Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 61

Thread: MJ: KO vs Hi-Lo: Question and Analysis

  1. #27
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: yes . . . mostly

    I'm never "sure" of anything unless I've run the sims myself. Even then I'm not totally certain unless several others more knowledgeable than myself have duplicated the results, since properly setting up a sim can be quite challenging in itself.

    > If that is the case then howcome John's SIM
    > shows Hi-Lo I-18 performs nearly identical
    > with KO I-18?
    > The only difference between the BJRM SIM and
    > the one from bjstats.com are the 10 splits
    > and the 5 additional index plays which you
    > say "are useless adding no significant
    > EV".

    > Clearly you can see from the BJRM chart
    > Hi-Lo I-18 outscores KO I-18 by only
    > $1.50/Hr. Where as before Hi-Lo I-18
    > outscored KO Preferred by $6.00/Hr. Those 5
    > extra index plays and 10 splits certainly
    > must be worth something. How else can you
    > account for the extra $5.50/Hr that KO
    > earns?

    I attribute it almost entirely to the 10-splitting indices. Ranking #4 and #5 on the I-18, these are powerful strategy variations.

    > Lastly, does BJRM give the index numbers
    > based upon penetration or does it give an
    > average number for each index play in RC
    > mode? If not would it be possible to get an
    > average index number taking different
    > penetrations into consideration? Thanks for
    > assistance.

    It shows them based on penetration. In fact, it can be quite educational to plug in various levels of penetration and watch the numbers change.

    Average numbers can be used, but they will be wildly inaccurate early or late in the shoe. Again, couple this with the fact that you will always have a minimum bet out when these indices come into play, and it becomes just, well, not worth the effort. :-)

  2. #28
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Thanks! *NM*


  3. #29
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Question

    > It shows them based on penetration. In fact,
    > it can be quite educational to plug in
    > various levels of penetration and watch the
    > numbers change.

    So if I understand you correctly then the KO I-18 on BJRM uses several numbers for any given index play depending on the level of penetration?

    The BJRM charts are misleading if that is the case because nobody really uses KO in that manner. What makes KO so appealing is its simplicity. Are the SCORE numbers given in BJA3 for KO based upon the same methodology BJRM uses?

    What about those plays which occur at the Pivot Point(with KO thats nearly all of them) such as 10 vs 10? 11 vs 11? In these instances does BJRM use the Pivot of +4 or does the index number depend on how far into the shoe you are?

    Lastly can I get the results John shows in the KO I-18 chart if I use KO Preferred Strategy and Surrender matrix plus the 10 splits? The other 5 plays I will omit as you indicate the EV is miniscule. Thanks again for the help.

    -MJ

    > Average numbers can be used, but they will
    > be wildly inaccurate early or late in the
    > shoe. Again, couple this with the fact that
    > you will always have a minimum bet out when
    > these indices come into play, and it becomes
    > just, well, not worth the effort. :-)

  4. #30
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Question

    > So if I understand you correctly then the KO
    > I-18 on BJRM uses several numbers for any
    > given index play depending on the level of
    > penetration?

    BJRM has several different components. The indices I am referring to above come from a feature called "Systems 101" that provides a quick look at the various counting systems. The charts John has posted are from "The One Second Simulator," which is essentially a user-friendly interface for a set of pre-run sims generated with Karel Janecek's SBA simulator. The two components are completely unrelated.

    One of the problems involved with working with KO is that its creators have been really protective about copyright and licensing issues, refusing to allow the KO Preferred Reduced Rounded Strategy Matrix to be used in BJRM, CVCX/CVData, etc.

    > The BJRM charts are misleading if that is
    > the case because nobody really uses KO in
    > that manner. What makes KO so appealing is
    > its simplicity. Are the SCORE numbers given
    > in BJA3 for KO based upon the same
    > methodology BJRM uses?

    As stated above, BJRM does not use this methodology in the One Second Sim results. Perhaps John will jump in with details.

    BJA3 uses KO Preferred indices as described in the KO book. The licensing issues were sidestepped by never actually spelling out exactly what these are.

    > What about those plays which occur at the
    > Pivot Point(with KO thats nearly all of
    > them) such as 10 vs 10? 11 vs 11? In these
    > instances does BJRM use the Pivot of +4 or
    > does the index number depend on how far into
    > the shoe you are?

