unblanced counts

i was using the hi lo lite system and had to do the true count conversions, etc. i read recently that if i use an unbalanced count, suck as the ko count, that negates the need for tc conversion. first off, how is it that accounting for 7s eliminates the need to convert to tc for betting purposes?

You said " ... accounting for 7s eliminates the need to convert to tc for betting purposes?"
That is what you said.

"Accounting for 7's" has nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating the need to do True Count conversions.

Basically an unbalanced count does not use a True Count conversion, as it uses a piv to -- which, in effect, averages out all depths of the (double deck or) shoe. Obviously you lose on bet-sizing accuracy and playing efficiency - but for casual low stakes players, unbalanced counts are sufficient.

The KO count uses 7s to determine how many decks have gone by. The KO count ASSUMES 4 7s will come out per 52 cards. If you've already learned how to do TC conversion, I would recommend to keep doing it. It is better than assumming 4 7s will come out of every 52 cards. Practice makes not only perfect, but becomes easier!

However if you've found the TC conversion really difficult and only play infrequently/recreationally it may be an option for you.
Good Luck,
tripsix

I don't know much and I don't use the KO count, but it was my understanding that is isn't so much that KO assumes that 4 sevens will come out each deck, but it uses the unbalanced nature of the count to determine shoe depth.

I familiar with the Red-7, an unbalanced system that simply counts the red-7's as +1, giving a +2 count per deck. In that system, you simply start your count at -2 per deck, instead of zero. So in a 6D shoe you would start with a count of -12 and only increase your bet when then count hits zero. It is this negative starting place that makes up for the lack of a TC. Rather than being the 7s, it is the assumption that as each deck is dealt, the count will increase by +2. If the count increases more than that, then the remaining deck is positive. Less than that, negative.

It makes sense, but it also seems to me that it wouldn't be as accurate in determining the current deck make-up as a balanced count. However, I don't have math to back that up, just an impression.

Hey-
I use the Kiss III count (an unbalanced count) and it gets the money. You don't need complicated counts to get the money-Kiss III does it-period. Memorize the 3 reasons why we go to the casino:
1. To win money.
2. To win money.
3. To win money.
Best of luck-and keep it simple-no need to get at all complicated,just get the money out at the right time,play good games, and count accurately!

Prankster writes: "Best of luck-and keep it simple-no need to get at all complicated,just get the money out at the right time,play good games, and count accurately!"

I've been getting the money out at the wrong time, playing lousy games, and not counting accurately! If only I had known! ;-)

There 'ya go dhays!