Quote Originally Posted by tawny View Post
I had this play a few months ago but surrender was not offered. If i remember correctly my KO Tc was around +7 or +8. I didnt have this index play because its not included for kO or REKO-F, but i thought i remembered the hi-lo index to stand and not split was around +8 or +9. I took longer to decide what to do and finally decided to just go with basic strategy since i wasnt sure and had no index. Of course i got another 8 to split and ended up losing 3 max bets, maybe 4 cant remember if i doubled on one of the 8s. It bothered me for awhile after because i really didnt want to split.

Thats part of the reason i have thought about switching to hi-lo or FELT/RPC. Cause its hard to add so many indices for an unbalanced count. Right now i use about 45 indices with KO. But atleast for right now im sticking with KO. I just looked at a few other counts and they didnt have the published index for this play either so i presume this play of standing instead of splitting isnt that important. But i HATE that play!!!!! I dont care how small a gain it is!!! It doesnt come up that often at all but when it does i know it will bother me lol.

How should i deal with this play using KO? Of course surrender first if allowed. But if not allowed can i just stand or is it better to just use basic stategy.( I want to stand even at TC +3 lol but i dont). I have seen maybe +8 for hi-lo,NT21 uses +5(because risk averse maybe?). FELT-F doesnt include this index.
...

...Or maybe i have this backwards and i should be more risk averse with smaller bankroll?
Are you actually TCing KO, or using the Color of Blackjack method?

If you're doing the actual TC conversion, then you can use whatever HiLo index you want to use, minus 4. Better would be to generate a set for TKO, but short of that, HiLo - 4 will get you darn close. (This is assuming you're using Brett Harris' UB TC simplification - For KO: employing an IRC of (-4)*decks and then dividing your running count by remaining decks, as normal. If you're using an IRC of 0, do NOT subtract 4 from the indices...) IE: Insure at HiLo TC 3, but insure at TKO TC -1, etc.

Also, I think you know this but just to make sure there is no chance of confusion, TC KO indices are of course going to be vastly different than the running count Reko-F indices.

Modern Blackjack Print edition has a full set of risk adverse TC'd KO indices, as well.

But -- don't move from TKO to HiLo just for indices -- true counted KO is certainly more powerful than HiLo. Why make the switch to a weaker system when you can get the indices you need as described above? Switching to a level II is another story that you'd have to decide for yourself.

Also, and I'm most certainly no expert in this, but a smaller BR is absolutely a reason to use risk adverse indices. With RA play, although the EV of a given play might be slightly less, you are able to bet a little more per given level of risk, making you more money overall.