I have used KO with depth based betting and 30+ indices (comprised RC indices of course) very successfully in the 70-75% penetration double deck games for quite a while. For insurance in double deck with IRC at -4, Insurance is at +3, of course. Would like to know the optimum Insurance indices for double deck based on depth; i.e., the indices at 13, 26, 39, 52, 65, and 78 cards dealt. Thank you in advance!
Interesting question. I asked the same question here before, but I use the HiLo Running count.
Interesting question. I asked the same question here before, but I use the HiLo Running count.
If you are using HiLo and never converting to a true count while playing, you should absolutely use KO instead of HiLo. That is a fact, not just my opinion.
But there is something I am not so sure about the KO count, that is, the IRC number of -4 in double deck games. Is it better to set IRC = -8 ?
But there is something I am not so sure about the KO count, that is, the IRC number of -4 in double deck games. Is it better to set IRC = -8 ?
Rather than answer this single question, I highly suggest you read Modern Blackjack Vol 1, a free eBook by Norm Wattenberger. If you are on this forum to truly learn how to play, Mr. Wattenberger's book is a great place to start.
Good cards.
I would like to hear what Gronbog may say about this because he posts here. And your thoughts too.
I have used KO with depth based betting and 30+ indices (comprised RC indices of course) very successfully in the 70-75% penetration double deck games for quite a while. For insurance in double deck with IRC at -4, Insurance is at +3, of course. Would like to know the optimum Insurance indices for double deck based on depth; i.e., the indices at 13, 26, 39, 52, 65, and 78 cards dealt. Thank you in advance!
I don't have the quarter-deck values readily available, but if you use IRC = -4, insurance with one deck gone would be +2 and with with 1.5 gone, +3.
But there is something I am not so sure about the KO count, that is, the IRC number of -4 in double deck games. Is it better to set IRC = -8 ?
It makes no difference whatsoever. Use whatever. Just make sure that the indices correspond to the IRC that you choose. For example, in the insurance values I gave, if IRC = -8, they will be four lower than what I indicated.
Don
I would like to hear what Gronbog may say about this because he posts here. And your thoughts too.
What Don said.
I would like to hear what Gronbog may say about this because he posts here. And your thoughts too.
What Don said.
Gronbog,
This was started by my question below, where Don gave a partial answer. Would really like to know the full answer:
I have used KO with depth based betting and 30+ indices (comprised RC indices of course) very successfully in the 70-75% penetration double deck games for quite a while. For insurance in double deck with IRC at -4, Insurance is at +3, of course. Would like to know the optimum Insurance indices for double deck based on depth; i.e., the indices at 13, 26, 39, 52, 65, and 78 cards dealt. Thank you in advance!
Hi,
I’m not Gronbog, but I can answer that question for you. For KO, 2D, IRC=-4 the indices are:
78 cards dealt = +3
65 cards dealt = +3
52 cards dealt = +2
39 cards dealt = +2
26 cards dealt = +2
13 cards dealt = +2
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cac
Very nice of you! Let me convert your KO Running Counts into KO True Counts. We consider only these five remaining deck numbers, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, and 1.5.
If IRC=-4, TC = +6, +4, +2, +1.6, and +1.33, respectively; therefore, the span of these TC numbers is (+6) – (+ 1.33) = 4.67.
If IRC=-8, TC = -2, -1.33, -2, -1.6, and -1.33, respectively; therefore, the span of these TC numbers is (-2) – (-1.33) = -0.67.
This calculation shows that the IRC=-8 case gives a much smaller TC span; therefore, it should be a better choice for the Initial Running Count for KO. Right?
In any counting system played in RC mode, you can choose any IRC, provided that the indices and betting ramps are aligned with it. However, when playing in TC mode, only a single IRC is valid. This IRC is determined by summing the tags of the system and multiplying the result by (-4 * decks). For the KO system, the IRC is specifically calculated as +1 * (-4 * decks).
Sincerely,
Cac
Hi,
I’m not Gronbog, but I can answer that question for you. For KO, 2D, IRC=-4 the indices are:
78 cards dealt = +3
65 cards dealt = +3
52 cards dealt = +2
39 cards dealt = +2
26 cards dealt = +2
13 cards dealt = +2
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cac
Perfect, thank you very much CAC. With Don‘s answer, I was thinking something similar was going to be the final result, very much appreciated!
I have used KO with depth based betting and 30+ indices (comprised RC indices of course) very successfully in the 70-75% penetration double deck games for quite a while. For insurance in double deck with IRC at -4, Insurance is at +3, of course. Would like to know the optimum Insurance indices for double deck based on depth; i.e., the indices at 13, 26, 39, 52, 65, and 78 cards dealt. Thank you in advance!
I don't have the quarter-deck values readily available, but if you use IRC = -4, insurance with one deck gone would be +2 and with with 1.5 gone, +3.
Thank you Don
Hi,
I’m not Gronbog, but I can answer that question for you. For KO, 2D, IRC=-4 the indices are:
78 cards dealt = +3
65 cards dealt = +3
52 cards dealt = +2
39 cards dealt = +2
26 cards dealt = +2
13 cards dealt = +2
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cac
Sorry for this, but I meant to ask you and Don one additional question. In COB, Dravot suggests a tweak where you do not include any/all of the CURRENT ROUND aces seen (including the dealers ace) in the count for the insurance decision. That tweak makes sense to me. Would like to know if you gentlemen agree, and whether it changes the quarter deck numbers above?
You are definitely well read. Very good.
Hi,
I’m not Gronbog, but I can answer that question for you. For KO, 2D, IRC=-4 the indices are:
78 cards dealt = +3
65 cards dealt = +3
52 cards dealt = +2
39 cards dealt = +2
26 cards dealt = +2
13 cards dealt = +2
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cac
Sorry for this, but I meant to ask you and Don one additional question. In COB, Dravot suggests a tweak where you do not include any/all of the CURRENT ROUND aces seen (including the dealers ace) in the count for the insurance decision. That tweak makes sense to me. Would like to know if you gentlemen agree, and whether it changes the quarter deck numbers above?
Unfortunately, I haven’t read that book, so I wouldn’t be able to help you. Maybe Don or Gronbog could give you a hand.
Sincerely,
Cac
But I asked the same question on the HiLo Running count, so still hope you could consider that too. To be honest, I’m not so into KO.
But I asked the same question on the HiLo Running count, so still hope you could consider that too. To be honest, I’m not so into KO.
IMO, by far, the best advice anybody can give you on this is that if you are using HiLo, you should be using true counts to make ALL of your decisions, including your question above. If making decisions with running counts, KO is superior to HiLo. To be clear, I don’t know the answer to your question. But, that’s what these forums are for, I guess.
