Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 40 to 51 of 51

Thread: Norm Wattenberger: reKO revisited

  1. #40
    hunter
    Guest

    hunter: Re: Splitting 10's

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

    > Funny how, when something really really simple that
    > works is developed, people immediately start looking
    > for ways to make it more complicated (This is intended
    > as a general comment on the human condition - don't
    > take it personally).

    > Since this system would appeal primarily to casual
    > players, I don't think splitting 10's should be
    > included. Casual players usually do not split 10's
    > anyway, not because they are worried about heat, but
    > simply because they are reluctant to break up a likely
    > winning hand.

    So, has anyone run the numbers using a +4 index value for these two plays? If it's still worth it that might be a good middle ground, as that's the same value nearly all the other plays use. That barely adds to the complexity, and I for one would be interested in adopting it if the math showed it gave a meaningful gain.

    On the other hand.....does splitting tens only sometimes like that really attract heat?

  2. #41
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Splitting 10's

    > So, has anyone run the numbers using a +4 index value
    > for these two plays? If it's still worth it that might
    > be a good middle ground, as that's the same value
    > nearly all the other plays use. That barely adds to
    > the complexity, and I for one would be interested in
    > adopting it if the math showed it gave a meaningful
    > gain.

    The difference between using +4 and +5 would be negligible, although you'd get a little more variance with +4. As for the difference between splitting 10's or not doing it at all, you'd have to sim it both ways, then factor in your betting level and frequency of play to determine if the gain is "meaningful" to you.

    > On the other hand.....does splitting tens only
    > sometimes like that really attract heat?

    There is an old saying among pit critters: "Nobody splits tens except idiots and card counters." Unless you have a very good "idiot" act, it will most certainly draw heat. In addition, if you do it at a table full of ploppies and it results in the dealer making a hand, you will be the cause of much hate and discontent at the table. Pit critters take a dim view of anyone annoying the other players.

    Personally, I only split tens when all of the following conditions are met:

    1. I'm heads up, or the other players are out of the action (having gotten blackjacks).

    2. I'm about ready to end the session.

    3. I'm not feeling any heat.

    4. The count is well above the applicable index.

    I will do it more often if I'm at a casino I don't visit often and don't plan on revisiting any time soon.

  3. #42
    ToAnyOne
    Guest

    ToAnyOne: (Message Deleted by Poster)


  4. #43
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Correction?

    > I beleive you mean a little more variance at +5, since
    > you would be too soon to change your play more often?

    If you're using a lower index number, you will be splitting more often, and thus putting more money on the table more often, resulting in more variance.

  5. #44
    ToAnyOne
    Guest

    ToAnyOne: (Message Deleted by Poster)


  6. #45
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: I don't mean to be a pain, but ...

    > If you are using +5 indexes when the count is +3, you
    > will be putting more money on the table than if you
    > are using +4 indexes tho the difference is probably
    > not significant.
    > I have a little bit of uncertainty on this issue,
    > because there is probably some off-setting factors
    > such as surrendering more often with +5 indexes would
    > result in less variance.
    > The issue I was thinking at first was mostly the issue
    > of overbetting, which would be the case if he
    > flat-bet, but I assume he will probably bet optimally,
    > In which case I am confused...

    That makes two of us. If the count is +3, then I'm not using either index, but following basic strategy, i.e., not splitting my tens.

    > Question: If a play-all counter does not use any
    > indexes, will he have more or less variance with CBS
    > compared to simple BS, assuming that he bets
    > optimally?

    > Thanks,
    > TAO

  7. #46
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: I don't mean to be a pain, but ...

    > Question: If a play-all counter does not use any
    > indexes, will he have more or less variance with CBS
    > compared to simple BS, assuming that he bets
    > optimally?

    Probably depends on whether surrender is allowed or not. Surrendering a bit more reduces variance, but all the other CBS plays are extra doubles and splits. On balance, I'd say more variance.

    Don

  8. #47
    ToAnyOne
    Guest

    ToAnyOne: (Message Deleted by Poster)


  9. #48
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Topic drift

    This thread originated with a post by Norm regarding REKO (Ridiculously Easy KO), a variant of the popular KO count that he has developed that only uses one index number. Another poster (MJ) suggested adding a second index for splitting tens, and my comments were in regard to that.

    I'm not sure where a BP/spotter/CBS fits in, since it is highly unlikely that a team would be using REKO.

    If a team wished to use a BP using a CBS, it would ideally be one developed specifically for the intended game, taking rules, bet ramp, and especially penetration into consideration, and not one simply correct at a particular count. Whether or not to include splitting tens in that strategy would be another question probably worthy of a thread in itself.

  10. #49
    ToAnyOne
    Guest

    ToAnyOne: I'm sorry Parker, I thought I was in another thread

    "Theoretical question (views: 163)
    tupes -- Monday, 27 March 2006, at 8:29 a.m."

    This is what I thought I was commenting, I have no idea how I have gotten to answer on this thread. For some unknown
    reason I thought that your variance comment was an answer to him, and I thought it was an interesting question. Certainly nothing to do with REKO.

    Sorry about that,

    TAO

  11. #50
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: I'm sorry Parker, I thought I was in another thread

    > "Theoretical question (views: 163)
    > tupes -- Monday, 27 March 2006, at 8:29 a.m."

    > This is what I thought I was commenting, I have no
    > idea how I have gotten to answer on this thread. For
    > some unknown
    > reason I thought that your variance comment was an
    > answer to him, and I thought it was an interesting
    > question. Certainly nothing to do with REKO.

    > Sorry about that,

    No problem. However, as long as I'm picking on you, I would be remiss in my duties as host/moderator if I did not point out that it is considered poor form to self-delete a post once someone has responded to it.

  12. #51
    ToAnyOne
    Guest

    ToAnyOne: Understood. Thanks. *NM*


Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

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.