KO Insurance

Hi!
I have seen the message from kaycee and from his analysis(very thorough)it seems like independently from the hand composition we have to take insurance when having the count at>= +21(+1 ,when the IRC = -20),when our IRC=0.So,the conclusion is that using KO Positive(I mean IRC=0)we must insure at >= +1.Thanks for the great help and all other comments on this issue would be apreciated.

When you read a post and want to reply, notice that at the top of the post there are three options:
Post Response
Return to Index
Read Prev Message

Click on Post Response, and then you can write a reply that will end up in a discussion thread instead of starting a new thread that is not connected to the discussion.

Hi!
I have seen the message from kaycee and from his analysis(very thorough)it seems like independently from the hand composition we have to take insurance when having the count at>= +21(+1 ,when the IRC = -20),when our IRC=0.So,the conclusion is that using KO Positive(I mean IRC=0)we must insure at >= +1.Thanks for the great help and all other comments on this issue would be apreciated.

I am not confused,but I guess you have no idea about KO.say something reasonable or keep quiet.

OK,stop writing BS and learn to read! I said>= +1 when IRC = -20 (respectively>= +21,when IRC =0,as I use KO Positive(I call it that way).Get back, read my messages and stop the nonsense.I have played a lot and have read the books you have to offer,thanks for nothing.

I was commenting message posted by vaycee and his insurance research.It was his conclusion(about +1(+21 respectively).I repeat,learn to read,go back to school and stop wasting my time!

Checking the site I believe you meant to reference (which is kaycee, not vaycee), the first item that stands out is this: kaycee REVERSED the sign for small cards and big cards! Small cards are always counted as +1 each and large cards as -1 each. See below:

Quote from kaycee link:

Single Deck Insurance - HiLo Count [L=(2,3,4,5,6): Tag -1] [M=(7,8,9): Tag = 0] [T=(10): Tag = +1] [A=(Ace): Tag = +1]

Kaycee got his tags backwards! This is hilarious!

Goodbye, and GOOD LUCK with your game! (Heh)
AB

By assigning positive tags to positive cards, you are enumerating the running count of the actual shoe composition. If you had a shoe comp of 52 cards and they all consisted of aces and tens, then your running count would be +52 and your true count would also be +52. Thus the tag of [ace, ten] is +1. If you add 1 every time a negative card is removed, you will wind up with the same answer. How about thinking before posting? Posts like yours lead to the confusion YOU are experiencing. Why spread it to others?

kaycee

obviously a legend in his own mind, mathematically speaking.

AB

You are talking with others. Imagine the difficulties if you interchange the meaning of "hot" and "cold". It becomes difficult to converse with others since most use the standard TC=+ is good for me, TC=- is good for the house.

This happens all the time, and it causes great arguments wherever it comes up, because arguments are the direct result of failures to communicate. And when we are not using a common definition of a word, we are going to have mis-communication.

Nothing wrong with inverting the signs, but the onus is then on you to be _very_ careful when discussing things with others, since most everybody else will be using the usual definition of terms (plus count here) and your term will lead to confusion if due care is not taken...

just my $.02... as I have seen such discussions many times (not just blackjack related, people from outside the US often have different meanings for common terms and it causes the same kinds of arguments or misunderstandings as this potentially will.

...a standardized method of expression is best. However, I've seen the signs of the tags expressed both ways. If I'm not mistaken, I think Thorp viewed them as I do. If you have ever worked on cars, you may know that different car manufacturers can have different ways of referencing the same things. 100% standardization is mostly an elusive goal. Adaptation to different ways of expressing the same thing is a useful skill.

Thank you for your input.
kaycee

Hi Albert
You and I have discussed some aspects of KO in the past. I think I mentioned that I have been studying and using KO for 5-6 years.
The KO book says take insurance at Pivot-1 for any number of decks.
(I think that is for the sake of simplicity.)
For 6-decks, IRC=0, that would be +23.
But if you do a true count conversion, and use the fact that indices for True KO are very close to Hi-Lo indices, plus the fact that insurance is taken at +3 with Hi-Lo, you will find that for 6 decks a running count of 23 is a little high at all deck levels, and 21 is a little low after 4 decks or more. I would use +22 as my insurance index.
Hope this helps. fc519