what is KO?
who can tell me !
please!
who can tell me !
please!
KO is a count. Like Hi Lo. It is unbalanced if you know what that means. It is pretty good, but not as good as Hi Lo. Some say it is easier to learn and therefore worth what you lose in accuracy. It is definitely worth learning for situations where the discard tray is hidden from view because it is not dependent on the number of decks remaining. Hope that helps.
"It is pretty good, but not as good as Hi Lo. Some say it is easier to learn and therefore worth what you lose in accuracy."
It is VERY good, simple, and when compared to Hi-Lo ranks right up there with it. Actually rates HIGHER! (See Link)
I believe most new players go with KO or Red 7 because of their simplicity. Red 7 is rated slightly better than KO and BOTH are far easier to learn than Hi-Lo or any other count that has to be 'True'.
Probably the only easier system would be OPP.
My 2-cents.
Regards,
PM
also worth looking into in my opinion is Fred Renzeys' Kiss III count ,explained in his great book "Blackjack Bluebook II"
In the link you gave, the rating of KO refers to true counted KO which is used by some professionals and certainly more difficult than hilo.
The rating of the original KO (KO preferred)is certainly less.The red seven count is also overrated because it's treated as if the user counted all the sevens as +0.5 which is of course more precise but also much more difficult.
Francis Salmon
>> It is VERY good, simple, and when compared to Hi-Lo ranks right up there with it. Actually rates HIGHER!
True.
> The rating of the original KO preferred is certainly less (than Hi-Lo) ..
I'll beg your pardon. KO Preferred is ever so slightly more powerful than Hi-Lo. Cacarulo has pointed this out repeatedly using a very reasonable set of heads-up 6D game conditions.
And true counted KO (TKO) apparently kicks Hi-Lo's ass.
--------
For those KO users out there, Norm has worked up an apparent new twist on KO .. dubbed reKO. Seems to me if you are a KO user, it's really good stuff. Check out Norm's work if you are interested.
You have a nasty habit of misquoting.When you quote something it should be clear who the author is and it should be correct.I didn't say that KO scored worse than hilo, the comparison was with TKO.
The problem is that these ratings always assume optimal betting even when a system suggests a far less perfect betting system.
Sure KO can do better than hilo but only if it is enhanced with a very elaborate betting system that makes it far more complicated.
Francis Salmon
> You have a nasty habit of misquoting.
I never intend to.
> When you quote something it should be clear who the author is and it should be correct.
Authorship was clear, that's the purpose of the '>>' and the '>'. I did misread the CV Page -the reference to KO there looked like KOP to me; you have my apology.
> Sure KO can do better than hilo but only if it is enhanced with a
> very elaborate betting system that makes it far more complicated.
I will guardedly hazard a guess that Cacarulo's work did not involve some very elaborate or complicated betting system for KO. I believe he is in it only for the math, not to prove a point. He simmed a reasonable set of heads-up 6D game conditions with the C-22 indices (a fair comparison for most Hi-Lo users) and KO won -barely. More to the point of PM's reply to Scooter, where Scooter said KO is pretty good but not as good as KO .. I'll contunue to disagree and assert that PM's statement is accurate.
I've got no dog in this hunt; I use Hi-Lo.
