MJ: KO vs Hi-Lo: Question and Analysis

[MJ]

[MJ]

> What Don has written, is true.

I'm not sure I agree. See post entitled "Still not making sense".

> Here is another point. When I use the term
> "KO Preferred", I take it
> primarily as indicating that, rather than
> have separate unique RC values for all
> indices, they are "grouped"
> together around one or two compromise RC's.

I agree with you there but when I read the term "KO-P" I also take it to mean the strategy outlined in Knock-Out Blackjack.

> Many of the I18 F4 indices are in those
> groups, and the ones that aren't, either
> don't help, or actually hurt, as they are so
> far from piviot as to be wrong more than
> they are right, depending on penetration.

Please see post above entitled "Still doesnt make sense". I will ask once more if the impact of the additional index values are minimal how do you account for the $6.00/Hr increase in SCORE which KO I-18 acquires over KO-P? The game conditions for both sims were the same.

> So, if you ever see, in my canned sims, both
> "KO Preferred" and I18 F4, you
> know that indices were grouped around only a
> few unique RC's, and if I "added"
> a couple to fill in the missing I18 and F4,
> it would have only had an insignificant
> effect on the results.

See above.

> So, ENOUGH on this teapot tempest!

I'm not trying to cause any trouble John. However, there is something not right here. You and Don seem to believe that KO-P and KO I-18 perform the same, yet the evidence I outline points to the contrary.

-MJ

[JohnAuston]

I've already told you that, where an I18 or F4 was "missing" from the KO Preferred, I added it to the appropriate group. So 10-splitting was put into the Pivot group.

That is why hi-lo and KO are so close in the article and in BJRM ( like the charts I posted ).
Those represent each system using the I18 and F4, but with KO using the "Preferred" index clusters.

The "Preferred" means, to me, "grouped" RC's.

If I were to do canned sims using the KO book's indices, I would probably of called them somthing like "Preferred" "Published" indices.

I once did something like that for AOII.

If I did KO I18-F4, with unique RC's for each of the 22, I would call it something like "KO I18 F4", and drop the "Preferred".

[JohnAuston]

> Oh really? What about splitting 10s vs 5 and
> 10s vs 6? These 2 plays are made at the
> pivot point with the maximum bet out. These
> 2 plays ARE part of I-18 but the KO authors
> decided to omit these plays from the
> Preferred Strategy and replaced them with
> doubling 8 vs 5 and 8 vs 6, two considerably
> weaker plays.

See my answer to your other post.

> Well, they must be worth something as they
> are part of the I-18.

Be careful. They are "worth something" to BALANCED, TRUE COUNTED systems. They may be worth considerably less to unbalanced systems.

In fact, I would guess that the so-called "I18 and F4" are not the same, and almost certainly not the same rank, depending on the count's card tags, and for unbalanced counts, the pivot.

So a real true comparison would take each systems top 18 and top 4 surrenders. It would not assume that TC and RC based systems would have the same one's.

One has to draw the line somewhere. Even decks-in-play, rules, and penetration could affect inclusion and order.

> They are not meant to be apples-to-apples.
> Your missing the point here Don. Allow me to
> clarify. The only difference between the sim
> from bjstats.com and the one from BJRM are 7
> index plays. EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME.
> Yet these 7 index plays account for a
> difference of $6.00/Hr in increased
> earnings. But for some reason you and John
> seem to maintain that KO Preferred and KO
> I-18 Fab4 perform very close to one another
> and the difference in performance is minimal
> if anything at all.

I don't think we have ever said that. I don't recall ever publishing a "comparison" article that contrasted one system splitting 10's versus another one that didn't.

> The 5 missing indices and 10 splits are
> worth more then you realize.

We are talking past each other, using different definitions for the same words.

But your common sense should kick in before you would presume to write that Don Schlesinger fails to realize the value of something so obvious as 10-splitting. You should instead assume that you must have in mind, apples, while he has oranges.

> Nope. However, if KO-Preferred was not used
> then why not just write what was used,
> namely KO I-18 Fab4? :-)

As I posted elsewhere, how would you distinuish KO I-18 F4 with unique RC's versus 'grouped' RC's? I did so with the "Preferred" modifier.

I could of been more clear, but the I18 and F4 should have been a clue.

[Magician]

> They are not meant to be apples-to-apples.
> Your missing the point here Don. Allow me to
> clarify. The only difference between the sim
> from bjstats.com and the one from BJRM are 7
> index plays. EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME.
> Yet these 7 index plays account for a
> difference of $6.00/Hr in increased
> earnings.

bjstats.com uses data generated by Casino Verite while BJRM uses canned sims from SBA. These are two very different blackjack simulators, each with their own plethora of settings able to be configured in millions of different ways. When you view sim results with bjstats.com nor BJRM you do not see every possible setting used to generate them, so it is not possible to conclude that "everything else is the same".

In other words, bjstats.com is an apple tree and BJRM is an orange tree. If you want a fair comparison, best pick all your fruits from the one tree. Asking John to explain why his orange is worth $6 more than Don's apple is not getting anyone anywhere. I humbly suggest you get yourself a simulator, generate two shiny new apples and then come back with ammunition in hand.

(My apologies to both NW and JA for calling their respective works fruit trees. Try to interpret it as a compliment.)

[MJ]

> When you view sim results
> with bjstats.com nor BJRM you do not see
> every possible setting used to generate
> them, so it is not possible to conclude that
> "everything else is the same".

Well I did see John's BJRM chart for KO I-18. All the parameters he input matched the ones I selected on bjstats.com. All the decks, penetration, bet spread, rules, etc were the same as what I input on bjstats. As far as I can tell everything is the same EXCEPT for the index values.

> In other words, bjstats.com is an apple tree
> and BJRM is an orange tree. If you want a
> fair comparison, best pick all your fruits
> from the one tree.

Are you suggesting if I were to sim both KO I-18 and KO-P with the same software then the result might be different?

-MJ

[pm]

When SSR was comparing Zen & Hi-Lo that one time, he wasn't aware that Norm's canned sims used Zen as it was right out of the book (i.e. no LS indices). It took a while before anyone (i.e. Parker) was able to pinpoint that issue.

Maybe you're running into one of those types of weird, not-so-obvious issues (I don't know how you'd be able to tell for sure one way or the other).

I do remember Don mentioning that certain people (himself & John & Norm and whatnot) have extensive experience in setting up apples-to-apples comparisons; probably no conclusions could be made for sure until one of them confirmed your findings (who knows if that'll happen, since John said this was a tempest in a teapot anyway).

I don't know, just my random $.02 (I feel your grief, though, believe me, but what can you do?).

[Don Schlesinger]

> Are you suggesting if I were to sim both KO
> I-18 and KO-P with the same software then
> the result might be different?

Er, we've only suggested that about a million times! :-)

Don

[MJ]