RayMetz100: KO vs. Hi-Low

[RayMetz100]

In a thread below, M. replied with advice that I should stick to the KO book's advice regarding the 11 vs. A and 16 vs. 10 plays. I decided to reply in a new thread, because that issue brought up a completely different question.

It seems that 11 vs. A on a 6D H17 game and the 16 vs. 10 are both good examples of an unbalanced count's (KO) weakness. Most of the other plays need high enough TCs that they coincide nicely with the end of shoe KO RC. But those two plays that are worth maybe 20% of the I18 total are both played at low TCs. Since the unbalanced KO system has no way to give the player an accurate TC so early in the shoe, it often can't tell the player how to properly make these plays.

Fortunately, most of the other plays come at much higher true counts, and KO is able to give a fairly accurate indication for them. Now that I've entered the realm of Playing Efficiency though, I have to question the accuracy of KO.

In KO's defense though, since both of those plays come at a low TC, there isn't a lot of money out there anyway. So it has an even smaller impact.

My personal issue is that especially with as common of a play like 16 vs. 10, I want to be confident I'm making the right play. Even if it doesn?t mean a lot of money in the long run. It happens often enough to make me want to be making the right play every time. Just for my own peace of mind.

Has anyone else had second thoughts about using an unbalanced system because of this, or am I just being more anal about this than the average guy?

M. is likely right that I would probably be better off just keeping it simple and following the book as written. The EV difference is so small, that it should have almost no effect on my bank. But just because I think he's right, doesn?t mean I'm necessarily going to follow his advice right now.

I also realize that even if I did switch to Hi-Low, at some point in the future I could make a similar argument about wanting a multi level count and/or an ace side-count and switching again. If that were to continue, I could see myself getting frustrated with all the complexity and giving up on the hobby altogether, so there has to be a balance.

I found a website with a 12 question picture quiz on guessing how many decks were in a 6 deck discard pile. On my first try, I got 8 of the 12 correct, and was within a half deck on the 4 that I missed. I think I can divide well without a problem, but I don't know how well I'll fair in continuing on with the RC after doing the RC to TC division. That will probably be the hardest part for me if I tried to switch. I have enough trouble with just the KO RC.

I'm hoping that someone will reply with some wise words to help me decide here. If I do decide to switch to Hi-Low, which of Wong's books should I order?

Ray

[Leroy Jones]

Strategy changes don't count for much extra dough in 6-Deck shoes. Heck, they don't really count for much in Single decks for that matter. Sure, I'd like to know when I should change my strategy to the exact card, but hey, I don't have a computer for a brain.

See my posts for Sunrunner's question on Blackjack main "Playing Efficiency", Sun Runner -- Friday, 16 August 2002, at 10:49 a.m

KO Pref gets the money!!!! Theoreticly at least....

Leroy Jones

[M.]

if you wish to switch to the hi-lo, then purchase Wong's Professional Blackjack. even if you do not end up using the hi-lo you should still get the book. please understand that play deviations are worth very little in shoe games. you need not worry about the playing efficiency of a system unless you play single deck exculsively and use techniques such as depth-charging, where you can gain an edge in single deck games by flat betting and deviating from BS according to the count. mind you, this requires over 200 plus index entrees to be memorized which is not an easy task. from the studies i've read, the KO and the hi-lo perform almost on par, in fact in single deck, the KO slightly outperforms the hi-lo. your concern with unbalanced counts is the same i had a while ago. playing efficiency means nothing with unbalanced counts, for everything is an average over different deck penetrations. moreover, unbalanced counts tend to deteriorate with multiple decks. however, the KO does not suffer as much from this due to its ability to pick up insurance near the pivot point. i would advice sticking and mastering the KO, following exactly what is in the book, and ignoring relatively trivial things that will contribute very little to your edge and will only add strain to the job. the KO is great for placing a max bet, and you should begin to explore backcounting the shoe game and developing an optimal betting strategy, maybe purchasing BJRM2000 would help you in practical terms. if you do switch to a balanced count after you get tired of the KO and you can count in your sleep, i would suggest Snyder's Zen Count, found in his fine book Blackbelt in Blackjack (silly title...). this count will serve all games and purposes, if you can handle a level-2 count (no Ace side count). if you don't find this appealing then you might as well stick to the KO.

