Unbalanced Playing Efficiency Question

Why is it that many authorities say playing efficiency does not apply to unbalanced counts. I realize that basic strategy departures are not performed with a great deal of accuracy when using an unbalanced count, but that is similarly true of bet sizing!

In fact, my understanding is that both betting correlation and playing efficiency numbers merely reflect the accuracy of the system in question only if it were impplemented with optimum accuracy. With balanced counts, there's some loss through conversion rounding and with unbalanced counts, there's loss through inherent design.

Shouldn't both BC and PE be valued in unbalanced counts with the understanding that a 97%BC and 55%PE with an unbalanced count is less potent than the same figures with a balanced count?

the ko system does sacrifice some accuracy for simplicity, but less than one would expect. that is because it is at its most accurate at and around the pivot where most of the decisions that get the money are made.

for instance, of the ill 18 and surrender decisions : 8 vs 5,6, 9 vs 2,7, 10 vs 10,A, 11 vs A, 16 vs 9 , 15 vs 10 and the surrenders 16 vs 8, 15 vs 9,A and 14 vs 10, A all are taken at ther pivot where ko is very accurate.

insurance is taken at one count less that the pivot which is also accurate.

stand 16 vs 10 is taken @ the key count where one first has the edge. this is slightly less accurate than hi lo, but not much.

as far as betting decisions are concerned, ko identifies when you first have an advantage (key count)which is probably a good place to begin increasing one's wagers and the place where you have close to a 2% edge (the pivot) where you should probably have close to your max bets out.

it is elegent in its simplicity......

Why is it that many authorities say playing efficiency does not apply to unbalanced counts.

Who is saying that? As far as I know, PE is applicable to any counting system. It is simply a measure of how well the system identifies the proper points in the count for departures from basic strategy plays. If an unbalanced system also includes index numbers for basic departures, then it has a PE percentage.

One on level, there is no distinction between balanced and unbalanced counts. Every unbalanced count is equivalent to a balanced count. For example, KO is equivalent to the balanced count which tags the high cards at -14, the low cards (2-7) at 12, and the neutrals (8,9) at -1. If you computed the PE for this balanced count, it would give the PE for KO, when it is used in true count mode.

However, many people who employ unbalanced counts use them in running count mode. There is obviously a decline in efficiency in using running counts instead of true counts. I so not recall seeing any data on the drop off in efficiency in this. Sometime I will do a brief study on this.

PE was defined as he gain that a flat-bettor would obtain through playing variations. It is an interesting statistic, but it has limited relevance for us, because we usually do not flat-bet! It is more important for us to be make the right plays when we have a big bet out than when we have a small bet out.

Now KO, and other unbalanced counts, are built around this idea. They give up accuracy in negative counts , but keep high accuracy at the pivot. KO does a poor job of playing in decks which are below �normal composition�. Much of the gain for flat-betting PE comes in these negative packs, from things like hitting 14 v2. So in running count mode, KO is going to have poor PE as it is classically defined; but that classical definition is not that important today

Weighting hand probabilities by expected bet size based on index for that hand and based on betting ramp being used gives a bet-weighted PE. This is similar to method for how relative merits rankings of different playing indicies are estimated.

wc21