are splitting 10s just above the pivot point, so in RC mode you would want to do the same thing right??? Hence, I tend to think you should split 10s just above the Pivot point which would be in the ballpark of +5(remember at the pivot of +4 we have precise info about our expectation). Then again I'm just a newbie. But does that make sense? The indice number must be around +4 for both plays(in RC mode)...regardless of the # of decks if my thinking is correct. I just wish I knew exactly what they were.
I wish Olaf and Fuchs provided this information in the book it wouldn't kill anybody to learn an extra 2 plays! Do you think they even figured out the correct numbers for splitting 10s?
-MJ
> I'm confused how can you have a pivot of +1
> in RC mode? The pivot is at +4 no? It seems
> to me like your trying to use TC indice
> numbers in RC mode which could be
> disastrous.
Not at all. This is why I used the term "pivot point" rather than a specific number.
The pivot point can be anywhere you want, depending on the IRC. In the KO Preferred system, Vancura & Fuchs standardize to a pivot of +4, regardless of the number of decks, by adjusting the IRC for the number of decks. I imagine that they did this because the advantage at the pivot is roughly the same as a Hi-lo true count of +4.
If we wish to true-count KO, the easiest way is to adjust the IRC's for a pivot point of zero.
> If BJRM is correct then in TC mode you are
> splitting 10s just above the pivot point, so
> in RC mode you would want to do the same
> thing right??? Hence, I tend to think you
> should split 10s just above the Pivot point
> which would be in the ballpark of
> +5(remember at the pivot of +4 we have
> precise info about our expectation). Then
> again I'm just a newbie. But does that make
> sense? The indice number must be around +4
> for both plays(in RC mode)...regardless of
> the # of decks if my thinking is correct. I
> just wish I knew exactly what they were.
Exactly. So, if you are using KO "out of the box" with the pivot point at +4, then +5 would be a good index to use for splitting 10's. (Which is why I said "pivot point +1).
You could break it down even further and say +5 vs dealer 6 upcard and +6 vs dealer 5 upcard, but I think that the gain in EV would be miniscule.
> I wish Olaf and Fuchs provided this
> information in the book it wouldn't kill
> anybody to learn an extra 2 plays! Do you
> think they even figured out the correct
> numbers for splitting 10s?
See above. This one would even be fairly accurate, since it is close to the pivot. V & F were against splitting 10's primarily due to heat considerations. It also increases variance, since you're both breaking up a good hand and putting more money on the table.
> sense? The indice number must be around +4
> for both plays(in RC mode)...regardless of
> the # of decks if my thinking is correct. I
> just wish I knew exactly what they were.
... is not what you should expect of this system in RC mode. But Parker made a great point. Since this play is near pivot you are very very close the exact answer in RC mode.
But the answers you got from Don and Parker are exact in this sense. Cacarulo has provided a ton of sims and SCORE data for TKO (true counted KO) which is posted in Don's Domain. I highly recommend it. In one, he posted the Catch 22 indices for TKO 6D S17. Both of these split plays have an TC index of +1 (using the methodology Parker described where TKO's indices are 4 less than the Hi-Lo equalent, or said differently with a pivot of 0).
For practical purposes, pivot +1 is as good as you should need. If you want to be completely exact you have to factor in penetration. So, at 1 decks remaining it's pivot +1, at 2 decks remaining its pivot plus 2, at 3 its pivot plus 3 etc.
Hope this helps.
> You could break it down even further and say
> +5 vs dealer 6 upcard and +6 vs dealer 5
> upcard, but I think that the gain in EV
> would be miniscule.
Thanks for the response Parker. The indice numbers above seem correct, but were they obtained via SIM? Although your thinking is logical, sometimes the best thing to do is verify with a SIM. Also, do you know how much of a gain there is in EV when you split 10s when the RC says to do so?
Come to think about it, do you know whether there are any risk averse indices for splitting 10s with KO in RC mode? For example, with Hi-Lo most people split 10s around a TC of +4. But risk averse indices dictate it should be done at a TC of +8. Can risk averse indices even exist with an unbalanced system such as KO? Thanks for the help.
-MJ
> Not at all. This is why I used the term
> "pivot point" rather than a
> specific number.
> The pivot point can be anywhere you want,
> depending on the IRC. In the KO Preferred
> system, Vancura & Fuchs standardize to a
> pivot of +4, regardless of the number of
> decks, by adjusting the IRC for the number
> of decks. I imagine that they did this
> because the advantage at the pivot is
> roughly the same as a Hi-lo true count of
> +4.
> If we wish to true-count KO, the easiest way
> is to adjust the IRC's for a pivot point of
> zero.
> Exactly. So, if you are using KO "out
> of the box" with the pivot point at +4,
> then +5 would be a good index to use for
> splitting 10's. (Which is why I said
> "pivot point +1).
> You could break it down even further and say
> +5 vs dealer 6 upcard and +6 vs dealer 5
> upcard, but I think that the gain in EV
> would be miniscule.
> See above. This one would even be fairly
> accurate, since it is close to the pivot. V
> & F were against splitting 10's
> primarily due to heat considerations. It
> also increases variance, since you're both
> breaking up a good hand and putting more
> money on the table.
> Thanks for the response Parker. The indice
> numbers above seem correct, but were they
> obtained via SIM? Although your thinking is
> logical, sometimes the best thing to do is
> verify with a SIM. Also, do you know how
> much of a gain there is in EV when you split
> 10s when the RC says to do so?
I haven't personally simmed it. However, as Koolipto mentioned, Cacarulo has provided Don's Domain members with a wealth of info on TKO (yet another reason to join Don's Domain), and my comments are based on those numbers. In addition, just about all the authorities (Don, Snyder, George C., etc.) agree that indices can be off by a full integer or more with no significant effect on EV.
I agree that the best way to reach positive conclusions about this sort of thing is to sim it, which is why I strongly recommend that anyone serious about the game invest in simulation software. Any more, there is simply no reason not to.
Are you asking about the gain from splitting 10's in RC mode vs. not splitting them at all? If so, the plays rank #4 and #5 on Don's I-18, so the gain can be significant, depending on the game and stakes.
As usual, this must be weighed against the heat it will bring. Pit critters have a saying: "Nobody splits 10's except idiots and card counters," and it usually doesn't take them long to figure out which one you are.
> Come to think about it, do you know whether
> there are any risk averse indices for
> splitting 10s with KO in RC mode? For
> example, with Hi-Lo most people split 10s
> around a TC of +4. But risk averse indices
> dictate it should be done at a TC of +8. Can
> risk averse indices even exist with an
> unbalanced system such as KO? Thanks for the
> help.
The risk-averse index for splitting 10's is to not split them. :-)
Seriously, RA indices can be generated for any counting system, RC or TC. I use RA indices with UBZ2. As Don concluded in BJA, the actual gain from RA indices is miniscule.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks