Norm Wattenberger: REKO - Another simplified KO strategy

[Norm Wattenberger]

Since most play these days is with shoes, I thought I?d create a variation of KO specifically for six decks. For lack of a better name I?ll refer to it as REKO (Ridiculously Easy KO.) I believe this strategy requires substantially less time to learn than KO Preferred. First there are 16 indexes (incl. Surrender) instead of 19. Not much difference here. But, more importantly, KO Preferred has three different index values (+4, -4 and +3.) REKO has only one index value: +2. This is more of a difference. With KO you need to memorize the index values assigned to the 19 indexes. With REKO, you need to know what the 16 index plays are. But, you do not need to memorize the index values. They are all +2, including Insurance. A Flash Card drill would have 16 cards with +2 on every cardJ

The indexes are:

Insurance
16vT
16v9
15vT
12v2
12v3
11vA
11vT
10vA
9v2
9v7
8v5
8v6
Surrender:
15v9
15vT
15vA

As I said the indexes are always +2. However there is one change. The initial running count is ?20 for no surrender and ?19 for surrender.

Results

I compared REKO with KO for four situations. In all cases, there are four players, three to your right, S17 and DAS and a 1:16 optimal spread. Following are the SCORES:

	KO	REKO	% of KO
NSr 4.5/6	23.5	23.0	98%
NSr 5.0/6	38.2	37.7	99%
LS 4.5/6	35.1	35.4	101%
LS 5.0/6	55.0	54.0	98%

REKO results are 98% to 101% of the results of KO Preferred for Surrender and No Surrender at the simmed spread and penetrations. I also ran the same four sims for HiLo with optimal betting by True Count with half-deck resolution and 24 indexes (The Catch 20 and Fab 4.) REKO with 16 indexes all set to +2 had SCORES of 93% to 96% of HiLo with 24 indexes.


CVCX Online

[Norm Wattenberger]

Most HiLo folk these days seem to use the Sweet 16 indexes. That is, the Illustrious 18 without the ten splits. Also most people estimate remaining cards by full decks. So I simmed this along with the Fab 4 Surrender indexes.

	HiLo	REKO	% of HiLo
NSr 4.5/6	23.1	23.0	99.6%
NSr 5.0/6	37.3	37.7	101.1%
LS 4.5/6	35.1	35.4	100.9%
LS 5.0/6	54.5	54.0	99.1%

REKO with 16 indexes all set to +2 using running count performed almost exactly the same as HiLo, True counted, with 20 indexes from ProBJ. I created a chart for all penetrations, but didn't bother posting it since the lines were all on top of each other As always, the sims are designed to match strategies as actually played. Comparing a simple strategy to a crippled version of another strategy that no one would use does not make for an honest comparison.

[MJ]

Interesting study Norm!!

Howcome I don't see REKO on CVCX online? Please add it if it is not there already. I wonder how it compares to Arnold's Red 7.

You ought to contact Ken Fuchs and Olaf Vancura...I'm sure they would be glad to know that you had taken there system to an easier (and just as powerful level).

What if you had used Hi-Lo with 1/2 deck resolution in your comparison? Sorry but most people do not estimate the discard rack with full deck resolution. I try and estimate it to the nearest 1/4 deck! A player on a well known team once said "The TC is more sensitive the closer you get to the end of the shoe". For example, if there are 4.25 decks in the discard rack and the RC = +10, then the TC = +5.7.
But what if you try and round the discard to the nearest 1/2 deck? If you cautiously round the discard to 4 decks then the TC = +5.

If you are aggressive and round the discard to 4.5 decks, then the TC = +6.7. Now look at the difference 1/4 deck makes in estimating the discard between 4.25 decks and 4.5 decks. A difference of an entire unit (6.7-5.7)!!! That is why I am surprised by the chart you posted a few months ago comparing full, half, quarter, and exact card resolution at various levels of penetration. All the lines were right on top of each other. It defies logic!! As my example clearly demonstrates, the further you get into the shoe the more important accuracy in discard estimation becomes!!

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

For increased remaining card estimates to be of full value, you need to generate the indexes using the same accuracy.

[MJ]

> For increased remaining card estimates to be of full
> value, you need to generate the indexes using the same
> accuracy.

Here is what I was told in an email from a member of the MIT Blackjack Team when I asked about index generation:

"As for our numbers plays, whether you round to the nearest 1/4 deck or 1/2 deck does not affect the true count at which a particular play is appropriate. How accurate your deck estimation simply affects your true count accuracy, not the index numbers themselves. Our numbers simulations calculated the precise CE numbers".

With all due respect Norm, this seems to contradict your comment above. I guess the MIT teams ran their simulations and calculated the CE numbers using EXACT card resolution and then required their BPs to use 1/4 deck estimation to try and get a very accurate TC. You and Don seem to maintain that index numbers must be generated using the same accuracy as your discard estimation to get maximum benefit. If that is the case, howcome the MIT Blackjack Team doesn't take the same approach? They have some guys that are quite brilliant as well! :-)

MJ

[Don Schlesinger]

> Here is what I was told in an email from a member of
> the MIT Blackjack Team when I asked about index
> generation:

> "As for our numbers plays, whether you round to
> the nearest 1/4 deck or 1/2 deck does not affect the
> true count at which a particular play is appropriate."

