Wong's Hilo vs KO

Wong's Hilo vs KO

This post should change a newcomer's mind about choosing KO over Hilo. Here's why:
It's irony that KO should be easier to use, but it's not when you see the "counting lines" below.

		 

Hilo		KO,  AC-deckers 

10		-32 

9		-31 

8		-30 

7		-29 

6		-28 

5		-27 

4		-26 

3		-25 

2		-24 

1		-23 

0		-22 

-1		-21 

-2		-20 

-3		-19 

-4		-18 

-5		-17 

-6		-16 

-7		-15 

-8		-14 

-9		-13 

-10		-12 

		-11 

		-10 

		-9 

		-8 

		-7 

		-6 

		-5 

		-4 

		-3 

		-2 

		-1 

		0 

		1 

		2 

		3 

		4 

		5 

		6 

		7 

		8 

		9 

		10 

		11 

		12 

		13 

		14 

		15 

		16 

		17 

		18 

		19 

		20 

		21 

		22 

		23 

		24 

		25 

		26 

		27 

		28 

		29 

		30 

		31 

		32 

		 

 

Note:   I hardly pass the +10&-10 on the counting line in Hilo 		 

because I use the canceling-out trick while cards are laid on the table.		 

For example,   if I see 3 monkeys with 3 small cards on the table,   

I just "group" them as zero & move on.		 

 

KO sells by its tag line: " RC=TC", but its counting-line is troublesome,  I.e.:  -32 vs +32		 

However, the true is... TC is relatively easy to compute after you get used to it.		 

To find TC from RC in Hilo,   you just divide  RC by Decks to go, i.e.,   8tc/4decks to go=tc2.		 

 

By the way, when you count cards in Hilo system,   

it's more accurate & easier to count the cards this way:	 

 

1)	You start with zero,   you move up on the "counting line" when you see  2 thru 6 

2)	On the other hand, you drop down on the "counting line" when you see the "monkeys". 

 

For example,   you backcount a table, and  when you see 7 small cards,  you move up to 7 on the line.	 

Then when you see 3 monkeys, you drop down to 4 on the line from 7.	 

To help you remember where you are on the line,  just think of #4 that has special meaning to you., i.e., your 4th ex-wife, lol. 	 

By the way, you need to come up with your own trick to remember the RC on the "counting-line".	 

In my case,  I  assign my favoritest  loved ones from +10 thru -10, and it works for me.	 

 

So, just remember this counting line & the aforementioned tricks,  																				 

& you'll be an expert in HiLo 																				 

																				 

-10	-9	-8	-7	-6	-5	-4	-3	-2	-1	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10 

 

																				 

 

 

Good luck and hit'em hard. 

 

Note: To me, monkeys are 11, 10, & KQJ.  

& small cards in Hilo are obvious: 2,3,4,5 & 6, right Mr. Wong? 

  

Disclaimer: Stanford Wong does not pay me to "sell" his system over KO, lol.	 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



                

I agree that hilo is easier to use for 6 or 8 decks, but I think ko is a lot easier in single and double deck, where the TC varies more rapidly. Not having to make frequent TC adjustments is a big bonus.

I advise non-pro's to learn Hi-Lo thoroughly.

If you become very proficient memorize some more indices.

I cannot see an advantage to unbalanced counts. True Count conversion is not laborious or difficult.

K-O is a fairly weak performer.

K-O is a fairly weak performer.

KO's performance is comparable to that of HiLo. If you don't believe me, use the following website to compare their SCOREs for various conditions: http://www.qfit.com/cvcxonlineviewer.htm

If you think TC conversion is simple, fine. For most, it's extra effort. In any, there is absolutely no reason not to use KO -- it's all a matter of personal preference.

I apologize.

Yes, they are comparable. It is certainly a matter of preference.

I need to remain mindful that others do not strive to practice a multi-level count and learn many indices.

PR.

are you using the same indexes as recommended in the book? (a,b,c)
it's good to hear someone give positive comments on KO for DD. I switched to hi/lo for 6 decks but whenever I get a chance to play DD I have debated staying with KO. casinos I frequent give lousy penetration for DD so have not even bothered to play but I have plans for several trips to shreveport this summer. have you used TKO for DD?

thanks,

mike

"I cannot see an advantage to unbalanced counts. True Count conversion is not laborious or difficult."

Even for someone who doesn't find true count conversion to be very "laborious or difficult," there's still a question of whether it's worth any effort at all, if KO performs almost identical to High-Low without it.

But for someone who doesn't mind true count conversions and memorizing the indices, true-counted KO with an equal number of indices will outperform High-Low.

I can't see any good reason for recommending that anyone learn High-Low thoroughly.

I do not mean to insult anyone with my clumsy insensitivity.

After decades at the tables, I find BJ to be a less than exciting game, especially as it is my tendency to play very long sessions.

I continue because I rely upon it to make a living.

