Martingale: Norm. What about TREKO??

[Martingale]

Norm:

Many of the blackjack experts suggest
that True Count K.O.(TKO) is superior to K.O.

So,wouldn't True REKO (TREKO) be superior to
REKO? The main improvements being able to recognize the early advantage and not to overestimate the late advantage.

TREKO may be the simplest,most powerful counting system around. Your thoughts,please.

[Norm Wattenberger]

I'm not a big fan of TKO. It is indeed powerful. But, a disadvantage of unbalanced counts is the wide range of running counts. TKO has that disadvantage as well as the disadvantage of requiring a TC. If I'm going to TC, I'd rather use a balanced strategy.

> Norm:

> Many of the blackjack experts suggest
> that True Count K.O.(TKO) is superior to K.O.

> So,wouldn't True REKO (TREKO) be superior to
> REKO? The main improvements being able to recognize
> the early advantage and not to overestimate the late
> advantage.

> TREKO may be the simplest,most powerful counting
> system around. Your thoughts,please.

[Roger Harris]

I have been playing something I've dubbed EZ-TKO, and following Norm's inspiration, I'm looking at a simplified strategy, which so far looks very promising.

The basic principle of EZ-TKO is to use a "current key" instead of the key counts in the book or actually doing a true count conversion. One nice feature is that it works just as easily with any IRC and any number of decks, so if you don't like starting the IRC at -24 for 6-deck TKO (or -20 for KO Preferred), you can use, say, an IRC of 0 (making the pivot +24) and you'll be mostly counting positive numbers.

The idea is that, whatever your IRC and pivot are, and regardless of the number of decks, the "current key" starts out at exactly halfway between the IRC and the pivot. Then, at any time during the shoe when you want to know the current key, just remember that starting number, look at the discard rack and add 2 for every full deck you see in the rack. If you can estimate half decks, you can add one more for any extra half decks.

That key will be roughly equivalent to a High-Low true count of +2. I use a four-level betting ramp: a minimum bet below the key; a larger bet at the key and higher; a larger bet when the count is about half-way between the current key and the pivot (which would be approximately High-Low TC +3); and a maximum bet at the pivot (which is approximately High-Low TC +4).

Given that the betting decision has already been made on each hand, I had been trying to use the I18 strategy variations that correspond to those same High-Low TCs of +2, +3, and +4. However, based on the results that Norm and Cacarulo are getting for simplified strategies, I'm looking at doing something similar, so it won't be necessary to remember which variation goes with each count.

I don't have the details worked out yet -- it takes quite a while to try various things one at a time and see the results -- but so far, it appears to me that this system will definitely outperform High-Low with I18, yet still be only slightly harder than reKO.

[Martingale]

I'm using a TKO by Brett Harris which is really simple and
yields good results. I've also used "CKO" by Leroy Nimka- but prefer the Brett Harris system.

I'll give "EZ-TKO a try. I hope Roger Harris will pursue the
same simplification project with EZ-TKO as Norm and Cac have with KO.

I just began using CVCX & CVData. When I become proficient, I hope to be able to contribute to this subject matter.

Norm and Cacarulo's work on REKO is really exciting!!!

> I have been playing something I've dubbed EZ-TKO, and
> following Norm's inspiration, I'm looking at a
> simplified strategy, which so far looks very
> promising.

> The basic principle of EZ-TKO is to use a
> "current key" instead of the key counts in
> the book or actually doing a true count conversion.
> One nice feature is that it works just as easily with
> any IRC and any number of decks, so if you don't like
> starting the IRC at -24 for 6-deck TKO (or -20 for KO
> Preferred), you can use, say, an IRC of 0 (making the
> pivot +24) and you'll be mostly counting positive
> numbers.

> The idea is that, whatever your IRC and pivot are, and
> regardless of the number of decks, the "current
> key" starts out at exactly halfway between the
> IRC and the pivot. Then, at any time during the shoe
> when you want to know the current key, just remember
> that starting number, look at the discard rack and add
> 2 for every full deck you see in the rack. If you can
> estimate half decks, you can add one more for any
> extra half decks.

