KO

I am learning the KO count, and would like some feedback on this count from other people that have used it? Is there a better system I should be learning, instead of KO, any recommendations?

Well I can tell you what little I know from reading all the opinions here.

The count you use does not matter unless you play perfect with the count and can cover your play so that you can play.

That means.. KO does give you an advantage over the house. How much depends on the game and if you play perfect.

But for me.. its ease of use is the best selling point.

Now you can go to a level two count and gain .1 or so.. but its hard for me to do.. you may be different. I like to play and look at the girls and talk to the other players and laugh and have fun.. all the while knowing that I do have an edge.. at least as good as the casino has on the ploppies at the table.

I must admit all of my opinions are borrowed except for my meager exp in the casino playing KO.. but.. I like it..

I am thinking about juiceing it up with another count such as aces.. to improve its performance.. and the good news is you can without much trouble..

I hope this has helped.

KO has been proven effective both in sims and in real-world results. It is roughly as effective as any level one count, and is extremely easy to learn and use.

For most recreational players, it may be all the system that is needed. Unless you play a lot of blackjack, the relatively small gain derived from a more complex system does not translate into very many real-world dollars.

Furthermore, once the basic KO system is mastered, it can be "tweaked" to improve it's effectiveness with things such as additional indices, side counts, or a true count conversion.

However, the system works just fine, "out of the box," and that is where one should start.

I've used KO for 2+ years after switching from Hi-Lo after reading reviews on this board. I'm a recreational player that only gets to LV 3 or 4 times a year. It is an easy to learn and easy to remember system, especially for someone like me who only gets to play under casino conditions now and then.

I had problems with the true count conversion of Hi-Lo since I play relatively infrequently. Since KO relies on the RC for betting and playing decisions, I think it is perfect for recreational playsers like me.

I've used it for 1D, 2D and 6D and I think it gets the money in all of them. DS's research and studies of the system in BJA2 bear this out also. My expected results are somewhere around $5.00 per hour for my red chip play and my records reflect actual results of around $6.00 per hour since using KO. So I'm (for now) ahead of the curve.

I recommend DS's BJA2 if you want some data on the KO system compared to other systems. It stands up well.

Buick

...it more versital and will conform better to your evolution as an expert player, provided you have an evolution as an expert player. G

I learned to count in Feb. of this year, and have used KO exclusively. Though I have entertained the idea of moving to a hi-tech count (HO2 or AO2), at this time I don't want to take the time off from playing to learn a new and complex system (I play at least 4 times a week, usually). However, I can say that KO is a winner, even right out of the box. I feel it is best suited to the shoe games, and probably performs almost as well as the hi-tech counts when dealing with 6 decks. The hi-tech counts probably outperform KO more significantly in the 1 and 2 deck games, where less cards make each card more important, and a toolbox of a million indices that come with the hi-tech counts can really be brought into play. KO is VERY simple, and it is no problem for me to drool over waitresses, watch the football game, talk to other players or dealer, etc., etc., and STILL keep the count. But be prepared!!!!!!! You can have a count that is as high as the sky, and STILL lose 4 hands in a row, and then the dealer shuffles, so you have to start over!! Very discouraging! But, counting is a long-term gig. I learned many a lesson these last 7 months--unfortunately for me the hard way. For one--and I may get some flak for this from other readers--is I don't make my max bet when the dealer is simply on fire--no matter what the count is! I will still raise my bet on hi counts with a hot dealer, but not as much as I would if things were going normally. Counting is a scientific process, but I know of no science that can explain streaks--they just are! So, I balance my betting between the count, and if some freak streak is playing out. But, advice is all well and good---ya just gotta get out there and play for yourself. Good cards to you.

Potaire

get the KO numbers for 4 decks?

I found the answer, just like you said, on page 171!

to bet according to the count, no matter what?? Even if dealer is hotter than fire?? Not debating, just asking if that's what you do.

Potaire

When does a 'hot' dealer turn cold? After you have won a few hands in a row, right? How do you know the dealer 'hot streak' is going to end? You never do until it does.

