High/Low with side count of 7's
frank t
I asked a queston a while back about multiparameter counting. Does
anyone have any information about high/low or Zen count with a side
count of anything other than aces. In BJF John Imming wrote about
keeping side count of cards (primarily sevens); however I havent seen
any other data since . I don't have the software to evaluate "Key
Cards" with respect to other counts. Any info on this theory at all,
using any count would be greatly appeciated. E-mail or posted data
would be great. Thanks in advance------Frank
p.s.-Ive been using this newsgroup for about three years and think
it's a da_n shame that so much time and energy is wasted dealing with
that dug grant guy.
brh
In article
<2D7F4E57597F301A.A217B705...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
eni...@airmail.net wrote:
>
> I asked a queston a while back about multiparameter counting. Does
> anyone have any information about high/low or Zen count with a side
> count of anything other than aces. In BJF John Imming wrote about
> keeping side count of cards (primarily sevens); however I havent seen
> any other data since . I don't have the software to evaluate "Key
> Cards" with respect to other counts. Any info on this theory at all,
> using any count would be greatly appeciated. E-mail or posted data
> would be great. Thanks in advance------Frank
Frank,
You may be interested to know that a seven's side count is not necessary
with 'Hi-Lo'. Let me explain: The role of a side count (usually ace) is
to enable the count to be modified so that its betting or playing
efficiency is increased relative to the original count.
If sevens are added to Hi-Lo, then the betting correlation AND playing
correlation both increase - therefore we need just the one count, and
this count is K-O. There is no benefit keeping Hi-Lo for betting and
adjusting for a seven side count for playing, since the 'adjusted' count
is the best count for betting as well.
I think that the problem is that historically, people have focussed on
balanced counting systems, and used a side count to adjust back to a
different balanced system. In these enlightened times, we know that
adding a side count to the main running count just creates a new
unbalanced counting system, for which the true count can be directly
calculated.
In summary, the K-O tag values, improve the betting and playing
efficiency of Hi-Lo, so that only one count is needed. But to do this
properly you also really need to compure the K-O true count.
Take a look at Richard Reid's Mathematics of Blackjack page at
http://www.jvm.com/thop/ , go to the Table of Contents, and look at the
'Equivalent Balanced Count Proof' paper, I wrote a while back.
Cheers,
Brett.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mark Krigbaum
Dude! This is why I started comming to this place. Very excellent -
thank you very much.
Pete Moss
By far the most important side count you can keep is the ace.
That is because it is essential for betting strategy, but for
most playing decisions it is of little consequence, and thus
should be "neutralized". The key to the puzzle is in the
"effects of removal" for the various playing decisions, as
described in Griffin's _Theory of Blackjack_.
As Brett pointed out, much of the advantage of keeping a side
count of sevens can be obtained by simply including it in the
main count (K-O). However, if you did keep the seven count
separately, you could in theory take advantage of that. You
could give the seven more weight when deciding between hitting
or standing on 14 vs. 10 for example, or you could neutralize
or reverse the seven when you hold a 15. Most counting systems don't
have an index for such things as hitting 15 vs. 8. That's because
the "effects" are all wrong. Aces and deuces mean little. Even the
tens are not terribly important. The sevens and eights are the "big"
cards that need to be weighed against the three through six.
I use a K-O main count (with true count conversion), and augment
that with a side count for neutralizing aces and deuces for
most playing decisions. Works for me.
Pete
Pete Moss
Michael Hunter wrote:
>
>
> Throughout some of the BJ literature there seems to be some negative
> attitudes towards unbalanced counts.
Totally unfounded, IMHO.
> In the last sentence of the second
> paragraph quoted is the very reason many people use KO. What do the
> long term counters think about KO or unbalanced counts in general?
I'm not a "longterm" counter, but I think I have a
real nice system worked out, based on the K-O
count, with a auxillary count, and true count
conversion.
> Is the tradeoff worth it for the tourist or
ocassional counter in
> your opinion?
What tradeoff?
Pete
Pete Moss
Abdul Jalib wrote:
>... The
> original poster was referring to high-low, which already includes aces
> in the main count. You don't get much improvement in betting by side
> counting the aces on top of that (you can plunge your bet when
> all the aces are out, but that's about it.)
No? I haven't done a study on it, but I my intuition is that neutralizing the ace for playing
strategy, and either neutralizing it or reversing it for insurance would gain more than any other
side count.