> That key will be roughly equivalent to a High-Low true
> count of +2. I use a four-level betting ramp: a
> minimum bet below the key; a larger bet at the key and
> higher; a larger bet when the count is about half-way
> between the current key and the pivot (which would be
> approximately High-Low TC +3); and a maximum bet at
> the pivot (which is approximately High-Low TC +4).

> Given that the betting decision has already been made
> on each hand, I had been trying to use the I18
> strategy variations that correspond to those same
> High-Low TCs of +2, +3, and +4. However, based on the
> results that Norm and Cacarulo are getting for
> simplified strategies, I'm looking at doing something
> similar, so it won't be necessary to remember which
> variation goes with each count.

> I don't have the details worked out yet -- it takes
> quite a while to try various things one at a time and
> see the results -- but so far, it appears to me that
> this system will definitely outperform High-Low with
> I18, yet still be only slightly harder than reKO.

[koolipto]

Roger posted his EZ-TKO concept around November on two other web sites. I have played with it on and off since then. Personally, I think his idea is extremely valuable and I am surprised that there has not been more comment on it.

How easy is it? Exactly the same as KO except that you adjust the key count as each deck is played out. Starting a six deck shoe, you are looking for 14. After one deck played you adjust to 16 etc (6D shoe). No negative numbers (which happen to be very unintuitive to me) per Brett Harris? formula and no division by remaining decks.

How accurate? This is NOT a fudge formula. The key count done this way gets you to an exact True Count of -2 using Brett Harris' formula (I prefer to think in Hi-Lo terms with a TC of +2). Try it out with any combination of decks and penetration and you end up with the exact and correct TC. Roger stated above that a +3 (Hi-Lo equivalent) is about half way between the adjusted key count and the pivot. But if you play with it, you will see that the half way point is exactly -1 per Brett Harris' formula or the +3 Hi-Lo Equivalent.

Complaints that KO will have people waiting too late to raise bets early in the shoe or oversizing their bets late in the shoe are addressed. Likewise, the comment that Red 7 is superior for wonging at a +2 area can no longer be made. Given that you can estimate decks and add, you now have a system that works and feels as if it has two pivots. It strikes me that this is a system screaming for a simplified grouping of rounded indices.

Truth be told, I have tried simming my own group of rounded indices around Roger?s idea several times since Norm came up with reKO. The only conclusive lesson learned is that I do not have the experience or time to do this properly. The basic approach I took (all based on Hi-Lo equiv TC?s) was Roger?s exact betting ramp of +2, +3 and +4 and above, playing variations based on 0, +2, +4 and insurance at +3. In contrast to what Roger proposed above, I omitted +3 for playing decisions as it was ever so slightly harder to calculate than +2. The results I have gotten are really not much better than KO preferred (damn it - they should be), but I have yet to spend much time tweaking the indices. The biggest weakness in the approach I took is the lack of indices for negative shoes. I have simply omitted them in my trials so far as to get those TC?s, I think you just have to do it the old fashion way (defeating the purpose of a simplified system). On the other hand, Roger?s system if used in Wonging, or with discipline in leaving negative shoes ought to be close to TKO with virtually the same ease as KO. Additionally, I suspect it would be possible to use KO running count indices for neutral/negative shoes and switch gears to TKO in positive shoes.

> I have been playing something I've dubbed EZ-TKO, and
> following Norm's inspiration, I'm looking at a
> simplified strategy, which so far looks very
> promising.

> The basic principle of EZ-TKO is to use a
> "current key" instead of the key counts in
> the book or actually doing a true count conversion.
> One nice feature is that it works just as easily with
> any IRC and any number of decks, so if you don't like
> starting the IRC at -24 for 6-deck TKO (or -20 for KO
> Preferred), you can use, say, an IRC of 0 (making the
> pivot +24) and you'll be mostly counting positive
> numbers.

