K.O. Double deck

Just read the book and contrary to what the authors have said about the system’s effectiveness on double deck, I have noticed what other people besides the authors have said being contrary to the authors statements in regards to K.O. Effectiveness in double deck. After playing hours on hours switching between Hi-lo and KO, I’ve noticed the difference in accuracy between the two. The authors did state that KO was more of a correlation of betting spreads and ramps more than an accurate description of deck composition. However, I’ve noticed that with a Six deck game the KO is significantly more accurate in deck composition than with double deck. I’m just curious as to why this discrepancy occurs between the two different deck sizes.

Absolutely nothing you do with your personal play can possibly confirm the kind of assertions you're making. Anecdotal play results are utterly useless when discussing these sorts of things. After you've played about 100 billion hands, then you can draw conclusions! 😊

Don

I'm not really drawing my only conclusion , it's based what I've heard other notable APs have said on the matter. So I guess its a confirmation bias, most definitely. I'm just curious as to how they have drawn these conclusions. Suppose I get a rational answer then I might alter my game to suit double deck play. Otherwise I will stick with K.O. until someone can elaborate further on why one should choose hi lo for double deck and prefer K.O. for a shoe game. Ive only heard these comments in brief on the gamblers edge a time or two without an explanation.

"Otherwise I will stick with K.O. until someone can elaborate further on why one should choose hi lo for double deck and prefer K.O. for a shoe game."

Comments like these are not based on SCOREs; they're based on alleged ease of use to the player.

Don

What exactly is the argument here? When I played double decks, I used Hi-OPT.   Neither KO nor HiLo.  

Johnny and the others don't digest the importance of your comments.

I stated that decades ago there was no resource for questions/feedback from wannabes  present on the free pages here.

Although Revere's lessons were ok, he lacked the patience to answer some questions that you provide, to their deaf ears.

I say thank you for them!

I would suspect that learning several count systems and alternating between them would cause more confusion than benefit.

Oftentimes, there is no such a thing as one-for-all. I’d like to hear more about Johnny’s quest with KO for double deck games. 

Well, since I began playing actual Blackjack and not freebet like I initially was playing, I went from being negative by about 200-300 to where I'm at presently-- just shy of $1000 over the last month. I think Ive experienced a lot of luck (Good Variance). My experience overall since I went to 2 Deck games has been good. I played a few 6 deck games and found myself spending more money just to get to the point of a positive count. So I think double deck coupled with KO has been ideal for me as a beginner. I spend on average maybe 20-30 minutes at the table a couple of times a week and am starting to notice details like variance in deck penetration specific to certain dealers, their acuity (sloppy or sharp) and little bits of digested info from a few books I've read. I still have tunnel vision but its starting to fade slowly. I can only imagine that division would be a major hindrance to me thus far in counting cards. I haven't ruled out other systems yet, but I'm allowing myself time to experiment with this system first to measure a baseline of performance before I branch out.

I actually compared KO, True counted KO, and Hi-Lo and found their performances marginally comparable, so in my opinion dividing is not that critical. 

That's good to know, because I need the extra brain power. That division melts my brain. As much as I hated math my entire life, its a cruel joke that I've found myself here. Luckily KO exists.

Earlier, I posted my EV and SD numbers for a double-deck game to compare KO and Hi-Lo. I fixed the rules to Hit-17, DAS, and Surrender and used nothing deviation except this one of insurance (at index RC=+3 for KO and TC=+3 for HiLo). However, I’m still not confident about these numbers because I don’t know how to exactly ramp the bet amount for this comparison. The ramp step is rougher for Hi-Lo true count but a lot finer for KO running count. If possible, could you please check on my numbers? 

I would like to give you an answer but I haven't become proficient enough with cvcx to define different strategies to check for you.

I know something about Blackjack math, so if you need me, post it out or message me, and then I will figure it out for you. 

Thank you Sir! I appreciate it very much.

I notice Cacarulo recently compared KO and Hi-Lo in another forum, but I am banned from posting there. However, I’m very interested in his results and would like to know more about them. Let me quote his results:

Condition: 2D, H17, DOA, DAS, SPA1, SPL3, NS. 
Parameter: 22 indices, 1-8 spread, 62.5% penetration

SCORE Numbers:

• KO: 50.36
• Hi-Lo: 47.93 

I haven't fully grasped the definition of SCORE, so here is my first question: 

Can you please list out both the EV and SD numbers of this simulation?  I did a similar simulation and posted these numbers here earlier. I just need some confirmation. 

Maybe Don could provide and answer.

Do you or do you not have BJA3?

Don

I do have BJA3. It’s is a great book. Which part do you want me to read. 
 

However, I have been using this formula to calculate my SCORE numbers:

SCORE = 10000 x (EV / SD)^2,

where EV is the 100-hand expected value and SD is the corresponding standard deviation. Clearly, the SCORE value is very volatile, because of the above quadratic formula. To compare the performances, it's better to use the EV-SD pair. 

Read it all, again and again and again... Read it so many times you won't have a minute to post your shit.

Read it till you understand one single page!