> ... the key to the puzzle is a little later in that book, page
> 57, the single denomination efficiencies (at 20 cards left in a
> single deck) in the chapter on multiparameter counting systems:
>
> A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
> .016 .010 .030 .069 .128 .109 .118 .060 .048
>
I'm aware of that table. I neutralize the ace and deuce for most playing
decisions, and for insurance. Notice that the ace and deuce are the cards
that are closest to neutral in the tabulation above. Of course, I count the
seven in the main count. Works real good. Simulations show it holding its
own or beating Hi-Opt II with a side count of aces.
> ... You
> > could give the seven more weight when deciding between hitting
> > or standing on 14 vs. 10 for example, or you could neutralize
> > or reverse the seven when you hold a 15. Most counting systems don't
> > have an index for such things as hitting 15 vs. 8. That's because
> > the "effects" are all wrong.
>
> Now you're talkin'!
Talking, but not acting on it. I only use one combined side count (of aces
and deuces), simply because I find it too tiring to keep more side counts. I tried
keeping a side count of sixes also, for the 16 vs 10 decision, but after a
couple of casino sessions, I decided it was not worth it. One dealer
commented on how hard I was concentrating. NOT GOOD! Keeping the main
count and the combined side count of aces and deuces is plenty
easy enough to do casually at a glance. Adding a third count is a big
leap, at least for me.
> ...
>
> The thing to note is that it's better (in terms of playing efficiency)
> to count 7's than aces, and once you're doing that 7 side count, it's
> better to add a side count of 8's than aces.
> Warning: I'm ignoring betting and insurance here.
Warning: I'm not.
Still I'm not convinced. The person who posed the question counts aces in
the main, betting count. That means the ace, which is ever so slightly
"small" for overall playing purposes is being counted as "big"; It cancels
a ten. Not good. It is not at all obvious to me that undoing that problem is not
the first order of business.
Anyway, to me, the point is moot. I've spent months developing my system,
I'm very well practiced on it, and I'm convinced it is strong and relatively
easy to do.
Pete
Pete D
We can save a lot of time here. A bunch of people answer "Yes running
unbalanced is the best choice for everyone with lots of advantages."
A bunch of other people answer "No running unbalanced is not the best
choice for anyone with lots of disadvantages."
A few say "Use unbalanced to learn, switch later." You can even true
count unbalanced if you want.
I am a long term player. I vote with the first group personally.
The pro arguments are ease of use (presumably allowing more attention to
other aspects of the game), faster play, no deck estimation errors
(outside the count itself) and consequently no betting errors, a few
others.
Con arguments are... well someone else can fill those in. With balanced
you get to do more cool play variations. You can hop on marginal running
counts late in the deck. You win more in shoes if you play perfectly.
Overall I think everyone would win more with running unbalanced.
I do use hi-lo at the moment though. It's easier for tracking, when I get
around to practicing that someday.
PD
In rec.gambling.blackjack you write:
>Abdul Jalib (abd...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>[...]
>: Note that the playing efficiency of Uston APC is .69, so any of
>: augmented Hi-Opt I counts above that side count at least 7's beat
>: Uston APC(!) Let's see K-O do that!
>: If anyone is confused about just what multiparameter strategy adjustments
>: are, be patient, I plan to post the multiparameter strategy adjustment
>: indices for high-low and explain what they are. For now, I'll just
>: warn anyone overly excited by the high numbers that multiparameter
>: systems are only appropriate for single deck specialists, and they are
>: quite difficult to do in practice. You'd probably be better off
>: focusing more on your act.
>[...]
>Throughout some of the BJ literature there seems to be some negative
>attitudes towards unbalanced counts. In the first paragraph quoted
>Abdul might be indicating that. In the last sentence of the second
>paragraph quoted is the very reason many people use KO. What do the
>long term counters think about KO or unbalanced counts in general?
>Is the tradeoff worth it for the tourist or ocassional counter in
>your opinion?
>I'm using Abdul's words as a jumping off point because I'm
>interested in various informed opinions within this group. No posts
>are needed to point out that I am stretching his words.
Michael Hunter
Pete Moss (jkdf7...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Michael Hunter wrote:
: >
: >
: > Throughout some of the BJ literature there seems to be some negative
: > attitudes towards unbalanced counts.
: Totally unfounded, IMHO.
