Knockout (KO) is a card counting system used in blackjack. Learn how to use the knockout system to gain an edge in blackjack.

Enjoy!

It's the easiest card counting system in use for multiple reasons. A full account of how the system works can be found in the blackjack bookKnockout Blackjack byÂ ...

Enjoy!

i am newbie and i want to ask something about the KO system. after counting a whole deck, if i start with IRC 0 at the end it will be 4. i found in...

Enjoy!

There are many techniques invented to count the cards of the game. The Knockout or KO card counting technique is one of them. These is different than otherÂ ...

Enjoy!

A comparison of the Red 7, Hi Lo and KO blackjack card counting systems with information on how to evaluate card counting systems.

Enjoy!

Software - MORE

In addition, this book has a chapter that compares the KO system to other card counting systems and a closing chapter called "EnhancingÂ ...

Enjoy!

If you are new to card-counting, I recommend you start by reading and.

For more information on card counting and blackjack basic strategy, and instructions for the Red 7 card counting system, see the end of this article.

This article will provide simulation data on the Red Seven Count for comparison to the Hi-Lo and KO counts.

It will also discuss important issues in the comparison of different blackjack card counting systems.

In order to accomplish this in the sim, unrealistic bets are forced.

I can already see a barrage of letters from players asking me to explain why anyone would want an analysis based on such an impractical, nay impossible, betting methodology.

Briefly, the purpose of this type of analysis is not to tell us our win rate to the exact penny per hour, nor is it to suggest that we should attempt to mimic the impractical betting strategies in the real world so that we may obtain optimal results.

Let me provide one practical example.

It is not difficult for me to set up a computer simulation where the Hi-Lo Count will outperform the Check this out Omega II a much stronger and more difficult counteven when both counts are being played accurately and employing the same betting spread.

All I have to do is play around with the betting strategies so that Omega II is waiting too long to put its big bets on the table.

If I simply raise the true count by one or two numbers where these bigger bets are placed, then Hi-Lo will appear to be a stronger system.

But in fact, the Hi-Lo is simply being played more aggressively and with a higher risk of ruin.

I first learned about this aggression factor back in the early 1980s, when I was working with Dr.

In order to compare different count systems using the same betting spread in the same game, I asked Gwynn to produce data showing the full range of possible betting schemes for each system based on the various true counts.

For example, with the Hi-Lo Count, spreading from 1-2-4 units in a single-deck game, he would produce data showing the bet raises to 2 and then 4 units at +1 and +2, then +1 and +3, then +2 and +3, then +2 and +4, etc.

The data Gwynn and I came up with showed nothing about risk of ruin, but it did show that a player who wanted to optimize his percent advantage over the house could learn more here so by raising his bets at precisely the right counts.

A player who wanted to optimize his dollar return, on the other hand, could do so by betting more aggressively placing high bets earliereven though this tactic would lower his percentage return.

I did this because it was more realistic.

A player with an unlimited bankroll, in fact, will show the highest dollar return if he places his high bet as soon as he has even the slightest fraction of a percent advantage over the house.

Players with unlimited bankrolls, however, do not exist.

Such hypothetical players have no risk of ruin because they can always dig out more money.

In the real world, it is more meaningful to optimize the percent advantage than the maximum potential dollar win.

A system with a lower betting correlation and playing efficiency would appear to outperform a technically superior system.

In almost all cases, as soon as I would look at the results of the optimal betting scheme for that system, defining optimal as the scheme that would produce the greatest percent advantage, the greater profit potential of a technically superior system would exhibit itself.

Optimizing system performance finale blackjack tournament obtain the highest percent advantage for each system does not ensure that all systems being so compared click the following article playing with the same level of risk.

Misleading Simulation Data for the KO Count One of the worst examples of misleading simulation data from ill-chosen betting schemes can be found in Knock-Out Blackjack by Olaf Vancura and Ken Fuchs.

They designed a unique method of attempting to simulate equivalent levels of risk in their system comparisons that produced data that computer programmers used to refer to as GIGOâgarbage in, garbage out.

The system comparison charts in Chapter Five of the 1996 edition and again in the Appendix of the 1998 edition would lead one to believe that the KO Count was superior to or equal to just about every other counting system on the planet, and especially powerful in one-deck games.

For example, the chart below reproduces the simulation data provided by Knock-Out Blackjack comparing the win rates for KO vs.

Red 7, Hi-Lo, and Omega II, assuming 1-5 spreads in the one and two-deck games, 1-8 in the 6-deck games, and 1-10 in the 8-deck games, with all systems using the 16 most important strategy knockout count blackjack />The Simulation Data Provided by Knock-Out Blackjack 1-deck 2-deck 6-deck 8-deck KO 1.

