To answer your question, I do not use the Hi-Low with plus minus side counts. I use the KO. I analyzed the Hi-Low with plus minus side counts because many card counters do not like unbalanced counts and so are reluctant to switch to the KO. For the shoe game, KO is much better. For the double deck or single deck game where the true counts go all over the place and are often outside a table of critical running counts then I would use the High Low. But I only play shoe games so I personally use the KO. The KO indices are very similar the High Low indices - the counts are very similar. But I like the KO since it has a pivot of a true count of 4 and so the closer to the pivot the less the errors in estimating the decks remaining have on calculation of the true count. So I personally use KO with AA89mTc but wrote about HL with AA78mTc because, as I mentioned above, most players like HL which is the count I analyzed for those players and then added side counts to the HL for those players.
This can be seen in the table below. n = number or decks, dr = decks remaining. The closer to the pivot the less the error in estimating decks remaining has in the calculation of a true count. For the High Low the pivot is zero. At the pivot a HL running count 0 also corresponds to a HL true count of zero. For the KO a KO count of 4*n where n = number of decks corresponds to a true count of 4. So at the pivot the true count calculation is totally independent of the number of decks remaining. The closer to the pivot the less errors in estimating the decks remaining has in the calculation of a true count. So at tc = 5, the HL running count = 5*dr but KO running count = 4*n + dr. So an error in the estimation of dr when tc = 5 using the HL has five times the effect in the calculation of a true count as the same error in estimating dr does with the KO true count calculation.
KO has a pivot of a true count of 4. So at a true count of 5 you are one true point count away from the pivot of 4 for the KO but with the HL you are 5 true count points away from the HL pivot of a true count of zero. You want true count accuracy at true counts around 4 where your maximum bet is out. Thus KO is better. Also with KO you can use a table of critical running counts to calculate the true count which depends on number of decks, decks played and the KO running count so there is no need to do division. For example, take insurance when KO + AA89mTc > 4*n where n = number of decks. KO + AA89mTc gives a perfect Ten count, i.e. Tc = KO + AA89mTc gives a perfect Ten count and has a CC = 100% for the insurance bet.
The KO table of critical running counts has many patterns and is very easy to remember since the patterns are there which I will not be covering here. Also all side counts added to the KO are balanced counts. When a balanced count is added to an unbalanced count such as the KO with an unbalance of 4 per deck, the resulting derived count is also unbalanced with the same unbalance as the primary unbalanced count. Thus KO has an unbalance of 4 per deck, AA89mTc is balanced so KO + AA89mTc is unbalanced with the KO unbalance of 4 per deck.
So to answer your question again. I use KO with AA89mTc. I covered HL with AA78mTc because most players like the HL and want balanced counts. Also many teams insist on using the HL. Thus I analyzed many different side counts to use with the HL. I would recommend the HL for the one and two deck game but as I stated above I would use the KO for the shoe game.
Below is my analysis of Accuracy of HL vs KO at various true counts.
err = absolute value of error in estimating decks remaining tc HL HL error KO KO error (HL/KO) error 0 0 0 4*n - 4*dr 4*err 0 1 dr err 4*n - 3*dr 3*err (1/3) 2 2*dr 2*err 4*n - 2*dr 2*err 1 3 3*dr 3*err 4*n - dr err 3 4 4*dr 4*err 4n 0 infinite 5 5*dr 5*err 4n + dr err 5 6 6*dr 6*err 4n + 2*dr 2*err 3 7 7*dr 7*err 4n + 3*dr 3*err (7/3) 8 8*dr 8*err 4n + 4*dr 4*err 2
Bookmarks