M.

[Sun Runner]

Ray, being anal about stuff like this, apparently like you, I have spent hours trying to think this thing through. Being relatively new to the game, I did not want to learn a count built on 1975 playing conditions.

In multi-deck games; it is the BC -the predictor of positive betting situations -that really matters. The PE -how well a system handles BS deviations -is way, way down the list of criteria.

That being said, go to qfit.com or Richard Reid's board, and run their system comparisons. I did. Put all the criteria for each system on a spreadsheet and then just look it over for a couple days analyzing each parameter against the other.

For a guy forced to play 6D almost exclusively, here is what I decided. Bear in mind my reasoning is for 6D only.

KO or Red Seven beats anything else including HILO. [Just counting the red sevens or counting all sevens as .5 puts it in the level 2 class IMO. Therefore I looked at KO.]

Side counting Aces seems to be more of a PE thing.

Memorizing multiple indexes increase your PE only.
KO only has three indexes used only 12 times.

KO BC is higher than HILO -marginally.
KO PE is higher than HILO -marginally.
KO IC is higher than HILO -marginally.
HILO requires a TC conversion -ok, not so hard.
qfit.com rates KO easier to use.
Reid gives KO a higher overall system rating.
Parker played KO before moving to UBZII [need I say more ]

I'm not pimping for Vancura/Fuchs, I just tried to match my predominant playing conditions with the tools that were out there.

(by the way I have wondered why guys like Parker are moving to UBZII .. I can only assume it's because they have the luxury of playing SD and DD games where the PE is more relavent.)

However now I hear George C. tell me that Shuffle Tracking is better suited to a balanced count system -advantage HILO. That bums me out because what little I know about shuffle tracking leads me to believe that it alone could be a MONSTER add on to someone's game, especially in 6D, and especially in a game like you are currently playing where you can only afford to spread 1-2.

Another reason I like KO. In my advancing years I have found two things to be true ... less is more - keep it simple.

I would now rather have 95% of something while expending 80% of the energy required to have 100%.

Especially playing cards. You are sharper, more alert, and more on point. I dare say that errors you may make using 100% of the decision tree might very well result in worse play than a marginally weaker system requiring only 80% of the same effort.

My opinion .. Use KO. Go to the basic strategy generator at blackjackinfo.com and build a basic strategy for the game you play most. Adjust it for the KO indexes. Find the best playing conditions you can find. Back count, Wong in or out as possible. Look in to shuffle tracking. Enjoy it.

But what do I know!?

Sun Runner

[Don Schlesinger]

> But what do I know!?

Sounds like you guys could really use: 1) BJRM, 2) CVCX, and/or BJA2 (SCORE Chapter 11).

Don

[M]

Don?

[Sun Runner]

> Sounds like you guys could really use: BJA2

As I posted earlier, it is in the mail.
No doubt my whole frame of reference will be turned upside down.

SR

[Parker]

> (by the way I have wondered why guys like
> Parker are moving to UBZII .. I can only
> assume it's because they have the luxury of
> playing SD and DD games where the PE is more
> relavent.)

That is exactly correct. Several of the local Indian joints offer single and/or double deck games, and of course I make frequent trips to Las Vegas.

Even so, while I'm now happy with UBZ2, in hindsight I just might have stayed with KO, had I known how long it would take me to master a level two system.

> However now I hear George C. tell me that
> Shuffle Tracking is better suited to a
> balanced count system -advantage HILO. That
> bums me out because what little I know about
> shuffle tracking leads me to believe that it
> alone could be a MONSTER add on to someone's
> game, especially in 6D, and especially in a
> game like you are currently playing where
> you can only afford to spread 1-2.

Keep in mind that good trackable shuffles are few and far between. Most of the trackers I know either live in Las Vegas or are willing and able to fly across the country on a moments notice when they hear of a good trackable shuffle.

Besides, I don't think it would be that difficult for an experienced counter to switch from KO to a balanced system, if he/she was ready to learn tracking. Just stop counting the 7's and learn to do a TC conversion and you've got Hi-lo. Or keep counting the 7's and start counting the 9's and you're doing the Silver Fox system.

Thanks for the kind words. ;-)