The KO Count for 6D with 1-10 spread idea

I've just started learning the KO count and find it very simple and effective whilst counting on my kitchen table. Using the KO count for 6D, the initial running count is -20 with the key count set at -4. Betting is then staged thereafter from the key count upwards until it reaches max bets on the 1 - 10 spread. My idea which would make the betting even simpler to figure would be to make the initial count set at -14 and the key count start at +2. Using this system you can then increase your bets up the range as follows:
+2 = x2
+3 = x3
+4 = x4
all the way up to a max spread of x10. Maybe I'm missing something here but it would seem to make working out the correct bet so easy you wouldn't need to give it much thought. I am interested to here yout thoughts regarding this and basically is this a feasable approach?.
Regards
Adam

You can adjust the IRC in whatever way makes it easiest for you to handle. For example, I don't like counting in negatives, so I start my IRC at 0. Other players make other adjustments.

As to the 1-10 betting scheme set forth in the book, it just isn't enough for six-deck games. 1-12 is good, 1-16 is better and 1 - as much as you get get away with is better yet. 1-10 is workable if you use the exit strategy in the book or some variation of wonging. If you want to devise a betting strategy based on something other than 1-10 for six-deckers, I would suggest that you make sure you get your two-unit bet out at the Key Count, get a mid-size bet out at Key Count +4 and have your max bet on the table at the Pivot. You can make other bets at Key +2 and Key +6 as well, but getting the two-unit, mid-size bet and max bet out at the proper times is what gets the money.

The Green Chip archives contain quite a bit of information about using and tweaking KO, and it may be worth the cost of a subscription to you to check it out.

With the need to use a big spread in Shoe games. You only need a big spread if you are doing play-all. But if you are doing play-all, you are playing a very weak game.

I would strongly suggest using a Wong-out criterion, and then doing a smaller spread. Now, it is true that KO in its simple running count form is not very good at locating wong out points. That is because the wong-out point is far from the pivot. But one could develop criterion for different RC wong out points at different points in the shoe.

You might do something like IRC-8 in the beginning of the shoe, IRC in the middle, and IRC+10 in the last part. I am suggesting these as the final answer. If am suggesting that KO players run some sims and tinker with the wong-out points to come with a system for themselves.

I DO agree with your recommednation about the GC archives.

I was making the assumption that the poster intended to use a play-all style. I agree with you that using an exit strategy or a wonging strategy is superior, especially for most of the six-deck games being offered today.

Whats wrong with the exit strategy in the book? for 6 deck its exit at a count of -22 or worse with one deck in the tray. - 17 for 2 decks in then -12 3 decks in. This is with a IRC of -20 so it have to be adjusted obviously if one changes the IRC's around.

MathProf,

I use the CKO method for 6 deck shoes by Leroy Nimka and have made money with a 1-4 spread with a wong out at TC-1(anything below 0).This is a true fudged method of counting, but it seems to work.What small spread is winnable with wonging in your opinion for 6 deckers?

Thanks,
Sara

I had forgotten that they had given a specific strategy in the KO book. I went back and read that section.

The one question I would have is how many shoes do they drop out of? To me, it looks like this strategy would drop out of a high percentage. If you can get away with this great! But I like to limit how much Wonging out I do?

I did not see any stats in the book on the drop-out rate.

There is a tradeoff in Wonging out. The stronger your strategy, the more shoes you leave. The more shoes you leave, the worse. If I played KO, I would do some work with sims to come up with the tradeoff that I think is best.

Now, as to Sara�s question: I am sorry, but I did not understand what you were asking?

In the 8-deck game I'm forced to play most of the time, I use wong- out values pretty close to what the book recommends. It's true that, followed religiously, this strategy has you leaving the table quite often. For this reason, I don't leave until at least 2 decks of the 8 have been played. Fairly often an early neg. count can recover within 2 decks and give a playable shoe, and I don't leave in a winning streak regardless of count. If I lose a hand or two and the count hasn't gotten above the wong-out point I get a lammer and come back for the next shoe, (senior prostate you know:).

MathProf,

Sorry that I didn't make my question clear,but I will try again. You talk about using a smaller spread than 1-10 when wonging 6 deck games. What would your spread be for wonging out at TC-1(starting at a freshly shuffled shoe)in a 6 deck DOA DAS 75% S17 game with no late surrender?

Thanks,
Sara

I don�t play KO, but since you are asking about True Counts I think my High-Low experience may be relevant.

Usually I would try to spread 1-8. Sometimes I might go to 1-10. In my first post in this thread, I disagreed that you needed more than 1-10.

The precise spread depends a little on what you max bet is. If you max bet is $400, then you can spread 1-8 with a minimum of $50. If your max bet is $500, then you would need a 62.50 bet for a 1-8 spread. I think it looks really weird to bet 62.50 as a minimum bet. I would rather bet $50, even though it is wider spread.

I have spread a lot more. Last month, there was one session where I spread 1-20. Last year, I had one session where I spread 1-40. If the casino permits a bigger spreads, then by all means do it.

Most of the readers of this page are lower-level bettors. In general lower-level bettor can get away with bigger spreads.

MathProf,

Thanks for your response.

Sincerely,
Sara