KO beating Omega II in a single-deck game?

And beating Hi-Lo in all games?

I knew that Red Seven performed close to Hi-Lo in shoe games, and did occasionally outperform it, but never in single deck.

In fact, it also slightly under-performed Red Seven throughout all the tests I ran.

I called Anthony Curtis, who was distributing the KO book through Huntington Press now publisher of the second knockout count blackjack and told Curtis that I thought the authors may have jerry-rigged the sims to make KO appear stronger than tournament river blackjack twin actually was.

I told him that in the one-deck sims I was running, Red Seven outperformed KO, not by much, but slightly.

Curtis assured me that he felt the authors were honest and that their simulation data was real, with no intention to skew the system comparison data.

At this point, I had never met Olaf Vancura or Ken Fuchs, so I did not know if these guys were legitimate experts or big phonies.

read article have met and corresponded with both of them since, and I now know that, in fact, they are both gentlemen and scholars with no intent to deceive.

So, the authors, very logically, set up their sims so that KO was placing its high bets precisely at this point.

The KO counting system is actually very easy to use and very strong.

It is similar in strength to the Red Seven, which itself is close to the Hi-Lo in strength within certain confines.

For most casual players, however, I still believe the unbalanced counting systems are the best choice because they're simpler, can be played longer without costly errors, and allow the player to focus more on heat, getting away with a big bet spread, and other factors that matter more to your win rate than the count system you use.

The system is good.

The explanations of blackjack and card counting are clear.

Also, many serious players are already aware of why the KO system looks so strong in the sims Vancura and Fuchs provide in their book.

There has been a lot of sim data posted on the various Internet blackjack sites that refute the findings in the KO book.

The single-deck penetration was 65% and all other games were 75%.

Note that in the single and double deck games, Auston did not blackjack real steel sim data for a 1-5 spread, so I used his data for 1-4 in single deck, and 1-6 in double.

Hi-Lo, KO and Red Seven go back and forth in their exhibitions of strength relative to each other.

Hi-Lo is slightly superior in single deck, while Red Seven and KO are about the same.

Red Seven is slightly weaker in the double deck, where Hi-Lo and KO are about the same.

Red Seven is stronger in both the six deck and eight deck, where Hi-Lo and KO are slightly weaker.

If you actually look at all of the data in the WGBJS reports, you find that all three of these counts continually go back and forth, depending on the number of decks, penetration, and betting spreads.

But none of them are a match for Advanced Omega II.

I would also point out that even these independently run simsâdone with no attempt to bias the data towards any systemâare inadvertently set up with conditions that are more favorable to the unbalanced counts, at least in comparison with the Hi-Lo.

This is because John Auston used the "Illustrious 18" shoe strategy indices for all systems other than Advanced Omega II.

These indicesâwhich are the ideal indices for shoe gamesâare not the best 18 indices for one and two deck games.

Since all but two of these indices call for Hi-Lo strategy changes at neutral to slightly positive counts 0 to +5this is precisely the range of counts where both KO and Red Seven will perform best.

A Hi-Lo player who is using more indices for the common playing variations that occur both at negative counts and at higher positive counts would actually expect a performance level closer to the Advanced Omega II system which Auston simmed with a full set of indices in the one and two deck games.

Red Seven and KO simply do not have a playing accuracy level comparable to Hi-Lo outside the limited Illustrious 18 range.

Because it is strongest at this point, this is where it will be placing most high bets.

In these shoe games with only 75% penetration, higher advantages only rarely occur.

So, Red Seven is optimized to play in precisely these types of games.

I can assure you, however, that it is playing with more risk than Hi-Lo, so in reality it would require a larger bankroll check this out play Red Seven to its optimum performance in these games.

If we were to force average bets of 1.

In shoe games, for example, I provide index numbers for the Advanced Red Seven that are to be used only in the second half of the shoe.

In other words, the Advanced Red Seven player would be making strategy plays by running count, but some of these plays would not be made until after the 50% level of penetration was reached, while bet sizing is done by true count.

The performance of Red Seven in these simulations will be hurt by not employing these techniques.

Also, the SBA software used for these simulations was incapable of counting sevens by color.

So, both the betting and playing strategies used in these risk-adjusted analyses are different from those you will find in the 1998 and 2005 edition of Blackbelt in Blackjack, which I believe knockout count blackjack be superior.

More Problems With Comparing Card Counting Systems Finally, the risk-adjusted method of analysis will give an knockout count blackjack system an ability to bet far more accurately in all games than would be possible in the real world.

This would also be true of an Advanced Red Seven player who is using the true edge method of bet sizing.

