Casual KOer seeks help to prove or disprove a theory!

Hi there,

I am what I would consider a fairly casual BJ player in terms of hours at the tables, but I do have a good knowledge of the KO system. All my local casinos are 6 deck shoe. I play it "backlining" a friend, who is happy to just flatbet every hand that he plays, he just enjoys the action at the table and doesn't want to invest any time into counting. I started out placing a backline bet whenever the count hit 16 points above where it started (I use IRC of 0, so this is 16 for me), and hike it accordingly with every extra +1 of the count. At my casino there is good penetration, and I have noticed that sometimes, on the last hand of the shoe, the count is at about 16, I bet, but about 5 decks have already been dealt. Even for a "neutral" result, the count would need to be +20 at this stage.

What I would essentially like to know is, although KO is meant to eradicate it, if KO benefits from a sort of "true count" conversion. For example, if after the first hand, at a rough (over)estimate, I say that half a deck has been dealt, should I place a bet if the count is at, say, 6? This is 4 points higher than it should be at that stage. And how about the end of the shoe? If I can see that about 5 decks have been dealt, should I still be betting if the count is 16? (Again, to clarify, I use an IRC of 0).

Thanks for your help. I know that there are critics that say you shouldn't complicate KO because its beauty lies in its simplicity, I just wanted some clarification to my ideas. I'm basing my thoughts on mathematical reasoning, not actual play, so any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

KO benefits from a true count conversion.

You are right on track. You can use TC conversion with unbalanced systems and, provided its done correctly, it is always beneficial. This has been discussed here before.

According to Blackbelt in Blackjack, to get the greatest benfit from an unbalanced system, don't get involved in bet ramping until you are half-way through the shoe i.e., 3 decks gone. I follow that advice.

According to Blackbelt in Blackjack, to get the greatest benfit from an unbalanced system, don't get involved in bet ramping until you are half-way through the shoe i.e., 3 decks gone. I follow that advice.

I don't know if the book says that or not, but it is bad advice. When you consider that the average six-deck shoe game deals around 4.5 decks, waiting until the mid-shoe point to ramp up your bets gives you a window of opportunity of only 1.5 decks. Add to that the fact that any count less than the pivot point is less valuable after the mid-deck point in unbalanced system, and what you are advocating looks to me like a recipe for disaster. You have got to get the money out when the advantage is to the player, regardless of where you are at in the shoe, and you have to know when the advantage has shifted back over to the house. Using true-count methods of play with an unbalanced count will give you more accurate information at either side of the mid-point.

Of course, one can play an unbalanced system straight out of the box and still have an advantage. If keeping it simple is the best way for an individual to play, then he should do so. But waiving that advantage because you haven't reached the mid-point of the shoe just doesn't make sense, and it could well result in a player putting out more money when he doesn't have the advantage. If he hasn't used the advantage in the earlier portions of the shoe, then he is making it worse for himself, not better.

Your thinking is spot on. You can do a few things to improve beyond the KO running count that are not too difficult. The first is to do what you are currently doing, but take it a step further.

Subtract the RC for where you are at the shoe from the "neutral" RC. Take the difference and divide that by the # of decks remaining. That is a pure true count, although its a tad bit awkward to do for each bet or play. If you do it at or near the key count to check when to ramp up that will be an improvement. Additionally, if you see a number of low cards come out early you can use this to determine that you have an advantage even before reaching the key count. That could signal you to start increasing your bets.

The "accepted" method of true counting KO is to begin your IRC at -6xthe number of decks or -24 for your 6D shoe. Take that running count and divide by the decks remaining. The number you achieve will be a normal Hi-Lo equivalent TC reduced by 4. For betting purposes, you can add 4 to this unbalanced TC to allow you to think in normal Hi-Lo equivalent terms. However, playing indices that have been simmed for this aproach are usually given in the raw state and look nothing like Hi-Lo indices (they are quite close to Hi-Lo if you add 4).

Personally, I use the former rough method as it allows me to switch back and forth between RC KO and TKO depending on level of distractions and type of bet. I don't find the calculation more cumbersome that the "accepted" method. However, this approach may introduce a little bit of extra deck estimation error risk. You are using the deck estimate to determine your neutral RC and then using it again for the TC division. But any way you look at it, it's better than KO only.

By the way, sims done by Cacarullo over at Advantageplayer.com demonstrate a very large improvement in TKO vs. KO.

I read on a old post once that Ken FUch's said......." simply increase your bet a few units when the count is four to five points with in your key count early in the shoe.Then at the end of the shoe dont increase your units until 4 or 5 past your key count. Now i never tried this. I always wondered what would the 1st and last part of the shoe be. First 2 decks and last two I imagine???. Any way KC made this seem like a simple short cut to squeeze a liitle more from KO. Im sure red 7 could be done this way too???? some body run some sims and get back with me,...lol

The "accepted" method of true counting KO is to begin your IRC at -6xthe number of decks or -24 for your 6D shoe.

Koolipto,

Should that be -4x(# of decks), so that you get -24 for 6D?

Dog Hand

Sorry Guys

Maybe it's not that bad if you employ an exit strategy for the first 1.5 - 2 decks. As long as the count remains in a certain range, you keep playing and it would be almost critical to have no more than 1 deck remaining before the shuffle. Anyway, I've been doing this for a while and it seems to work, although I haven't run a simulation to prove the "theorem". And wouldn't you know, A.S. doesn't provide any rationale for his advice either. And thanks for your imput. I can never claim to be an expert in this field, and I always attempt to learn from others more knowledgeable than myself. Positive critcism is welcome but it doesn't hurt to bounce ideas around.

Pumpkinstein,

Leroy Nimka's Colored Coded KO charts on the BJMath site are the best and easiest method to approximate a Hi-Lo True Count that I have ever seen. Bootlegger's research on this Green Chip site are also outstanding. I use a true Fudged KO count for all number of blackjack games and the system works great.

Sara

Hi!
Where exactly can be found Leroy Nimka's KO charts and the so called Fudged KO count mentioned by you(Sara)?Thanks for the attention.