21forme: Fluctuating advantages in KO vs. HiLo

[21forme]

I played KO for several years and a few months ago switched to HiLo. I did this after learning Kat Walker's Sp21 count, and decided I wanted to use the same tags for counting both games.

In comparing the two systems, one thing I noticed is in KO, the count/bet spread seemed to change more slowly towards the end of the shoe than it does in HiLo.

As both systems have been shown to be about equal overall, and KO is known to underestimate advantage early in the shoe, I wonder if HiLo might be underestimating advantage late in the shoe when the divisor is a small number and TC changes more quickly? Any thoughts?

[Aruuba]

> I played KO for several years and a few months ago
> switched to HiLo. I did this after learning Kat
> Walker's Sp21 count, and decided I wanted to use the
> same tags for counting both games.

> In comparing the two systems, one thing I noticed is
> in KO, the count/bet spread seemed to change more
> slowly towards the end of the shoe than it does in
> HiLo.

> As both systems have been shown to be about equal
> overall, and KO is known to underestimate advantage
> early in the shoe, I wonder if HiLo might be
> underestimating advantage late in the shoe when the
> divisor is a small number and TC changes more quickly?
> Any thoughts?

Probably not really an answer to your question, the more so since I know little about KO although I have read about of what you speak.

If for no other reason, at least for Hi-Lo, I gather the "floating adavantage" effect might indeed contribute to underestimating the advantage of +counts later in the shoe since TC+2 is worth less with 5 decks remaining than TC+2 with 1 deck remaining the way I understand it.

Whether that means Hi-lo is also overestimating advantage early on but to a lesser degree than KO while still actually underestimating overall compared to KO, maybe getting it right in the middle and underestimating advantage late but to a lesser degree than KO, no idea.

And of course floating advantage could be irrelevant to KO for all I know and the effect you speak of is just related to the tag values, the pivot point, use of indexes or not, etc.

And maybe, it might be even less true anyway compared to hi-lo for different games with different number of decks too.

If perhaps your question has the thought in mind that maybe using KO would be a better count to use for a back-counter, maybe indeed so for certain games.

I don't know but I have the vague impression hi-lo might be slighly higher in most conditions than KO but I'm not sure on the technicalities of whether that's TKO, etc.

You been maybe finding much of a difference in BJ games since switching to Hi-Lo prompting your question? Guess that's personal question, so ignore it.

If I knew both systems, I'd probably revert to KO for BJ since it's so much simpler since I'm "division challenged".

[fatcat519]

> I played KO for several years and a few months ago
> switched to HiLo. I did this after learning Kat
> Walker's Sp21 count, and decided I wanted to use the
> same tags for counting both games.

I've used KO for regular BJ for eight years; when learning Kat Walker's SP21 count my biggest problem is remembering not to count the 7's.
Was this your problem?
Maybe the whole thing just takes a lot of practice.

[21forme]

> I've used KO for regular BJ for eight years; when
> learning Kat Walker's SP21 count my biggest problem is
> remembering not to count the 7's.
> Was this your problem?
> Maybe the whole thing just takes a lot of practice.

It wasn't a problem. When I was using KO, I was true counting it, anyway, for more advantage. I thought it would be easier using the same tags for both games, so I switched to HiLo for BJ.

[dcbclimb]

> It wasn't a problem. When I was using KO, I was true
> counting it, anyway, for more advantage. I thought it
> would be easier using the same tags for both games, so
> I switched to HiLo for BJ.

How does one 'true count' an unbalanced count?

[Parker]

> How does one 'true count' an unbalanced count?

Same as with a balanced count, more or less. There are several methods. One of the simplest is to determine the IRC (Initial Running Count) with the formula:

IRC=(amount of unbalance)(-number of decks)

So, for example, since KO is unbalanced by a factor of 4, for a six deck shoe we get:

IRC=4x(-6) or -24.

We then start counting at the beginning of the shoe with a running count of -24, and divide by the number of unseen decks, just as with a balanced count.

This gives us a true count where TC=0 results in roughly the same edge as Hi-lo TC=+4.

True-counted KO is sometimes referred to as "TKO."

This has been discussed at some length. Use the search feature to search the forum for "TKO" or "true count" to find additional threads.