For a KO player or a simple Red Seven player who is purely going by the running count, an accurate bet can only be made at the pivot.

If a Red Seven or KO running count is +6 above the pivot, the actual player advantage will be quite different in a six deck game if only two decks have been dealt than if 4.

This is why most professional blackjack players steer clear of the unbalanced countsâand why I added the true edge methodology to the 1998 Advanced Red Seven.

So, as you look at this risk-adjusted comparison data, bear in mind all of these factors.

The validity of the data extends as far as the assumptions used in the sims for playing and betting.

Ultimately, Red Seven and KO perform very well compared to Hi-Lo, and I still believe these simplified unbalanced systems should be used by most players for practical reasons, in particular the cost of errors associated with inaccurate true count adjustments.

Again, I want to emphasize that Hi-Lo is being severely penalized in the hand-held games in the charts below by using the Illustrious 18.

Most single deck players I know use many more indices than this in single deck, especially some negative indices that are more important than some of the Illustrious 18 in these games, and unbalanced counts are incapable of using more indices with accuracy.

Risk-Adjusted, One Deck, H17, DAS, 75% Dealt Spread Hi-Lo KO Red Seven 1-2 72.

Note that with 4.

With five decks dealt, Hi-Lo and Red Seven pretty much equalize, both slightly outperforming KO.

But look what happens when we go to 5.

Red Seven is now the weakest performer, as KO is capitalizing on its strength when many more opportunities arise for playing and betting with a 2% advantage.

The Red Seven that is, the simple running count version tested here simply performs better in shoes at most common levels of penetration, whereas KO performs better in the rare games with an extremely deep level.

Also, in some games under specific conditions, KO does outperform Hi-Lo in a risk-adjusted sim.

For example, look at this six deck game with a less favorable set of rules: Risk-Adjusted, Six Deck, H17, DAS, 75% Dealt Spread Hi-Lo KO Red Seven 1-8 6.

Again, the explanation for these types of seemingly aberrant results is that at some levels of penetration, and with certain rule sets, the sevens which Hi-Lo ignores are important enough on some of the Illustrious 18 strategy decisions as to give these unbalanced counts, which count sevens, a slight edge.

Unless we are adjusting an unbalanced count to a true count, we cannot cite its betting correlation BC or playing efficiency PE.

For example, the Red Seven has a betting correlation of about 97% at the pivot, just slightly greater than the Hi-Lo.

But the Hi-Lo has better than 96% betting correlation throughout the full range of counts that occur.

It is simply incorrect to attempt to compare a balanced system with an unbalanced system based on BC and PE if you are using the unbalanced system as a running count system.

Here again, we see that KO outperforms Red Seven at the very deepest level of penetration.

Risk-Adjusted, 8-Deck, Back Count S17, DAS, LS, 75% Dealt Spread Hi-Lo KO Red Seven 1-8 30.

I think in the real world, a good Hi-Lo player would outperform the unbalanced running count players more than these sim results indicate.

In the hand-held games the Hi-Lo player would simply be able to use more strategy changes, and in the shoe games the Hi-Lo player would be betting more accurately according to his advantage throughout the full range of counts that occur.

Overall, as we would expect, the risk-adjusted comparisons do show Hi-Lo accurately used to be the stronger counting system.

Note that these indices assume that you begin your count at 0.

This would not change any of the indices.

Some comps mlife blackjack who use the Red Seven in this way have told me that the easiest way to count by halves is to simply count every other seven as +1.

I was unable to find the reference in print but the technique has been used by some Red Seven and Halves players for many years.

I do not believe my suggestion that Red Seven players might count in this way in the 1983 Blackbelt in Blackjack was the first reference to this technique in print.

Those who use it swear it is the easiest and most accurate way to count with these systems.

I suspect that I did not run a sufficient number of hands.

Computers were notably slower back then.

The simulations Auston used in his WGBG repots, his risk-adjusted analyses, and his truly amazing Blackjack Risk Manager software, are all based on sims of 400 million hands each, quite enough to obtain statistically significant data for practical comparisons.

Below, you will find all of the Red Seven risk-adjusted data that John Auston produced for this study.

Some Red Seven players may regret that he did not run risk adjusted sims on the full range of rule sets that he did for Hi-Lo and KO.

John chose five different rule sets for his Red Seven single-deck analyses, and four different rule sets for each of the two deck, six deck and eight deck analyses.

I hope this article will help you better understand read article of the issues involved in click to see more system simulations and comparisons.

Blackbelt also contains introductions to shuffle tracking, hole-card play, team knockout count blackjack, and other advanced professional gambling techniques.

For complete information on the KO card counting system, see by Olaf Vancura and Ken Fuchs.

