KO knock-out system, really?

I tried to learn KO... because I failed at learning hi lo.

KO count 2/3/4/5/6/7 as +1 and 10/J/Q/K/A as -1
for 8 decks you start the running count at -28, and increase your bet when the running count is >= -6
Am I understanding the rules correctly?

For example, with 6 deck gone and 2 decks left.

If the 6 decks are neutral, the KO running will be at -4. Then KO will tell me to increase my bet? In hi-lo, the running count (and true count) will be at zero. KO is telling me to increase bet at TC=0 ?

It gets even worse. So 6 neutral decks gone, then Ace + Ten comes out. Now the KO running count will be at -6. In hi-lo, running will be -2, TC will be -1. KO is telling to me to bet at TC = -1 ???


I have done the maths at 5 decks, not as bad, but still ridicules. Am I understanding KO correctly?

Quote: supergrass

I tried to learn KO... because I failed at learning hi lo.

KO count 2/3/4/5/6/7 as +1 and 10/J/Q/K/A as -1
for 8 decks you start the running count at -28, and increase your bet when the running count is >= -6
Am I understanding the rules correctly?

For example, with 6 deck gone and 2 decks left.

If the 6 decks are neutral, the KO running will be at -4. Then KO will tell me to increase my bet? In hi-lo, the running count (and true count) will be at zero. KO is telling me to increase bet at TC=0 ?

It gets even worse. So 6 neutral decks gone, then Ace + Ten comes out. Now the KO running count will be at -6. In hi-lo, running will be -2, TC will be -1. KO is telling to me to bet at TC = -1 ???


I have done the maths at 5 decks, not as bad, but still ridicules. Am I understanding KO correctly?

These are all (including hi-lo) approximations. You can improve KO by adding a true-count conversion, but it will get the money without it.

Any system (including hi-lo) sometimes tells you to bet bigger when you don't have the edge, and sometimes tells you to keep your bet small when you do. This is why they do not have betting correlations of 1.00. They are in the 0.96 to 0.98 range, though, so you will be right most of the time, and over time you will have a positive expectation, which is what gambling is all about.

Obviously if you go to a simpler system you give up some power. The thing that's amazing about KO is that, despite all this that you point out, you are giving up very, very little. It gets the money.

Basically, you are right, but you are worrying about pennies here. I use hi-lo, but that's because it's what I learned first, so I find it simpler. I never had a problem with TC conversions. There is nothing wrong with KO though.

I thought I give KO vs hi-lo another try. But this time I am looking for more quantitative analysis.

I begin with a bankroll of $10k. My bankroll resets to $10k after each round. The win/loss are still tracked.
The blackjack rules is 8 decks, dealer peeks, late surrender, can double after split, split to form 4 hands max, double any two cards, soft 17,
ace pair can split only once and must stand upon receiving the second card.
The cut card is placed 75 cards from back of the shoe.
I always play alone at the table and always play only 1 box. I must play every round. There is only 1 continuous session.
The table minimum is 0 cents, the table maximum is 1 million dollars. So I can bet 0 cent, and play the round. I play properly even when betting 0 cent.
I use 18 + 4 basic strategy variations when using the hi-lo method.
I will bet full kelly every round to the maximum of 1.5% of my bankroll. (so $150)

KO vs hi-lo :
How much is my expected profit per 100 rounds played?
How much is my variance per 100 rounds played?

"Any system (including hi-lo) sometimes tells you to bet bigger when you don't have the edge, and sometimes tells you to keep your bet small when you do. This is why they do not have betting correlations of 1.00. They are in the 0.96 to 0.98 range, though, so you will be right most of the time, and over time you will have a positive expectation, which is what gambling is all about."

Haha, anyone wanna try learning Revere Advanced Point Count for that 1.00 BC? I would like to but I can already count in a casino environment with hi-lo with 24 indices. Maybe some day ( if it is worth it still doubt it even Al Francesco said in hindsight it was too complicated and would have used simpler ).