    The reason the pivot point is the most accurate part is because the count (and hence, indices) are the same, regardless of penetration.

    > Lastly can I get the results John shows in
    > the KO I-18 chart if I use KO Preferred
    > Strategy and Surrender matrix plus the 10
    > splits? The other 5 plays I will omit as you
    > indicate the EV is miniscule. Thanks again
    > for the help.

    I imagine that it would be pretty close. For a quick & dirty index (and in the spirit of reduced, rounded indices), split 10's against dealer 5 or 6 upcard at/above the pivot point.

  5. #31
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Re: Question

    > One of the problems involved with working
    > with KO is that its creators have been
    > really protective about copyright and
    > licensing issues, refusing to allow the KO
    > Preferred Reduced Rounded Strategy Matrix to
    > be used in BJRM, CVCX/CVData, etc.

    Ok then if BJRM does not use the KO
    Preferred Reduced Rounded Strategy Matrix due to copyright concerns then what playing strategy is it using?

    To make it more confusing on the chart right next to KO Preferred it says I-18 Fab 4. What should I make of that?

    > As stated above, BJRM does not use this
    > methodology in the One Second Sim results.
    > Perhaps John will jump in with details.

    Again I ask is the One Second SIM based upon KO Preferred or KO I-18 Fab 4?? I really am not clear on this issue.

    > BJA3 uses KO Preferred indices as described
    > in the KO book. The licensing issues were
    > sidestepped by never actually spelling out
    > exactly what these are.

    Ok I'm clear on that one. :-)

    -MJ


  6. #32
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Answer

    > Ok then if BJRM does not use the KO
    > Preferred Reduced Rounded Strategy Matrix
    > due to copyright concerns then what playing
    > strategy is it using?

    > To make it more confusing on the chart right
    > next to KO Preferred it says I-18 Fab 4.
    > What should I make of that?

    Well, I think a logical conclusion might be that it is using the I-18 and Fab 4 indices. :-)

    I think that that was John's whole point in posting the charts (and my point as well); when we compare KO and Hi-lo with identical indices they perform in a similar manner, when we add real-world betting constraints they become even closer.

    > Again I ask is the One Second SIM based upon
    > KO Preferred or KO I-18 Fab 4?? I really am
    > not clear on this issue.

    I-18 and Fab 4. I believe that the term "KO Preferred" is being tossed around somewhat loosely here, resulting in your confusion.

  7. #33
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Not quite

    > One of the problems involved with working
    > with KO is that its creators have been
    > really protective about copyright and
    > licensing issues, refusing to allow the KO
    > Preferred Reduced Rounded Strategy Matrix to
    > be used in BJRM, CVCX/CVData, etc.

    The KO indexes in the KO book are not included in the CVCX/CVData strategies due to copyright. However, the CVCX canned sims do use the book's indexes. Copyright prevents me from including the indexes but not from using them myself and including results.

  8. #34
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Question for Don

    > I'd say you made a mistake somewhere. You
    > may have a wrong penetration for K-O, or you
    > may not have included surrender. something
    > is wrong. See BJA3, p. 176, where the SCOREs
    > are given as 30.85 and 32.91.

    Does the SCORE number of 30.85 from BJA3 use the KO Preferred and Surrender Strategy or the KO I-18 Fab4? Parker mentions in the thread below that BJA3 uses the KO Preferred Strategy outlined in the KO book.

    I find this hard to swallow because the SCORE of 30.85 is nearly identical to the figure in John's chart of 30.73 which is based upon KO I-18. There is simply no way KO Preferred(13 index plays not including 10 splits) can outperform KO I-18 with 5 additional index plays including 10 splits.

    Do you ever specify which KO strategy was used in BJA3? Seeing that 30.85 and 30.73 are nearly identical SCORE values I tend to think you and John are using the same index plays; namely KO I-18 Fab4.

    My whole issue with this is that nobody really makes it clear what version of KO is being used when they mention a SIM. If you used KO I-18 in BJA3 you should make that clear so readers are not mislead into thinking the version of KO they are playing with is the same strategy your data is based upon.