So the count goes way positive but you don't raise your bet because the dealer has been 'hot'. A few rounds later, you realize you have been winning almost every hand, and your double downs have hit, and hey! on this hand you got a blackjack. The dealer hot streak must be over. What a minute, why am I only geting paid this piddly amount?

Too bad you didn't increase your bet. Now the count is back negative and you are still behind. Now what are you going to do? Raise your bet because now you are 'hot' and the dealer is 'cold'?

Either play like a chump and try to predict unpredictable streaks and patternless patterns OR bet the mathematically proven way with the count. One way has been shown time and time again to consistently put money in your pocket in the long run, the other way is why casinos can afford to give you free meals, drinks, rooms, and pay your airfare to come out to their nice resorts.

believe it or not, I am still playing a winning game. Just got back from Reno--over $900 up, from 6 casinos (including dreaded Peppermill), betting nickles 1-8 or so. I just wouldn't bet $40-50 when I was losing 8 outa 10 hands--would bet $20 instead. I agree, there is no way to tell when the dealers hot streak will end--I was just being a bit conservative until I saw things back to normal. But, as you say, it is very possible I left a lot of money there that I could have brought back with me.

What if you don't increase your bet in the positive count until you actually beat the dealer? I wong games and wait for very high counts before i play. I'm reluctant to put max bets out though until i have actually won a hand. At those astronomical counts, sometimes you simply don't win. If you lose four or five hands in a row betting your max bet, you're down quite a bit of money. If you bet the minimum amount and lose four or five in a row, you still have your money. So what i do is start at the minimum count and wait until i have won a hand. Then, i will raise the bet if the count is still high and keep raising as long as i'm still winning. It seems like you catch the streaks this way but still keep your money when you're not getting the cards. I will only play when i have the mathlematical advantage anyways. I wong in and out of shoes a lot. Does the technique lower my EV ? I dunno, it's more natural to raise your bet after a win. Is this a good approach for me to keep using?

Thanks

If you don't raise your bet in a high count until you win a hand, then you have left money on the table when you win that first hand.
You just won a small bet when you should have won a large bet.

As you say sometimes you don't win with large counts, so you win a hand with a small bet, raise your bet, and then lose the next hand.
Where are you? You are behind instead of even.

W/W is just as likely as L/L or W/L or L/W. Trying to raise/lower your bet by the results of the last hand doesn't work, no matter what the count is.

It is good that you are only entering in at positive counts, but if you are not tailoring your bet size to the count and your bankroll, and allowing results of previous hands to determine your bet size, you are not winning at the rate you could be.

Of course this all goes out the window if you are parlaying your bet in positive counts for purposes of cover. But remember, this cover has a cost attached to it.

As we used to say back in the 60's, he is "tellin' it like it is, man."

You cannot judge much from the results of a single trip (or several trips for that matter). After all, people often come home winners using basic strategy, betting progressions, or no strategy at all. However, they will all eventually end up losers if they continue to play that way.

And as you correctly pointed out, you might have come home an even bigger winner if you had optimized your strategy.

Just needed someone to tell me that this is the wrong approach to be using.

Thanks for the reply

SOTSOG and Parker both claim not to be harsh but just "telling it like it is". Unfortunately, I have been card counting for 15 years now and I believe that they really should lighten up on these newcomers who have what I consider to be reasonable concerns.

After all, let us really "tell it like it is". Card counting depends on EV - Expected Value. Just because the count is high and the percentage is in your favor that doesn't say anything about whether or not you will win that particular hand you are playing! All it says is that if you played at that count (lets say with a 1% advantage) over a long period of time you would average $1 of winnings for every $100 played. But the count fluctuates as you play, it doesn't stay at 1% advantage, or whatever advantage you have with a high count, so in the short term you may lose many big bets betting with the count.

This is scary and unnerving to the new player, and I don't see anything wrong with them trying some sort of progression where they only bet high if they are winning with a positive count. Again, I would remind the naysayers that I am only recommending this for newcomers and recreational players who do not have the resources and wherewithal to stay in the game for "the long run" (which is another famous blackjack fallacy, but I won't get into that now).

"W/W is just as likely as L/L or W/L or L/W." Does this also imply that W/W/W is as likely as L/L/L? Or that W/W/W/W is as likely as L/L/L/L... and so on?