Return to the Return to Â© 2004-2005 Blackjack Forum Online, All Rights Reserved.

Software - MORE

There are many techniques invented to count the cards of the game. The Knockout or KO card counting technique is one of them. These is different than otherÂ ...

Enjoy!

Let us knockout count blackjack with balanced and unbalanced card counts.

The are either balanced or unbalanced.

Balanced suggests that counting through a whole deck of cards should bring you to a count of zero like at the beginning of the game.

An unbalanced count brings you to a number different than zero.

Beginner counting systems like the Hi-Lo system are balanced.

The most famous unbalanced system is the KO blackjack system also known as KO.

Unbalanced systems, in general, must not be tried by beginners.

This is often because it will be harder for you to detect your errors when you count through a deck of cards.

However, the knock out system is a simple count to use despite the fact that it is unbalanced.

The disadvantage is that it is slightly less accurate than the Hi-Lo count.

The knock out system is not a counting technique for boxing knockdowns.

It is a blackjack counting system.

The KO blackjack system is just like the initial Hi-Lo count except that the seven card is given a value of +1 similar to the low cards.

Since there are four cards of this denomination during a single deck, the final count once one deck is +4.

The KO knockout count blackjack system sacrifices accuracy for convenience.

It is smart for the casual player who prefers to use a friendly system.

However, it is not a correct count out knockout count blackjack />It go here, however, still helpful.

If you are solely playing blackjack for fun, this can be a decent system to try.

Knock out blackjack is one of my favorite card counting systems.

The reason why I prefer this system so much is that it is easy to use and it eliminates the necessity click here changing the running count into a true count.

The knock out blackjack works in a very similar way to most of the other card counting methods.

Card counting does not require you to remember the order or any specific cards that came out of the deck.

Instead, it uses a particular system to calculate the proportion of high cards to low cards left in the shoe.

When a pack contains a proportionately greater number of 10s and aces in it, it is a lot more profitable for the player.

The reason should be apparent, however, if it is not, think about it.

One hand in blackjack leads to a higher payout than any other hand.

One amongst those is the ace, and the alternative is cards with a value of ten.

If you removed each of the aces from the deck, your probability of getting dealt a natural would become zero, right?

Thus obviously, if the deck has fewer low-value cards and more high-value cards, you are a lot more likely to get dealt a 21.

Moreover, when you get dealt a natural, you get paid off at three to two.

Therefore if you decide to increase the size of your bets once you are likely to get a three to two payout, it stands to reason that you would have an improved probability ofright?

We will explore the ko counting system futher in this guide as well as explain how to use it properly and what are the advantages.

We hope that you find what you were initially looking for and that we would help you become a card counting expert.

The Specifics of Knock out Blackjack The knockout blackjack count technique also referred to as the KO method, of card counting is so popular because ofwritten by Ken Fuchs and Olaf Vancura.

Just like the Hi-Lo counting System, the KO blackjack count strategy assigns point values to every card in the deck and as the cards are being dealt out a player keeps track of the oop python blackjack by adding or subtracting the suitable value.

If you are accustomed to alternative ko card counting system in which all cards in a deck might be added together to equal zero, then you will need to get used to the knock out the system, because it is unbalanced because there are more +1 cards in a deck than -1 cards.

This method is additionally based on a +2 count which suggests that once your count gets to +2 you must begin considering raising your bet and as the count gets higher and over +2 you must raise your bet even more.

The KO blackjack strategy is a good one for beginner card counters because it is easy to learn without an assured, mit blackjack team technique for amount of practicing and might give you the edge over the house once you start playing casino blackjack.

In the knockout blackjack system, each card with a worth between 2 and seven is counted +1.

There are twenty-four of the previous and twenty of the latter, therefore if you counted through a complete deck using this method, you would have a total of +4 once you finish.

This is why this system is known as unbalanced.

You should increase your bet when the count is positive and decrease it when it is negative.

In other words, the higher the count is, the bigger your bet should be.

It is almost that easy.

You most certainly have to take into consideration the number of decks that are in use.

In most ko card counting methods, a player must convert the running count into a true one to adjust for the additional decks which are currently knockout count blackjack play.

For instance, if you are playing a single deck game, and every one of the Aces is dealt, then you currently have a 0.

However in an eight deck game, once four aces are dealt, you will still have twenty-eight Aces left within the deck.

The result of every individual card is diluted by the massive number of decks within the shoe.

Converting the running count to a true one, however, requires skills in the division and estimating.

The formula is easy enoughâyou just divide the count by the number of decks you expect are left within the shoe.

In the knockout blackjack system, you will be able to skip the division.

This is one of the reasons that the system is not balanced.