: > In the last sentence of the second
: > paragraph quoted is the very reason many people use KO. What do the
: > long term counters think about KO or unbalanced counts in general?
: I'm not a "longterm" counter, but I think I have a
: real nice system worked out, based on the K-O
: count, with a auxillary count, and true count
: conversion.
I meant longtime and should have written "experienced"...so much for
demonstrating my english skills.
: > Is the tradeoff worth it for the tourist or
: ocassional counter in
: > your opinion?
: What tradeoff?
The authors of KO trade some expecation for simplicity with the
encouragement to spend that simplicity on your act.
I understand from reading your posts that you true count KO and
augment it with a A2 side count and appropriate variations. Using
the benchmarks stated in the book can you state what your gains are?
Obviously each person has their own measure of how hard it is to
count, but can you give a feel for how much harder your count is to
use?
: Pete
mph
Abdul Jalib
Multiparameter Adjustments for High-Low
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 -1 -1
As requested, as promised, I provide multiparameter adjustments for the
High-Low counting system with a side count of 7's at the end of this
article. I will assume you understand standard card counting.
Add to the running count the number of excess observed 7's *times*
the side count strategy adjustment number in the table below. Then
do your strategy as normal, i.e., compute your (adjusted) true count
and compare to the main count strategy table index for the current
situation.
For example, suppose you have 16 vs 9 with a running count of -2 after
having been through half the deck without seeing any 7's. The adjustment
index is +5 for the main high-low count, and the true count is -4, so
a normal high-low counter would hit without question. However, you
have seen -2 excess 7's (i.e., there are 2 excess remaining 7's), and
in the table below you see that 7's should be weighted as -3 in this
situation. That is, 7's should be considered as big cards in this
situation, *very* big cards. (-2)*(-3) is +6, so you add 6 to the
running count of -2 to produce +4. To convert this adjusted running
count of +4 to a true count at half a deck, we divide by a half,
or multiply by 2, producing +8. Comparing +8 to the main count index
of +5 for this decision, it's a clear cut stand on that 16 vs 9!
Isn't that cool? Your low brow pit critter counter catchers will be
sitting there counting regular high-low and thinking you're such an idiot
for standing on 16 vs 9 in a negative count, while meanwhile you're making
the best e.v. play!
This coolness translates into a very high strategy efficiency. Hi-Opt I
with a side count of 7's for multiparameter adjustments has a higher
strategy efficiency than Uston APC! But I haven't figured that out
for High-Low, so I'm not exactly sure how great it is for High-Low.
Unfortunately, the steam leaking out from your ears makes the low
brow counter catchers decide you must be counting after all, and they
boot you anyway. :) Seriously, multiparameter adjustments are only for
single deck specialists. Even they might be better off focusing on
their act.
You can get a lot of the bang of multiparameter adjustments without
the effort by using the "key card concept". Mason Malmuth originated
this concept, I believe. It simply means adjusting your play based
on the important cards you see for the current situation. For example,
if you have 14 versus 10, then the 7's are key cards. Not only would a
7 give you an almost sure winner (21), but a 7 would give the dealer
a wimpy 17, in which case you'd really like to hit your 14 to try to
beat it rather than going down without a fight. Still, before you
go radically modifying your strategy based on this information, you'd
better almost memorize the multiparameter tables anyway.
The tables below are for single deck dealer stands soft 17, which
unfortunately is on the endangered species list. If you are willing to
do some grunt work by typing in some numbers, I can generate dealer hits
soft 17 tables. (However, if you're that serious about multiparameter
adjustments, then I suggest you reconsider using Hi-Opt I or the Gordon
count as your main count, since these would serve as better bases for
adding side counts.)
For High-Low, side counting aces may provide a slightly bigger strategy
efficiency gain than side counting sevens, and it is much easier to
do those adjustments since you just neutralize the ace rather than
having to memorize separate tables (see the books.) You can do a bit
better than always neutralizing the aces; you can do a simplified
form of multiparameter adjustment, by adjusting them to neutral for
most situations, but leaving them unadjusted in situations where
aces really should be counted as big cards (e.g., doubling 10 vs 10).
However, you can do the full multiparameter adjustments even for the
aces, if you really want.
I generated the tables using data in Peter Griffin's book, _Theory of
Blackjack_. I could interface my combinatorial analyzer to the
simple program that computes the multiparameter adjustments to avoid
using Griffin's data. I could. But I probably won't.