    If BJA3 uses KO Preferred Strategy how do you explain the identical SCORE value to John's chart below which used KO I-18 Fab4? Thanks for any light you can shed on this matter.

    -MJ


  9. #35
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Question for Don

    To make apples-to-apples comparisons of Hi-Lo, Red 7, and K-O, and to make the K-O charts that appear in the SCORE chapter of BJA3 and previous editions, the I18 and Fab4 were used.

    In his separate booklet of the WGBJS for K-O, John explains that he isn't going to publish the indices used, because the authors requested that he not do so, but: 1) One single index was used for any given given play (although, of course, it might have changed as number of decks changed); and 2) The indices were taken from K-O preferred, when the index existed; however, if the index wasn't a part of K-O (P), John created it (via SBA) so as to generate a complete set of I18 and Fab4 indices.

    Clear?

    Don

  10. #36
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Question for Don

    Ok thanks for clearing that up Don. :-)

    > One single index was used for any given
    > given play (although, of course, it might
    > have changed as number of decks changed);

    I take it you mean that the index plays were generated based upon how many decks were used in the game and not how far into the deck you are(penetration).

    I really don't understand what Olaf and Fuchs are so worried about. They should be flattered people want to use their system, run SIMs on it, and incorporate it into their software. People publish information about Hi-Lo all the time!! Did Harvey Dubner complain when risk averse indices were generated for Hi-Lo?

    Ok the only question left is how do I get access to the KO I-18 Fab4 index plays? If they are really that powerful as to perform on par with Hi-Lo they are certainly worth incorporating. Do you think if I emailed John he might give them to me? This would not constitute publishing them, so he would not be breaking his word to the authors. If worst comes to worst I could always purchase CVDATA or SBA and sim it myself I suppose.

    -MJ


  11. #37
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Now I'm confused

    > To make apples-to-apples comparisons of
    > Hi-Lo, Red 7, and K-O, and to make the K-O
    > charts that appear in the SCORE chapter of
    > BJA3 and previous editions, the I18 and Fab4
    > were used.

    > In his separate booklet of the WGBJS for
    > K-O, John explains that he isn't going to
    > publish the indices used, because the
    > authors requested that he not do so, but: 1)
    > One single index was used for any given
    > given play (although, of course, it might
    > have changed as number of decks changed);
    > and 2) The indices were taken from K-O
    > preferred, when the index existed;
    > however, if the index wasn't a part of K-O
    > (P), John created it (via SBA) so as to
    > generate a complete set of I18 and Fab4
    > indices.

    > Clear?

    No, actually.

    From BJA3 (pb), page 165: "Not only was K-O using the Preferred version (which means that only a few index values were used from the "Illustrious "18" and "Fab 4"), but the values that were picked were not necessarily optimized for the penetration levels used"

    This seems to me to indicate that KO Preferred with the reduced rounded strategy matrix was used. In addition, Norm states in another post that the KO matrix was used in the CVCX/CVData sims, leading me to believe that he did the same in the updated Chapter 10 sims.

  12. #38
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Question for Don

    > Ok the only question left is how do I get
    > access to the KO I-18 Fab4 index plays?

    You buy BJRM and go to Systems 101, where you will find the I18 and Fab4 for many, many systems.

    Don

  13. #39
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Me too

    > From BJA3 (pb), page 165: "Not only was
    > K-O using the Preferred version (which means
    > that only a few index values were used from
    > the "Illustrious "18" and
    > "Fab 4"),

    I now think that this may not be the case.

    > but the values that were
    > picked were not necessarily optimized for
    > the penetration levels used

    Right. One index-fits-all approach.

    > This seems to me to indicate that KO
    > Preferred with the reduced rounded strategy
    > matrix was used.

    That's what it says, but when I go to BJRM and plug in games similar to those in BJA3, I get almost identical results, and John says, in BJRM, that I18 and Fab4 were used. So, either that statement is wrong (I don't think so), or the one in BJA3 is wrong, which won't make me very happy! :-)

    > In addition, Norm states in
    > another post that the KO matrix was used in
    > the CVCX/CVData sims, leading me to believe
    > that he did the same in the updated Chapter
    > 10 sims.

    The updated Chapter 10 sims are all Hi-Lo. There's no K-O in Chapter 10.

    Don

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.