.jpg)
Greetings to all...my question is about a true-counted version of KO. In Modern Blackjack, Norm mentions this briefly and states that it is powerful. Do you convert it in the same manner as a balanced count, and would you still use the same IRC's? Also, what is the impact then on the BC(.98), PE(.55), and IC(.78)? Any help, opinion, or advice is greatly appreciated.
If converting KO to a true count, would the strategy indices change as well? Thanks again, and I hope I'm not just confused about what he said.
The formula is too tedious for most players to use while playing. Do not convert an unbalanced running count in the same manner as you would convert a balanced running count. All of your questions can be answered if you buy the book "The Color of Blackjack" by Daniel Dravot. Also unbalanced systems are designed so you don't have to make true count conversions. Therefore if you are thinking of using a true count formula and completely accurate playing indexes, why not just use a balanced count system instead? That would be a lot easier.
Thank you for your response. I have been using KO for quite some time, and thought that with the added true count conversion I might be able to ad some additional power to the playing efficiency while making minimal errors. Thanks again, and I will look into your suggestion.
Like you, I started counting cards using KO, and I didn't want to re-learn my counting system for Hi-Lo (i.e., learning to count 7s as 0 and doing the division necessary in the Hi-Lo system to arrive at a TC). So, here's the way I do KO. I've found it to work quite well in both my practice and actual casino play.
Let's assume a 6-deck game. First of all, I start my IRC at +10 to avoid negative numbers. For a 6-deck game, the standard KO IRC starts at -20, so my IRC is 30 higher than the standard. This makes my "pivot point" +34. This represents the level at which the TC hits +4, which is max bet territory and the trigger point for most of KO's high index plays.
In the KO system, the running count needs to increase by 4 for each deck played just to stay at TC of 0. So after 1 deck is played, TC 0 is at my RC 14, after 2 decks, TC 0 is at 18 and so on. So, based on the number of decks played (eyeing the discard tray), I know if the TC is above or below 0 at any point in time. This eliminates one of the biggest weakness of KO, which is sizing your bets improperly (i.e., relying on the KO RC betting scale which may diverge significantly from a TC betting scale early and late in the shoe). This also allows you to make proper index plays around the -1, 0 and +1 TC levels. There are a lot of them, e.g., 11 vs. A, 9 vs. 2 and 3, A7 vs. 2, A8 vs. 6, 12 vs. 4 - 6, 13 vs. 2, etc.
How do I know if the TC is +1 or -1? Easy - after 1 deck has been played, TC 0 is 14 and TC increments go in 5s (because 5 decks remain). So TC +1 is at 19 and TC -1 is at 9. After 2 decks are sitting in the discard tray, TC 0 is at 18, TC +1 is at 22 (increments of 4 because 4 decks remain) and TC -1 is at 14. But you really don't have to be this accurate. You always know that TC +4 is at RC of 34. So as long as you keep a good handle on where TC of 0 is, you can roughly estimate the in-between TCs for bet scaling purposes. So for example, if 2 decks have been played, you know that TC 0 is at 18 and TC +4 is at 34. If the RC is currently at 23, you know that you're roughly in the middle of the 18-34 range, so TC must be somewhere around +1 to +2. So increase your bet! (Note that the standard KO betting ramp would still have you at minimum bet in this circumstance.) If the RC is at 12, you'd know that the TC is somewhere less than -1, so it's time to Wong out.
I know this all must sound a bit complicated, but believe me, a little practice and you'll have it. I believe this will be easier than converting your counting habits to the Hi-Lo system. My results improved significantly with these modifications to the KO system. Let's call it KO Preferred on steroids!
______________________________________________________________________
As mentioned above, simplifies this greatly.