The last time I posted multiparameter tables (for Hi-Opt II that time),
I just gave the raw output of my program, rather than reformatting
it into nice tables. And at that time someone suggested that readers buy
the $200 tables from Humble and Cooper rather than spending 10 minutes
to reformat the data themselves. Bah! So this time I reformatted
the data myself. However, this also means that you don't get the
multiparameter tables for 8's and 9's, since I'm not going to spend
20 more minutes to do those tables. Not to mention the aces.
There are several possible sources for errors, so I warn the reader
that he uses these numbers at his own risk. The splitting numbers are
especially wild and potentially dangerous.
Tables follow...
77777777777 Multiparameter High-Low 7 Side Count Adjustments 7777777777777
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
STANDING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
-HARD 17 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -6 -5 -3 +1
16 0 0 0 -1 -1 -3 -2 -3 +1 0
15 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 +1 0
14 +2 -1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +3 +7 +3
13 +2 +2 +1 +1 +1 +3 +3 +3 +7 +3
12 +2 +1 +1 +1 +1 +3 +4 +2 +5 +3
-SOFT A7 ... ... ... ... ... -1 -4 -10 -9 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
DOUBLING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
-HARD 11 +1 +1 +1 0 0 -1 0 0 +2 +1
10 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 0 0 +2 +1
9 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 0 ... ... ...
8 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 ... ... ... ...
7 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 ... ... ... ...
-SOFT A9 +1 +1 +1 0 0 ... ... ... ... ...
A8 +1 +1 +1 0 +1 ... ... ... ... ...
A7 +2 +3 +3 +1 +1 +3 +5 ... ... ...
A6 +4 +3 +3 0 0 +1 ... ... ... ...
A5 +6 +4 +3 0 0 ... ... ... ... ...
A4 +5 +4 +3 0 0 ... ... ... ... ...
A3 -1 +2 0 -2 -3 ... ... ... ... ...
A2 0 -1 0 -1 -2 ... ... ... ... ...
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
SPLITTING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
AA ... ... ... ... ... 0 0 0 +1 0
99 +1 +1 +1 0 +1 +2 +1 0 ... 0
88 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0 +4 0
77 +3 +3 ... ... ... ... -28 ... ... +15
66 +2 +2 ... ... ... -4 -3 ... ... -3
44 ... ... 0 -2 -4 ... ... ... ... ...
33 -2 0 0 -1 -2 +25 +17 -2 +7 +oo?
22 -9 +2 +2 0 -1 -7 +13 +13 +1 ...
--
Abdul Jalib | Yada, yada, multiparameter counting systems have been
+EV Unlimited | PROVEN mathematically worthless, yada, yada, sue, yada,
Abd...@earthlink.net | yada, tout, yada, yada, becuase, yada, yada, libel...
DOUGLAS REIMAN
This card counting system and its associated multi parameter adjustments
cannot sustain an advantage in a real world casino. Abdul is presenting a
system that will fail against real world casino conditions. Moreover, his
calculations in respect to the system are in error. Yet even if his
amaturish errors were corrected, the most important issue here is the
system that Abdul has posted has been mathematically proved a loser against
real world casino conditions.
We have offered to sponsor a casino test, and hire independent
mathematicians from various Universities to prove to all that Abdul's
systems are worthless. Abdul and the rest bent upon selling systems to
make the casinos richer have opposed all such tests and verifications.
Abdul and his friends have also failed to provide any mathematical evidence
their systems will even come close to their fantastic claims of profit and
advantage - although they have been asked to do so many, many times.
Moreover, Abdul is not an expert on the game of Blackjack systems (as his
glaring errors in this posted system shows). Based upon the contents of
his previous posts, he does not play a winning system nor has published a
winning system. Therefore all should take this posted system as a system
that can only be used for fun in a parlor game, and NEVER used in a real
world casino. (It also would not be much fun in a parlor game.)
If Abdul was serious about backing up his system claims, all he would need
to do is agree to one of our independent tests we have been recommending
for the past two years. But why is Abdul and his friends hiding from those
tests? It would be simple to prove either he or I wrong? And if Abdul
really thinks he is right, then why is he so afraid of independent
mathematicans or statisticians? Why has Abdul and his associates always
replied with libel and insults whenever "independent mathematical proof" is
mentioned by any poster?
Doug Grant (Tm)
No Systems To Sell
Abdul Jalib <abd...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<m22038q8...@wonging.earthlink.net>...
