KO- When to play multiple hands?

I use the KO Preferred System and was wondering at what RUNNING COUNT should the counter spread to multiple hands for the 6 and 8 deck game? Certainly at some count it must become profitable for the counter to spread to two hands. Perhaps it would be at the Key Count or Pivot Point?

For some reason this topic is not discussed in Knock-Out Blackjack. I have not seen a post on any BJ Board which discusses this matter either. Does using an unbalanced counting system mean you should never spread to several hands? Thanks to anybody who can help on this one.

-MJ

I use KO Full with 25-30 indices depending on where I'm playing, rules, number of decks. Playing multiple hands is good strategy. Some experienced players I've read on-line recommend playing multiple hands all the time. But authors like Wong and Schlesinger e.g. say play just one hand when head-up with the dealer, and two hands with other players at the table when you have an advantage. The latter makes sense to me - why put more money on the table when the house has the advantage?
I don't think it matters what count you are using.
With KO, the Key Count(KC), is where you first have an advantage, albeit small, and raise your bet. My approach is to spread to two hands at KC+2. As I understand it, playing more than two hands adds little if anything.
Another thing, if house rules require you to bet double the minimum when playing multiple hands, then definitely don't do it until you have an advantage.
I'd like to see comments from others on this topic too.

Thanks for the response fatcat. You can view Don's response on www.advantageplayer.com. He says to split at or slightly above the pivot point of +4.

25-30 indices? At what count do you split 10s vs. 5? How about 10s vs 6?

-MJ

Always play two hands if your risk criterion can handle it. This question has been answered ad nauseum (no offense).

However, I am assuming that your question is that your ROR can only handle a spread of $5-$50 at a 2D game or something like that, when should I spread to two hands?

OK, here's the deal. It doesn't matter what your count system is. By spreading to two hands instead of one, you can put down APPROXIMATELY 1.4 times as much money on the table and have the exact same standard deviation. So, for your KO max bet of $50, you could instead make two max bets of $35 each and the standard deviation per round would remain the same, but of course, the EV per round just went up by 1.4. So, what did that do to your SCORE? It increased it, correct?

The problem with non-true counted unbalanced systems like KO is that they are only absolutely accurate at the pivot. Sometimes you actually do not have the advantage at the key count (ie-late in the pack).

Why play two hands when negative EV?
1. Card eating effect.
2. Cover - nothing is more obvious (or irritating) than somebody who goes from one small hand to two big hands back to one hand, etc. You'll get the ploppies mad, won't look like the ploppies - which wouldn't matter so long as the pitstiffs don't care. Also, you'll be eating up hands and causing shuffle ups (especially if you're playing SD) if you do this.

Lek Tol

Anubis

hey Fat Cat im interested in hering about KO Full. I didnt see that in the KO book i got?????Dont hold back on us now 30 indices whats the numbers crunched????

We have discussed this a great deal of Green Chip. DD� has made a lot of comments as have I. Here are links to some of the thread of the threads:

http://www.bj21.com/greenchip/misc_bj/index.cgi?read=67350

http://www.bj21.com/greenchip/misc_bj/index.cgi?read=65958

http://www.bj21.com/greenchip/misc_bj/index.cgi?read=66122

As you can see, we have spent a lot of time discussing the issue.

There has been some good information in this thread, and some bad information. I would be happy to comment on some of the details. However, I really don�t want to Re-invent the Wheel and repeat everything that was said before.

I would suggest that people who want to learn more about this issue should read the posts on GC, and then post their questions there.

As a general rule there is a fixed minimum imposed per spot.
When playing head on with the dealer it would cost you 100% more to play two hands in a negative situation for just burning 50% more cards. So obviously the cost per card would be higher.
Furthermore,if you play more spots than necessary it can happen that the count becomes favorable during a round but goes down again before the round is completed.

Francis Salmon

Anubis can send via paypal :)

yes, you pay 100% more for seeing 50% more cards, but you cut the total number of rounds you have to play to finish the negative shoe in half so the cumulative amount of money you wager is the same...AND you get through the negative shoe faster playing 2 hands than 1 hand so you get a higher SCORE. (more rounds per hour).

Maybe I should take "sabbaticals" every year on playing and any form of betting during this month. I can't even win a measly $20 on what I thought was a lock here!

See you on the green side DD'.

I actually didn't plan to even read this thread but then saw your post mentioning me in the title. It got me curious:)

I did quite extensive studies on this very subject some years ago.
It's true that betting two spots in negs will get you considerably more hands per hour (but less rounds!).You might get in 420 hands compared to 315 hands (245 negs and 70 pos) for going to two hands only on positive situations.
The problem with your theorie is that the extra hands go entirely to the account of the negs (350 per hour!).
The reason why you don't get more positive hands lies in the argument I gave at the end of my previous post but nobody seemed to take notice.

Francis Salmon

PS. Simulations cannot give the whole answer here because they distort the time factor.

As I am not living in the States, I'm not a Green Chip Member. You have undoubtedly some very knowledgable individuals in your club but precisely the most illustrous ones seem to have problems coping with diverging opinions especially if they are expressed by an outsider like me. You throw around with typical Green Chip expressions like SCORE,Desirability Index, N0 and others but all of these have little to do with the concrete problem.
As a professional player I'm interested primarily in WIN RATE PER HOUR.
In the light of the studies I have undertaken some years ago, I know that playing systematically two spots in a head on game will yield me about 10% less than going to two hands only in positive rounds and nobody is going to talk me out of that.

Francis Salmon

As I am not living in the States, I'm not a Green Chip Member.

You don't have to live in the U.S. to be a Green Chip member.