> The idea is that, whatever your IRC and pivot are, and
> regardless of the number of decks, the "current
> key" starts out at exactly halfway between the
> IRC and the pivot. Then, at any time during the shoe
> when you want to know the current key, just remember
> that starting number, look at the discard rack and add
> 2 for every full deck you see in the rack. If you can
> estimate half decks, you can add one more for any
> extra half decks.

> That key will be roughly equivalent to a High-Low true
> count of +2. I use a four-level betting ramp: a
> minimum bet below the key; a larger bet at the key and
> higher; a larger bet when the count is about half-way
> between the current key and the pivot (which would be
> approximately High-Low TC +3); and a maximum bet at
> the pivot (which is approximately High-Low TC +4).

> Given that the betting decision has already been made
> on each hand, I had been trying to use the I18
> strategy variations that correspond to those same
> High-Low TCs of +2, +3, and +4. However, based on the
> results that Norm and Cacarulo are getting for
> simplified strategies, I'm looking at doing something
> similar, so it won't be necessary to remember which
> variation goes with each count.

> I don't have the details worked out yet -- it takes
> quite a while to try various things one at a time and
> see the results -- but so far, it appears to me that
> this system will definitely outperform High-Low with
> I18, yet still be only slightly harder than reKO.

[Francis Salmon]

The two major flaws of KO used in running count mode are the missing out of advantage situations early in the shoe and the false alerts late in the shoe.Your system is removing both of these flaws.
Now some critical remarks:
Your betting system is actually a copy of hilo which is rigidly linked to TC,and therefore quite conservative.
A count of +1 one deck from the end indicates a decent advantage with almost any rule set,yet you wouldn't bet.Exploiting FA is actually the main asset of KO (intended or not) but this is no longer the case with your proposal.
I'm not sure whether your system is easier than hilo.Players need to take the following steps:1)keep the running count 2)estimate the decks 3)calculate the key count 4)compare it to the RC 5)take the appropriote action.Hilo needs one step less but requires a division.What is more difficult is probably very individual.

Francis Salmon

[Jay]

I have used KO for several years at the red chip level. The method I have used in the past to take advantage of early shoe counts has been to watch the discard tray, and remember the +4 per deck count for KO. I use an adjusted IRC of 0 for all games, so it's easier. For example, if the count jumps to say +8 or +10 in 6-deck (key=+16) with only one deck out, I will move to 2 units until the count either "evens out" based on decks played (back to one unit), or goes above the key count. I really like the idea of an adjusted key count based on the decks played. I hope someone can sim the adjusted key with REKO indeces to get an optimum. I prefer 1 & 2 deckers, but in Louisiana I'm stuck with 6-deckers at red level and need any help I can get. Thanks.

Jay

[Norm Wattenberger]

to test a bunch of people using this technique and normal true counting for accuracy. One area I've never been able to get a handle on is the average counter's true counting accuracy.

[Sun Runner]

> It would be interesting to test a bunch of people using
> this technique and normal true counting for accuracy.

> One area I've never been able to get a handle on is the
> average counter's true counting accuracy.

Ms Snyder's coal-miner friends might return one set of values; the freshman at MIT another, and the red-necks in my neighborhood yet another.

KO, REKO, TKO, EZKO, either sims out better or worse than HILO or it dosen't.

Give people the SCORE I say; if they are serious, they'll gravitate to a system that is comfortable. If they are not serious, you are just running a study for ploppies!

[Roger Harris]

In practice, those steps are easily combined. You don't really need to estimate the decks played, multiply by 2, then add that to the starting key. The way I do it is to just count up by 2s as I eyeball one deck at a time in the discard rack, then maybe adding 1 if it looks like there's a half deck left over. I think it's considerably easier than High-Low. It's very fast -- in the range of a second -- but more importantly I think, it's very accurate with very little concentration, and virtually no errors (other than the estimation itself, of course).

The floating advantage effect might come into play with a deeply dealt 6-deck shoe, but I haven't seen one of those for many years.