Abdul Jalib
Abdul Jalib <abd...@earthlink.net> writes:
> You can get a lot of the bang of multiparameter adjustments without
> the effort by using the "key card concept". Mason Malmuth originated
> this concept, I believe.
Oops, somebody told me in email that it was David Sklanksy who first
spoke of the "key card concept", in _Getting the Best of It_.
--
Abdul Jalib | Yada, yada, test, yada, yada, bond, yada, yada, proof,
+EV Unlimited | yada, yada, independent, yada, yada, huckster, yada,
Abd...@earthlink.net | yada, lackey, yada, yada, Vietnam, yada, yada...
b...@bom.gov.au
In article <5u73u3$hf0$1...@sparky.wolfe.net>,
Pete D <pe...@anon.nymserver.com> wrote:
> We can save a lot of time here. A bunch of people answer "Yes running
> unbalanced is the best choice for everyone with lots of advantages."
>
> A bunch of other people answer "No running unbalanced is not the best
> choice for anyone with lots of disadvantages."
>
> A few say "Use unbalanced to learn, switch later." You can even true
> count unbalanced if you want.
>
> I am a long term player. I vote with the first group personally.
I guess it is about time I wade into this ;-)
IMHO:
Unbalanced counts are mathematically equivalent to balanced counts in
every sense. Just as a running count is defined for a balanced count, it
is defined for an unbalanced count. Just as a true count can be defined
for a balanced count, a true count can be defined for an unbalanced
count.
A balanced count has a fixed point, namely zero, where the true count is
always the zero, whenever the running count is zero, regardless of the
decks remaining.
An unbalanced count has a fixed point, either the pivot or zero depending
on your IRC, where the true count is the same regardless of the decks
remaining.
A balanced count can be used in either running count mode, for example
the Uston Simple Point Count, or true count mode, as is usually the case.
An unbalanced count can be used in either running count mode, eg K-O,
Red7, etc.. or true count mode, for example, the Ubalo O/U count.
It so happens that if an unbalanced count is chosen so that the fixed
point corresponds to a point of player advantage, that the running count
betting efficiency tends to be better than a balanced running count which
has a zero fixed point. It is possible to construct unbalanced systems
with a negative unbalance which will do worse than a balanced system if
both are used in running count mode, (eg take the 2 out of Hi-Lo).
However, if an unbalanced system is used in true count mode, it makes
absolutely no difference what the net unbalance is. Viewed in this way,
a balanced count is just a very special case.
I believe all the confusion is historically based. Presumably when the
first unbalanced counts were constructed, going right back to the
unbalanced 10-count, through to Red7, UBZ11, SS and more recently K-O,
the knowledge that a true count can be computed either wasnt known, or
wasnt shared. Certainly no books to my knowledge said that this was
possible. In 'Theory of Blackjack', Griffin comes close with his
'Payoff' values, which are in fact an unbalanced system, but then goes on
later in the book to criticise unbalanced systems, indicating that he may
not have seen the connection.
When I figured out the unbalanced true count last year, I had some
vigorous discussions with a well known unbalanced count proponent, who
took a lot of convincing, but who now accepts the validity of the theory.
I believe that in time, unbalanced counts will become widely accepted,
especially for shoe games. Balanced counts may be preferable in single
deck, where a true count of zero roughly corresponds to a zero advantage,
but for shoes, setting a pivot point at either Hi-Lo +2 (Red7,SS), which
gives a small advantage, or +4 (K-O) is a much better option, even if you
do compute a true count.
As far as I know, the only commercial unbalanced true count system is the
Ubalo, which takes so much guesswork out of the Over/Under game. Anyone
interested in reading about it can find out at
http://members.aol.com/bjgrinder2/ubalo.htm .
Im sure many new unbalanced true count systems for regular BJ will soon
pop up, as the people realise that unbalanced true count systems are just
plain easier to use. The obvious choice is to true count either Red7 or
K-O and just use published Hi-Lo indices, or even better generate your
own with something like bj-strat.c. Or use the Uston SS, using published
Wong Halves indices, or UBZ11 using published Zen indices.
I advise anyone interested in unbalanced systems to look at Richard
Reid's Mathermatics of BJ page, at http://www.jvm.com/thop/ and find my
article under 'Table of Contents' - 'Equivalent Balanced Count Proof' .
