Thumbing thru your online book I was looking at your REKO strategy Norm. I did not realize that you were the one who devised the strategy. I noticed that it has the same characteristics of KO in that the Betting Correlation, Playing Efficiency, and Insurance Correlations are the same for the 2 strategies. It has left me wondering just how did you come up the with Initial Running Count starting values? I have not studied KO other than the tag values for the assigned cards. But when I compare the values for REKO to HiLo I can see the logic. In a double-deck game using REKO you start with a IRC of -5 but when the count reaches a +2 according to your betting ramp I should bet $50 in your diagram. In HiLo that would correlate to a running count of 7, so if there was one deck left in a 2 deck game it would equate to a TC of +7 which does seem like a favorable betting situation. If it were a RC of +7 using HiLo with 25% of the cards used up in a 2 deck game TC would equate to 4.67. Does that seem about right?
Overall REKO seems like a very easy strategy to use and it should be an easy transition from using Hilo with no need for a conversion to TC which I like. Do you have the BC, PE, and IC for the FELT strategy? From what your data shows it seems like FELT slightly outperforms REKO when you compared REKO, FELT, and Hilo on a 6 deck game using SCORE.
Bookmarks