The other quirk regarding the knockout blackjack system is that you do not always begin your count at zero, as you would in different methods.

Your beginning count in the knockout blackjack system is decided by the amount of decks left in the shoe.

If you are playing in a game with a single deck, your initial count is zero, however, if you are playing against two decks, you begin your count at -4.

With six decks, you start your count at -20, and with eight decks, you begin your count at -28.

Raising and Lowing Bets in Knock out Blackjack You will have to decide on a bankroll and a betting spread before you start playing.

A typical betting range is one to five units.

As long as you are using the basic strategy, you will solely be playing at a disadvantage of about 1% during those hands.

On hands in which the count is positive, you will raise your bet according to how high is the current count.

On these hands, the maximum disadvantage could be between 1% and 4%.

Therefore, you will make up for the negative expectation.

However, it does increase your potential winnings.

Strategy Decisions in Knock out Blackjack You should regulate your strategy for playing every hand according to the count, and by doing this, you might increase your edge slightly.

However, it is not necessary to form method adjustments to be profitable as a card counter.

The edge you get comes from knowing when is the appropriate time to lower or increase your bet which is between 70% â 90% of counting cards.

The Knock out blackjack system was created to be both easy to use and efficient at the same time.

However, if you think about it most systems that are easy, sacrifices a certain amount of accuracy.

So the Knockout blackjack system is perfect for novices and beginners.

However, experts who wish to take it to the next level can probably want to begin experimenting with some of the additionally involved systems such as the Omega II or the Hi-Opt I count.

How to Use the Knock out Blackjack System Some Blackjack ko card counting systems need users to maintain three completely different counts as well as a sometimes sophisticated conversion to find out if the remaining cards hold any advantage for the player.

The knock out Blackjack System only needs one count; the running count.

For example, the 8 and nine cards are zero points, everything between 2 and 7 is +1 and the ten value cards, and Ace is -1.

Keeping a running count using the knock out Blackjack System is the sole thing you have to try doing.

The running count can tell you if the unused cards left within the shoe will bring an advantage to the player.

The basic idea behind ko card counting is that low cards are bad for the players and high cards are good for them.

This is not just a theory since it has been mathematically proven many times over the past fifty years.

The first purpose stakes online high casino blackjack the knock out System is to find out when you have to increase or decrease your bet.

The count might go both ways thus if it is far enough within the negatives you must probably get out of the game and come back later.

There is one side of card counting strategies such as the Knock out System that are open to discussion.

These methods show you when it is appropriate to increase your bets.

However, they do not indicate how much you should increase the bet with.

There are no concrete formulas that everybody agrees with therefore I usually recommend that players develop their systems for deciding.

Many people debate that the number of decks that are currently being used should have an impact on how much that increase should be.

Most agree that once the running count is +1 you must double the size of your initial bet.

If you are at +2 two or three times, your initial bet is sensible.

I always recommend using caution when you decide to increase your bet.

The knock out System is very easy and straightforward.

However, mistakes are often made particularly once you first begin using it at a casino.

You should always keep in mind the size of your bankroll once making larger bets is usually a decent plan.

Conclusion Keeping knockout count blackjack running count needs much practice, but it is quite simple.

Usually, most players make mistakes when they calculate the true count, which has a significant impact on their success in blackjack.

Even when they do it successfully, many blackjack casino video find the counting and the true count in systems such as the Hi-Lo quite boring and some of them even believe that it takes all the fun and excitement out of the game.

This is why most players prefer the method this article is dedicated to.

As we discussed earlier, most players enjoy this system so much because it is quite easy and fun rather than the more complicated techniques.

The knock out strategy features only one distinction from the very popular Hi-Lo method.

In this strategy, seven is no longer a neutral card and is now a low one.

This means that every single time you see a seven card you should add one to the count.

That is it; the other cards keep the same status.

Moreover, if you count the entire deck, in the end, you will have a +4 instead of a zero, which makes the knock out system unbalanced.

As we stated earlier, there is no need to calculate the true count if you use the knock out technique.

Rather than that, a particular value is being chosen, on which the player starts to increase his bet.

Usually, the value is two times the number of decks that are currently being used.

For example, if the dealer uses six decks, the starting value would be twelve.

It will pay out if the dealer gets a blackjack.

Most of you have probably read or heard somewhere that you should never get this bet as almost all basic strategies state so.

However, the knock out method indicates that you always have to take that so called insurance if the count is three or above times the number of the decks in play.

For example, if there are six decks in the game, the running count should be eighteen or over.

We hope that we have taught you everything you need to know about the ko counting system and that you will use what you have learned here to increase your winnings in blackjack.

As the name of the site suggests, Blackjackcardcounting.