In this article, I show that for a given system, there are an infinite
number of equivalent systems, one of which is balanced, with the same
correlations for betting, playing etc.., and it is possible to choose
whichever net-unbalance you wish to serve your purpose.
Michael A. Solinas
b...@bom.gov.au wrote:
>I believe all the confusion is historically based. Presumably when the
>first unbalanced counts were constructed, going right back to the
>unbalanced 10-count, through to Red7, UBZ11, SS and more recently K-O,
SS? Wasn't that the count created by three of the most brilliant
minds in the history of blackjack?
>As far as I know, the only commercial unbalanced true count system is the
>Ubalo, which takes so much guesswork out of the Over/Under game. Anyone
>interested in reading about it can find out at
>http://members.aol.com/bjgrinder2/ubalo.htm .
>Im sure many new unbalanced true count systems for regular BJ will soon
>pop up, as the people realise that unbalanced true count systems are just
>plain easier to use. The obvious choice is to true count either Red7 or
>K-O and just use published Hi-Lo indices, or even better generate your
>own with something like bj-strat.c. Or use the Uston SS, using published
>Wong Halves indices, or UBZ11 using published Zen indices.
>I advise anyone interested in unbalanced systems to look at Richard
>Reid's Mathermatics of BJ page, at http://www.jvm.com/thop/ and find my
>article under 'Table of Contents' - 'Equivalent Balanced Count Proof' .
>In this article, I show that for a given system, there are an infinite
>number of equivalent systems, one of which is balanced, with the same
>correlations for betting, playing etc.., and it is possible to choose
>whichever net-unbalance you wish to serve your purpose.
>Cheers,
>Brett.
Brett - I haven't checked out those links yet, but they look very,
very interesting. Thank you VERY MUCH for taking the time to post
them.
Mike "Wasn't that the count..." Solinas
--
Michael A. Solinas (mi...@solinas.com)
WWW: http://www.solinas.com/
ftp: ftp.solinas.com
ICQ UIN: 489952
RUSTYBLKJK
In article <3415b1dc...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, mi...@solinas.com (Michael
A. Solinas) writes:
>SS? Wasn't that the count created by three of the most brilliant
>minds in the history of blackjack?
Oh, Jeeze, Pavlov rang the damned bell again. ;-)
Rusty Martin
a/k/a John Doe #169
Vote "Yes" for rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated
The Time for Voting is running short! Read the 2nd CFV and get your
official ballot from:
-----> news.announce.newgroups. <------
Olaf Vancura
In article <3415b1dc...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, mi...@solinas.com (Michael A. Solinas) writes:
|> b...@bom.gov.au wrote:
|>
|> >I believe all the confusion is historically based. Presumably when the
|> >first unbalanced counts were constructed, going right back to the
|> >unbalanced 10-count, through to Red7, UBZ11, SS and more recently K-O,
Yes, Ken and I had constructed and played around with what's now known
as "TKO" prior to publishing K-O BJ. Since K-O is unbalanced by 1 per suit,
you simply can subtract 1/13 from each K-O value to get the equivalent TKO
card tags. Of course no one want to carry around numbers like 12/13, -14/13,
etc. So we used the actual running count less the expected running count (as
defined in the book), divided by NOD (number of decks remaining). This
should exactly give the TKO TC.
Though "simple," we thought it not simple enough. Brett has demonstrated
another simple technique, in fact independently derived by others around
the time K-O came out. AFAIK, the impetus these other individuals had for
TKO was not the gain in expectation from traditional card-counting that Brett
advocates. Rather, it was to facilitate shuffle-tracking. But to each his own.
From our point of view, however, you have to recall the goals of the book --
to create a card-counting system, accessible to most, which performs on a par
with the "big boys." K-O with running count already matched Hi-Lo with true
count. As such, we felt TC'ing K-O was a step in the wrong direction; we felt
that the gain was outweighed by the complications for the target audience.
I still feel this way to some degree. Brett and the others may disagree, but
I find TKO somewhat unthematic for the target audience. Of course I'm not going
to tell people how to use K-O; it's flexible if you want to tailor it.
To all we say fine, do what's best for you. We may reconsider including some
sort of TKO, perhaps as an Appendix, in a future edition for those who want
to exert more effort for an extra edge.
Olaf
|>
|> SS? Wasn't that the count created by three of the most brilliant
|> minds in the history of blackjack?
|>