At the Blackjack Ball a single calendar year, Tommy Hyland arrived up to me
expressing he experienced a problem. The preface “I have a concern for you” is usually a
minimal unnerving, specially coming from another person you do not speak to pretty often. So
then he asked me … [wait for it …]
“Why do you advocate KO?”
I was astonished, not by the problem alone, but due to the fact it
indicated Tommy need to have read through a little something I wrote. I consider most professional
gamblers who know me never actually go through any of my stuff. But everyone’s been
examining Colin Jones’s The 21st-Century Card Counter, which
espouses the similar principle—simplicity will get the money—but attracts a somewhat various
Mies and I are Fewer-Is-Much more apologists, and CJ, who appreciates a lot more counters than I do, agrees: “All the productive card counters I know (I’m chatting six- or seven-determine earners) have produced their funds not by the complexity of their methods, but by aggressively attacking the casinos and finding in thousands of several hours of play.” I would only make a slight modification. The most profitable counters I have witnessed aggressively attack certain casinos, but totally prevent other individuals.
Some counters will go in advance and enjoy everywhere, but I really do not
believe that is optimal. There are casinos out there that will let a surprising
range of hours. They just do not know what a counter seems to be like, or they are
unwilling to consider countermeasures from the player. Profitable counters
usually participate in these unicorn casinos frequently and hard, often camping out for months.
The late Major Crimson camped out on the identical desk for years! Consider about that—spreading
from to 2x$300, with no cover, for 20-40 several hours per week, for many years. And
obtaining factors and comps on a player’s card on top of it all. (That may look like heaven to some, but I’m
not sure if I at any time saw the person smile—not once.)
CJ presses the circumstance for picking out a simple depend process: “You
can master a a lot a lot more difficult count, but when you look at 1) the
complexity, 2) the time needed to really master it, 3) the area for error
(which comes at a price), 4) the sum of psychological vitality it requires to use it, and
5) the value of rounds per hour, I dilemma no matter whether you are going to in fact make far more
money. … And my strongest argument for HiLo is that every major card-counting
crew I know of has employed it.” To me, that very last argument is basically the weakest.
Ironically, a single of the groups CJ is speaking about would be
Hyland’s workforce, but Tommy fundamentally mentioned the exact same point to me at the Ball. When Tommy
commenced out, the Knockout Rely (KO) didn’t exist, and other groups were being using
HiLo. So absolutely everyone takes advantage of HiLo due to the fact all people else takes advantage of it? It is a fiat depend
All right, HiLo is basically a superior method, but if, on paper, HiLo
is equivalent to KO, then I’m very self-confident that KO will demolish HiLo in the
wild. Why do I say that? Due to the fact substantial observation of precise APs in the
wild exhibits that their functionality is consistently under the program specs
underlying the personal computer-best EV.
People today have a skepticism with regards to functioning-depend programs,
but KO has a excellent pivot, and its indices are more precise than HiLo’s, owing to KO’s
proficiently finer stepsize when we restrict indices to be integers. A one
stage in the working-counted KO signifies roughly a .2% transform in EV, when a
stage in the correct-counted HiLo represents about .5%. If we ended up to learn fractional
HiLo indices, that KO gain would go away, but no a single would want to learn
that doubling 9 vs. 7 must transpire at HiLo +3.2 (or +2.8, or whatsoever).
But glance, no a person estimates decks remaining properly, especially
when the discard rack and shoe are opaque. And no 1 does the division speedy
sufficient, so hemming and hawing and stalling is released to the match. Then the
execution is not as easy, and time is squandered.
A different argument that I at times listen to, but luckily not
in CJ’s e-book, is that HiLo is far more compatible with shuffle monitoring. Oh be sure to.
If we’re going to talk about other outside of-counting procedures, then the scenario for a genuine-counted method like HiLo receives weaker, and KO appears to be like excellent. When I’m taking part in a complex blackjack video game, if I count at all, the counting part of issues desires to be really simple, and not gradual down decisions that might already be tough. KO is the restrict to what I’m eager to do when multi-tasking.
Every player swears that his execution is flawless, and it’s
the other dude who should really contemplate a easier program like KO, but the facts
states or else. In every single instance where we do a pop quiz or secret audit
to exam a player’s talent, the success are disappointing. (This is the scene in
the film clip the place we all stand in a group, and just one-by-a person phase forward to
announce “I am the underperforming AP.”)
In recent many years, I’ve become a little bit disappointed by the AP group, mainly because the talent stage general is so bad, and the posers are tolerated. And I believe there’s some idiocracy heading on. I feel we’re having even worse, despite all the new tools out there to find out. I think the millennials are not as critical about the sport, and probably CJ unfairly requires some of the warmth for that. But the most effective way to increase collectively is to be realistic about our capabilities in the discipline, and utilitize the basic but potent devices we now have readily available. By promoting HiLo, Colin Jones’s BJA empire is a step in the ideal path (from UstonAPC, RevereAPC, WongHalves, and other folks). For a veteran or a new player, I’d propose KO, but CJ’s undertaking good work preaching HiLo. It’s aiight.