Norm Wattenberger: reKO revisited

[Norm Wattenberger]

Cacarulo came up with a better index list for the reKO count. I also developed a double deck version. After running a few hundred billion hands, I've "finalized" the definition. That is unless someone has some new ideas. Overall, reKO has 99.5%, give or take depending on circumstances, the power of KO Preferred. There was no cheating in the performance tests. KO Preferred is played as defined with optimal betting. Comparing a strategy to a crippled version of a standard strategy simply makes no sense. The indexes are the same for DD and six decks. All indexes are +2. For more info and performance data see:

reKO Strategy

[MJ]

[Norm Wattenberger]

[MJ]

and then added just 2 more index numbers to REKO. That might enhance SCORE to the point where REKO clearly outperforms KO or even Hi-Lo! What do you think about that idea?

I realize that you only want to use 1 index value for simplicity, but an extra 2 indexes can't hurt. Beside, Hi-Lo uses 10 splits so why not level the playing field?

MJ

[MJ]

Another question, does REKO use KO generic basic strategy or BS designed specifically for the 6 deck game?

You might want to even use a single compromise index for the 10 splits like +5 if an extra 2 indexes seem like too much to remember. So, this way there are only a total of 2 indexes for the entire system. Certainly, this idea should help REKO outperform its counterpart. Again, you would have to figure out the optimal compromise index via simulation (+5 is just my educated guess). Sooner or later people will ask you how to
enhance REKO. Adding one extra index can't hurt!

10s vs 5 +5 split
10s vs 6 +5 split

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Another question, does REKO use KO generic basic
> strategy or BS designed specifically for the 6 deck
> game?

I used the correct DAS strategy for both KO and reKO sims. The KO book provides a generic BS; but it also has the DAS changes in a footnote on another page. Most readers probably miss it.

> You might want to even use a single compromise index
> for the 10 splits like +5 if an extra 2 indexes seem
> like too much to remember....

The point is to start with an easy strategy that provides good results. The user can add or change indexes later. Splitting Tens with the correct index should add significantly.

[MJ]

> The point is to start with an easy strategy that
> provides good results. The user can add or change
> indexes later.

Might as well just include the 10 splits from the get go. What harm is the addition of 2 more index plays? If anything, it will make REKO more popular if it can outperform Hi-Lo, even just barely. Even better, REKO would still be waaaaayyyyy simpler then Hi-Lo or KO-Preferred.

>Splitting Tens with the correct index should add >significantly.

The question is by how much? You may want to run a quick simulation to find the compromise index for the 10 splits and then chart the "new REKO" vs KO Preferred and Hi-Lo. If the 10 splits do not add anything then don't bother including them. But if they do enhance the power of the system, then people will want them incorporated (I know I would). Its up to you.

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

Adding the two Ten splits at +7 would add a healthy 5-7%. But, that's not something I like to suggest to casual users.

[MJ]

> Adding the two Ten splits at +7 would add a healthy
> 5-7%. But, that's not something I like to suggest to
> casual users.

The pivot point with KO is at +4. This is where you have the most reliable information about your advantage. The further you go above or below that value the less reliable your index becomes. I believe the precise index values are as follows:

10s vs 6 split +5
10s vs 5 split +6

Somebody ran the simulations a while back for the 6 deck game.
Are you using a risk averse index or something?

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

[MJ]

> Adding the two Ten splits at +7 would add a healthy
> 5-7%. But, that's not something I like to suggest to
> casual users.

5-7% increase in SCORE seems to be on the high side. I was thinking along the lines of 1-2% increase in SCORE. Did you run a sim to determine the gain you suggested?

If the gain really is 5-7%, then to exclude the 10 splits is nothing short of gutting REKO. Cacarulo wants to add a ton of index values. KO-P only used a handful of index plays for the 6D game. Basically, REKO is adding a LOT more index plays with only 1 index number as opposed to the 2 index numbers that KO-P used with only a handful of index plays. I'm really not certain if REKO requires less memorization at all! You seem to want less index numbers but more index plays to learn. Seems like a tradeoff to me.

Why include the index plays Cac suggests which probably add virtually nothing to SCORE? I'll say it for the last time: Don't make the same mistake the KO authors made and neglect the 2 powerful 10 splits. Instead, I propose you include them with the RA index and leave out some of the weaker index plays Cac suggests. The net result will be a higher SCORE with FEWER index plays.

If the KO authors included the 10 splits, then KO-P would probably outperform Hi-Lo and more people would be using the system today as a result.

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

> 5-7% increase in SCORE seems to be on the high side. I
> was thinking along the lines of 1-2% increase in
> SCORE. Did you run a sim to determine the gain you
> suggested?

Yes I ran five billion rounds with four players.

> If the gain really is 5-7%, then to exclude the 10
> splits is nothing short of gutting REKO. Cacarulo
> wants to add a ton of index values. KO-P only used a
> handful of index plays for the 6D game. Basically,
> REKO is adding a LOT more index plays with only 1
> index number as opposed to the 2 index numbers that
> KO-P used with only a handful of index plays. I'm
> really not certain if REKO requires less memorization
> at all! You seem to want less index numbers but more
> index plays to learn. Seems like a tradeoff to me.

Not true. KO-P has 21 indexes for six decks, Surrender. reKO has 18 and superior performance with Surrender. Cac is adding more to match HiLo. I think that's a good idea as an option.

> Why include the index plays Cac suggests which
> probably add virtually nothing to SCORE? I'll say it
> for the last time: Don't make the same mistake the KO
> authors made and neglect the 2 powerful 10 splits.
> Instead, I propose you include them with the RA index
> and leave out some of the weaker index plays Cac
> suggests. The net result will be a higher SCORE with
> FEWER index plays.

But most counters don't split Tens these days. Whether or not this makes sense is another question and deserves its own thread.

> If the KO authors included the 10 splits, then KO-P
> would probably outperform Hi-Lo and more people would
> be using the system today as a result.

The correct method would be to compare with HiLo Sweet 16 since that's what most use.

[Cacarulo]

> The correct method would be to compare with HiLo Sweet
> 16 since that's what most use.

Actually, KO with exact indices (C22) outperforms Hi-Lo (C22) in 6D. I've posted these sims a long time ago:

6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,heads-up

       1-4     1-8     1-12    1-16    1-20 

KO     8.62   25.52   34.94   40.69   44.55 

Hi-Lo  9.61   25.83   34.84   40.43   44.24

And this goes without saying that in these sims Hi-Lo is using an exact TC calculation (flooring). Nobody can do this in play but most can play KO without errors. Besides, you ran some sims also showing KO to be better than Hi-Lo with other number of decks.

Sorry, but I'm tired of hearing that Hi-Lo is superior.

Sincerely,
Cac