Not true.

> How accurate your deck estimation simply affects your
> true count accuracy, not the index numbers themselves.
> Our numbers simulations calculated the precise CE
> numbers".

"Precise CE numbers" is quite meaningless. Over and over, people fool themselves into thinking they've invented a better mousetrap. If you play differently from the way you generate the indices, you actually have less accuracy, not more.

> With all due respect Norm, this seems to contradict
> your comment above.

Right. It contradicts what Norm said. But it most certainly doesn't make him wrong. :-)

> I guess the MIT teams ran their
> simulations and calculated the CE numbers using EXACT
> card resolution and then required their BPs to use 1/4
> deck estimation to try and get a very accurate TC.

Foolish waste of time. It could be easily demonstrated by simulation that such an approach wouldn't buy you a penny more SCORE than calculating indices to half-deck resolution and then playing that way.

> You and Don seem to maintain that index numbers must be
> generated using the same accuracy as your discard
> estimation to get maximum benefit.

We don't claim it; it's a fact.

> If that is the
> case, how come the MIT Blackjack Team doesn't take the
> same approach? They have some guys that are quite
> brilliant as well! :-)

You're asking the wrong people, aren't you? :-) Shouldn't you be asking the MIT people?

Don

[Francis Salmon]

> Here is what I was told in an email from a member of
> the MIT Blackjack Team when I asked about index
> generation:

> "As for our numbers plays, whether you round to
> the nearest 1/4 deck or 1/2 deck does not affect the
> true count at which a particular play is appropriate.
> How accurate your deck estimation simply affects your
> true count accuracy, not the index numbers themselves.
> Our numbers simulations calculated the precise CE
> numbers".

> With all due respect Norm, this seems to contradict
> your comment above. I guess the MIT teams ran their
> simulations and calculated the CE numbers using EXACT
> card resolution and then required their BPs to use 1/4
> deck estimation to try and get a very accurate TC. You
> and Don seem to maintain that index numbers must be
> generated using the same accuracy as your discard
> estimation to get maximum benefit. If that is the
> case, howcome the MIT Blackjack Team doesn't take the
> same approach? They have some guys that are quite
> brilliant as well! :-)

> MJ

You and this MIT member are making valid points and it's sad to see that these are only met with platitudes and contempt from Norm and Don.
They delude themselves into thinking that they can correct the imprecision of an index by adding more inaccuracy in deck estimation and TC calculation in general.
Please,keep your critical mind.It's needed on these pages.

Francis Salmon

[Mr. Lee]

> You and this MIT member are making valid points and
> it's sad to see that these are only met with
> platitudes and contempt from Norm and Don.
> They delude themselves into thinking that they can
> correct the imprecision of an index by adding more
> inaccuracy in deck estimation and TC calculation in
> general.
> Please,keep your critical mind.It's needed on these
> pages.

> Francis Salmon

I think deck estimation is more important w/ insurance and playing decisions as opposed to betting where half a deck should be OK.

[Norm Wattenberger]

You can see why Don and I do not respond to Francis.

[MJ]

> You can see why Don and I do not respond to Francis.

but would you agree that the TC is more sensitive the further you get into the shoe? If there is 1.25 decks in the discard rack, it would NOT make the least bit difference if you use 1/2 or 1/4 deck resolution. But if you look at my realistic example with 4.25 decks in the rack, it would seem like 1/4 deck resolution might make a slight difference in SCORE(at least intuitively). See my example above.

I certainly cannot argue with that chart you posted a while back comparing the SCORES of full, half, quarter, and exact card resolution. Again, all the curves were practically on top of one another. However, I am surprised that when less then one deck is left to be played, the curves were still nearly on top of each other!!!!!!!!!!

Seeing that I have never run a simulation in my life, I guess I'll have to trust your chart/simulation. As I learned with BS plays, not everything is intuitive, hence we use simulation.

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

I'm not saying we don't respond to him because he's wrong; but because he's extremely nasty. I spend the time putting together a free system and he uses it as an excuse to call me and Don delusional and falsely accuses me of treating you with contempt.

That aside, index precision just isn't that important in shoes. I think the REKO system is a dramatic example. Forget tenths or exact cards in precision, I can get good results with indexes that are way off the ideal. Most people don't estimate the correct number of remaining cards anyhow since most people play with many players and don't bother to subtract the cards on the table.

[Francis Salmon]

> I'm not saying we don't respond to him because he's
> wrong; but because he's extremely nasty. I spend the
> time putting together a free system and he uses it as
> an excuse to call me and Don delusional and falsely
> accuses me of treating you with contempt.

This has nothing to do with your "system" but with the way you and Don reacted to MJ's critical remarks.
If you want to know what being nasty and contemptful really means you just have to read Don's response to MJ's quote from an MIT member.Your one-liners earned the qualification platitudes.
It should be obvious to everybody that I was just using the same language as Don uses when somebody disagrees with him.

Francis Salmon

[Norm Wattenberger]

> This has nothing to do with your "system"
> but with the way you and Don reacted to MJ's critical
> remarks.

I made no such remarks. The fact is that you like insulting people and stirring up trouble. Over the last year you have called me dozens of childish names simply because you disagree with me (and nearly everyone else in the field.) This is of no help to anyone.