Card players can use the information to optimize their game and find links to just click for source casinos sites, where to gamble for real money prizes.

The site doesn't guarantee you any winnings by the tips and advises that it provides.

Software - MORE

The Knockout Count method, also known as the K-O method, of card counting was made popular by the book Knock-Out Blackjack--The Easiest Card CountingÂ ...

Enjoy!

If you are new to card-counting, I recommend you start by reading and.

For more information on card counting and blackjack basic strategy, and instructions for the Red 7 card counting system, see the end of this article.

This article will provide simulation data on the Red Seven Count for comparison to the Hi-Lo and KO counts.

It will also discuss important issues in the comparison of different blackjack card counting systems.

In order to accomplish this in the sim, unrealistic bets are forced.

I can already see a blackjack rules 888 of letters from players asking me to explain why anyone would want an analysis based on such an impractical, nay impossible, betting methodology.

Briefly, the purpose of this type of analysis is not to tell us our win rate to the exact penny per hour, nor is it to suggest that we should attempt to mimic the impractical betting strategies in the real world so that we may obtain optimal results.

Let me provide one practical example.

It is not difficult for me to set up a computer simulation where the Hi-Lo Count will outperform the Advanced Omega II a much stronger and more difficult counteven when both counts are being played accurately and employing the same betting spread.

All I have to do is play around with the betting strategies so that Omega II is waiting too long to put its big bets on the table.

If I simply raise the true count by one or two numbers where these bigger bets are placed, then Hi-Lo will appear to be a stronger system.

But in fact, the Hi-Lo is simply being played more aggressively and with a higher risk of ruin.

I first learned about this aggression factor back in the early 1980s, when I was working with Dr.

In order to compare different count systems using the same betting spread in the same game, I asked Gwynn to produce data showing the full range of possible betting schemes for each system based on the various true counts.

For example, with the Hi-Lo Count, spreading from 1-2-4 units in a single-deck game, he would produce data showing the bet raises to 2 and then 4 units at blackjack font and +2, then +1 and +3, knockout count blackjack +2 and +3, then +2 and +4, etc.

The data Gwynn and I came up with showed nothing about risk of ruin, but it did show that a player who wanted to optimize his percent advantage over the house could do so by raising his bets at precisely the right counts.

A player who wanted to optimize his dollar return, on the other hand, could do so by betting more aggressively placing high bets earliereven though this tactic would lower final, blackjack (anime) ep 1 something percentage return.

I did this because it was more click to see more />A player with an unlimited bankroll, in fact, will show the highest dollar return if he places his high bet as soon as he has even the slightest fraction of a percent advantage over the house.

Players with unlimited bankrolls, however, do not exist.

Such hypothetical players have no risk of ruin because they can always dig out more money.

In the real world, it is more meaningful to optimize the percent advantage than the maximum potential dollar win.

A system with a lower betting correlation and playing efficiency would appear to outperform a technically superior system.

In almost all cases, as soon as I would look at the results of the optimal betting scheme for that system, defining optimal as the scheme that would produce the greatest percent advantage, the greater profit potential of a technically superior system would exhibit itself.

Optimizing system performance to obtain the highest percent advantage for each system does not ensure that all systems being so compared are playing with the same level of risk.

Misleading Simulation Data for the KO Count One of the worst examples of misleading simulation data from ill-chosen betting schemes can be found in Knock-Out Blackjack by Olaf Vancura and Ken Fuchs.

They designed a unique method of attempting to simulate equivalent levels of risk in their system comparisons that produced data that computer programmers used to refer to as GIGOâgarbage in, garbage out.

The system comparison charts in Chapter Five of the 1996 edition and again in the Appendix of the 1998 edition would lead one to believe that the KO Count was superior to or equal to just about every other counting system on the planet, and especially powerful in one-deck games.

For example, the chart below reproduces the simulation data provided by Knock-Out Blackjack comparing the win rates link KO vs.

Red 7, Hi-Lo, and Omega II, assuming 1-5 spreads in the one and two-deck games, 1-8 in the 6-deck games, and 1-10 in the 8-deck games, with all systems using the 16 most important strategy indices.

The Simulation Data Provided by Knock-Out Blackjack 1-deck 2-deck 6-deck 8-deck KO 1.

KO beating Omega II in a single-deck game?

And beating Hi-Lo in all games?

I knew that Red Seven performed close to Hi-Lo in shoe games, and did occasionally outperform it, but never in single deck.

In fact, it also slightly under-performed Red Seven throughout all the tests I ran.

I called Anthony Curtis, who was distributing the KO book through Huntington Press now publisher of the second edition and told Curtis that I thought the authors may have jerry-rigged the sims to make KO appear stronger than it actually was.

