reKO Correct play?
February 3rd, 2019 at 11:00:42 AM
permalink
Hi all,
I've been reading Norman Wattenberger's book Modern Blackjack and learning reKO (ridiculously easy Knock Out) card counting. I'm a new member so I can't post links, but you can access the book for free at his website qfit . com / book / index . htm. Anyway, I'm interested in the reKO strategy for 6 deck games. He publishes a bunch of strategy charts at the link above.
My question is... according to his 6D S17 reKO chart, you should stand if you have soft 19 (A,8) vs dealer's 5 or 6 unless the count is +2, in which case you should do something else (as indicated by the ~ symbol.) The book does not explain if he wants you to hit or double. Either way, I don't understand taking an additional card on S19 with a +2 count... If the count is +2 ostensibly there are fewer small cards left in the shoe than 10/A. If I hit on S19 I'm more likely to get hard 19 or 20, but by the same logic, the dealer is likely to end up having to hit on a 15 or 16 and bust, no? Shouldn't I just stick with the soft 19 instead of risking a card that will drop me below 19?
Similarly you're supposed to stand if the count is +2 and you have a hard 10 vs dealer 10 or A and a hard 11 vs dealer A. I'm squirming in my seat. Can this possibly be correct?!
I've been reading Norman Wattenberger's book Modern Blackjack and learning reKO (ridiculously easy Knock Out) card counting. I'm a new member so I can't post links, but you can access the book for free at his website qfit . com / book / index . htm. Anyway, I'm interested in the reKO strategy for 6 deck games. He publishes a bunch of strategy charts at the link above.
My question is... according to his 6D S17 reKO chart, you should stand if you have soft 19 (A,8) vs dealer's 5 or 6 unless the count is +2, in which case you should do something else (as indicated by the ~ symbol.) The book does not explain if he wants you to hit or double. Either way, I don't understand taking an additional card on S19 with a +2 count... If the count is +2 ostensibly there are fewer small cards left in the shoe than 10/A. If I hit on S19 I'm more likely to get hard 19 or 20, but by the same logic, the dealer is likely to end up having to hit on a 15 or 16 and bust, no? Shouldn't I just stick with the soft 19 instead of risking a card that will drop me below 19?
Similarly you're supposed to stand if the count is +2 and you have a hard 10 vs dealer 10 or A and a hard 11 vs dealer A. I'm squirming in my seat. Can this possibly be correct?!
February 3rd, 2019 at 11:17:50 AM
permalink
If your logic says the dealer is more likely tohave to hit a 15/16 and bust, don't you want to have as much money on the table as possible? Doubling a S19 doesn't mean you will improve on your hand, it's about getting as much money in play on a hand where the dealer is likely to lose.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
February 3rd, 2019 at 11:22:02 AM
permalink
The chart/book don't specify if you're supposed to hit or double; S~ simply indicates you do something other than stand if the count is +2. Your interpretation seems to make sense if you take the S~ as double for the purpose of getting more money on the table.
February 3rd, 2019 at 11:40:56 AM
permalink
What would you gain by hitting instead of doubling? No card you draw would make you take a fourth card. Your choice is stand or double.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