To keep it interesting I use a higher level count and a lot of (Risk Averse) indices. That way i can tell myself that I am accomplishing something a little bit harder than I might. I also keep my bankroll high and my spread moderate to keep my R.O.R. from causing me any anxiety. I can enjoy splitting 9's against a dealer Ace, splitting 9's against a dealer 7, standing on 8-8 against a dealer Face, etc; and I can enjoy realizing that I have little advantage in a mildly plus count generated by a flock of 2's, 3's, and 7's.

I especially enjoy adjusting my bets (and some plays) according to the Ace side count. Recently I was playing in a 2 decker with a ZERO True Count. I doubled my 10 vs. dealer Face as there were NO aces played at the (50% mark). Because the pack was light by 4 aces that gave me a hefty (betting) True Count (equal to +4 Hi-Lo) so I had a large bet out. The extra Aces made this a clear double down. The 21 that I scored against the dealer Face was suhweeet indeed! To prove what a "character" I am, I toked the dealer and the two other players as well for rooting me on. The red chips represented an irrelevant % of money won.

This sort of drama is what makes the game interesting for ME. After 20 yrs. of serious play I "need" this drama ~ to generate a high quotient of F U N.

are you using the same indexes as recommended in the book? (a,b,c)
it's good to hear someone give positive comments on KO for DD. I switched to hi/lo for 6 decks but whenever I get a chance to play DD I have debated staying with KO. casinos I frequent give lousy penetration for DD so have not even bothered to play but I have plans for several trips to shreveport this summer. have you used TKO for DD?

I use use the KO indices in the book. I don't use TKO.

I am in an unusual position here. Usually, in these HiLo v. KO threads there are Hi Lo people bashing KO, and am usually telling people that KO is a fine count if you find it easier.
However, here Roger has taken the opposite track. He wrote:

Even for someone who doesn't find true count conversion to be very "laborious or difficult," there's still a question of whether it's worth any effort at all, if KO performs almost identical to High-Low without it.

But for someone who doesn't mind true count conversions and memorizing the indices, true-counted KO with an equal number of indices will outperform High-Low.

I can't see any good reason for recommending that anyone learn High-Low thoroughly.

I don�t think it is quite true that KO performs �almost identical� to High-Low. Most of the sims I have seen have shown it slightly under. But this is not the most important point.

It is certainly true that TKO does outperform High-Low. However, most people (including myself) find unbalanced true counting to be harder than balanced true counting. This is especially true for things like Shuffle Tracking.

Occasionally people add side counts, and I think these are easier to add if to a balanced count.

Finally, the major reason to learn High Low is that there are a lot more players out there. There is a lot more information about it. When someone studies s anew game, the they typically post High-Low sims. If you form networks with other players, you are more likely to find High-Low being used rather than KO.

None of these factors outweigh usability, in my opinion. If you find KO easier, then by all means play KO. However, I do not agree that there is any �good reason for recommending that anyone learn High-Low thoroughly�

"It is certainly true that TKO does outperform High-Low. However, most people (including myself) find unbalanced true counting to be harder than balanced true counting."

"Finally, the major reason to learn High Low is that there are a lot more players out there. There is a lot more information about it. When someone studies s anew game, the they typically post High-Low sims. If you form networks with other players, you are more likely to find High-Low being used rather than KO."

mathprof's comments bring to mind some of my own concerns, and possibly others. several months back I inquired about how to properly sim a true counted unbalanced count, such as TKO using either cvcx or sba. didn't get much interest but maybe with this thread we can get some input. I know you have several options with cvcx for deciding how you want the true count calculated, but unless I am not clear on the instructions I can't figure out if it's possible to create a formula using either cvcx or sba that will sim a true counted unbalanced count using adjusted indices as well as betting ramps. does anyone have any input on this? if this is not possible then it could be a useful tool for future updates. with the continued threat to playable games, especially on single and dd games, counts like TKO and other true counted unbalanced counts will probably only gain in acceptance. we need software that is simple to use so that users can see and compare for themselves the merits of these systems. it may even eliminate many of the prejudices against these systems.

... High-Low on the defensive for a change. ;-)

... by setting the IRCs to the negative per-deck imbalance times the number of decks, then set the sim to use the true count instead of the running count. For TKO, the IRCs should be -4 * decks. You could use High-Low indices and betting ramp with all the numbers adjusted by -4. (You would get slightly better results using indices and optimal bets calculated specifically for TKO, but the difference would be small.) Similarly, you could compare Unbalanced Zen 11 to Zen by taking into account that the UBZ11 per-deck imbalance is 2.

I didn't see your earlier thread, so maybe your questions are more involved than that, but the basic idea is to set the pivot to 0 by setting the IRCs appropriately, and to keep in mind that the unbalanced TCs will be less than the balanced TCs for a system with similar tag values, and the diffence will be the per-deck imbalance.

very thorough and clear explantion, thanks so much....... I'm gonna print this one out for my records.(as soon as I find out whats wrong with my printer)

I may have asked on another board and it may not have been worded too clearly. from time to time I reread old posts of mine and I have to shake my head.