I told him that in the one-deck sims I was running, Red Seven outperformed KO, not by much, but slightly.

Curtis assured me you mackie onyx blackjack interface the he felt the authors were honest and that their simulation data was real, with no intention to skew the system comparison data.

At this point, I had never met Olaf Vancura or Ken Fuchs, so I did not know if these guys were legitimate experts or big phonies.

I have met and corresponded with both of them since, and I now know that, in fact, they are both gentlemen and scholars with no intent to deceive.

So, the authors, very logically, set up their sims so that KO was placing its high bets precisely at this point.

The KO counting system is actually very easy to use and very strong.

It is similar in strength to the Red Seven, which itself is close to the Hi-Lo in strength within certain confines.

For most casual players, however, I still believe the unbalanced counting systems are the best choice because they're simpler, can be played longer without costly errors, and allow the player to focus more https://yournaughtystory.com/blackjack/european-blackjack.html heat, getting away with a big bet spread, and other factors that matter more to your win rate than the count system you use.

The system is good.

The explanations of blackjack and card counting are clear.

Also, many serious players are already aware of why the KO system looks so strong in the sims Vancura and Fuchs provide in their book.

There has been a lot of sim data posted on the various Internet blackjack sites that refute the findings in the KO book.

The single-deck penetration was 65% and all other games were 75%.

Note that in the single and double deck games, Auston did not provide sim data for a 1-5 spread, so I used his data for 1-4 in single deck, and 1-6 in double.

Hi-Lo, KO and Red Seven go back and forth in their exhibitions of strength relative to each other.

Hi-Lo is slightly superior in single deck, while Red Seven and KO are about the same.

Red Seven is slightly weaker in the double deck, where Hi-Lo and KO are about the same.

Red Seven is stronger in both the six deck and eight deck, where Hi-Lo and KO are slightly weaker.

If you actually look at all of the data in the WGBJS reports, you find that all three of these counts continually go back and forth, depending on the number of decks, penetration, and betting spreads.

But none of them are a match for Advanced Omega II.

I would also point out that even these independently run simsâdone with no attempt to bias the data towards any systemâare inadvertently set up with conditions that are more favorable to the unbalanced counts, at least in comparison with the Hi-Lo.

This is because John Auston used the "Illustrious 18" shoe strategy indices for all systems other than Advanced Omega II.

These indicesâwhich are the ideal indices for shoe gamesâare not the best 18 indices for one and two deck games.

Since all but two of these indices call for Hi-Lo strategy changes at neutral to slightly positive counts 0 to +5this is precisely the range of counts where both KO knockout count blackjack Red Seven will perform best.

A Hi-Lo player who is using more indices for the common playing variations that occur both at negative counts and at higher positive counts would actually expect a performance level closer to the Advanced Omega II system which Auston simmed with a full set of indices in the one and two deck games.

Red Seven and KO simply do not have a playing accuracy level comparable to Hi-Lo outside the limited Illustrious 18 range.

Because it is strongest at this article source, this is where it will be placing most high bets.

In these shoe games with only 75% penetration, higher advantages only rarely occur.

So, Red Seven count cards blackjack trainer optimized to play in precisely these types of games.

I can assure you, however, that it is playing with more risk than Hi-Lo, so in reality it would require a larger bankroll to play Red Seven to its optimum performance in these games.

If we were to force average bets of 1.

In shoe games, for example, I provide index numbers for the Advanced Red Seven that are to be used only in the second half of the shoe.

In other words, the Advanced Red Seven player would be making strategy plays by running count, but some of these plays would not be made until after the 50% level of penetration was reached, while bet sizing is done by true count.

The knockout count blackjack of Red Seven in these simulations will be hurt by not employing these techniques.

Also, the SBA software used for these simulations was incapable of counting sevens by color.

So, both the betting and playing strategies used in these risk-adjusted analyses are different from those you will find in the 1998 and 2005 edition of Blackbelt in Blackjack, which I believe to be superior.

More Problems With Comparing Card Counting Systems Finally, the risk-adjusted method of analysis will give an unbalanced system an ability to bet far more accurately in all games than would be possible in the real world.

This would also be true of an Advanced Red Seven player who is using the true edge method of bet sizing.

For a KO player or a simple Red Seven player who is purely going by the running count, an accurate bet can only be made at the pivot.

If a Red Seven or Knockout count blackjack running count is +6 above the pivot, the actual player advantage will be quite different in a six deck game if only two decks have been dealt than if 4.

This is why most professional blackjack players steer clear of the unbalanced countsâand why I added the true edge methodology to the 1998 Advanced Red Seven.

So, as see more look at this risk-adjusted comparison data, bear in mind all of these factors.

The validity of the data extends as far as the assumptions used in the sims for playing and betting.

Ultimately, Red Seven and KO perform very well compared to Hi-Lo, and I still believe these simplified unbalanced systems should be used by most players for practical reasons, in particular the cost of errors associated with inaccurate true count adjustments.

Again, I want to emphasize that Hi-Lo is being severely penalized in the hand-held games in the charts below by using the Illustrious 18.

Most single deck players I know use many more indices than this in single deck, especially some negative indices that are more important than some of the Illustrious 18 in these games, and unbalanced counts are incapable of knockout count blackjack more indices with accuracy.

Risk-Adjusted, One Deck, H17, DAS, 75% Dealt Spread Hi-Lo KO Red Seven 1-2 72.

Note that with 4.

With five decks dealt, Hi-Lo and Red Seven pretty much equalize, both slightly outperforming KO.

But look what happens when we go to 5.

Red Seven is now the weakest performer, as KO is capitalizing on its strength when many more opportunities arise for playing and betting with a 2% advantage.

The Red Seven that is, the simple running count version tested here simply performs better in shoes at most common levels of penetration, whereas KO performs better in the rare games with an extremely deep level.

Also, in some games under specific conditions, KO does outperform Hi-Lo in a risk-adjusted sim.

For example, look at this six deck game with a less favorable set of rules: Risk-Adjusted, Six Deck, H17, DAS, 75% Dealt Spread Hi-Lo KO Red Seven 1-8 6.

Again, the explanation for these types of seemingly aberrant results is that at some levels of penetration, and with certain rule sets, the sevens which Hi-Lo ignores are important enough on some of the Illustrious source strategy decisions as to give these unbalanced counts, which count sevens, a slight edge.

Unless we are adjusting an unbalanced count to a true count, we cannot cite its betting correlation BC or playing efficiency PE.

For example, the Red Seven has a betting correlation of about 97% at the pivot, just slightly greater than the Hi-Lo.

But the Hi-Lo has better than 96% betting correlation throughout the full range of counts that occur.

It is simply incorrect to attempt to compare a balanced system with an unbalanced system based on BC and PE if you are using the unbalanced system as a running count system.

Here again, we see that KO outperforms Red Seven at the very deepest level of penetration.

Risk-Adjusted, 8-Deck, Back Count S17, DAS, LS, 75% Dealt Spread Hi-Lo KO Red Seven 1-8 30.

I think in the real world, a good Hi-Lo player would outperform the unbalanced running count players more than these sim results indicate.

In the hand-held games the Hi-Lo player would simply be able to use more strategy changes, and in the shoe games the Hi-Lo player would be betting more accurately according to his advantage throughout the full range of counts that occur.

Overall, as we would expect, the risk-adjusted comparisons do show Hi-Lo accurately used to be the stronger counting system.

Note that these indices assume that you begin your count at 0.

This would not change any of the indices.

Some players who use the Red Seven in this way have told me that the easiest way to count by halves is to simply count every other seven as +1.

I was unable to find the reference in print but the technique has been used by some Red Seven and Halves players for many years.

I do not believe my suggestion that Red Seven players might count in this way in the 1983 Blackbelt in Blackjack was the first reference to this technique in print.

Those who use it swear it is the easiest and most accurate way to count with these systems.

I suspect that I did not run a sufficient number of hands.

Computers were notably slower back then.

The simulations Auston used in his WGBG repots, his risk-adjusted analyses, and speluitleg blackjack truly amazing Blackjack Risk Manager software, are all based on sims of 400 million hands each, quite click to obtain statistically significant data for practical comparisons.

Below, you will find all of the Red Seven risk-adjusted data that John Auston produced for this study.

Some Red Seven players may regret that he did not run risk adjusted sims on the full range of rule sets that he did for Hi-Lo and KO.

John chose five different rule sets for his Red Seven single-deck analyses, and four different rule sets for each of the two deck, six deck and eight deck analyses.

I hope this article will help you better understand some of the issues involved in blackjack system simulations and comparisons.

Blackbelt also contains introductions to shuffle tracking, hole-card play, team play, and other advanced professional gambling techniques.

For complete information on the KO card counting system, see by Olaf Vancura and Ken Fuchs.

Return to the Return to Â© 2004-2005 Blackjack Forum Online, All Rights Reserved.

The Knock-Out card-counting system eliminates the mountain of mental arithmetic necessary to win at blackjack. The scientifically devised unbalanced K-OÂ ...

Enjoy!

Software - MORE

Most newcomers to card counting for blackjack crave an easy to learn method. The KO or Knockout System was developed to be both simple and effective.

Enjoy!