kiss or ko/ok
  • I first started to count and used Hi-Lo, then i found KO/OK easier because i did not have to find the true count. Ive been hearing a lot of good things about Kiss I/II/III. They are probably all similar with effectiveness as KO/OK correct?

    Also I plan on buying Blackjack Bluebook II, although i noticed online that barnes and noble does not carry it? Was anyone able to pick it up locally rather than online? Cause I'd like to buy it this weekend.
  • John - Kiss III has "similar effectiveness".......Border's has the book in my area. - G
  • Thanks, theres a borders not to far from me that I;ll be going to in a little bit to see if i can pick it up.

    With Kiss III as far as dificulty to learn/use it seems to be about the same as KO/OK right?
  • Forgive me for touting my own stuff, but the KISS has more definitive bet spreading recommendations and more precise index numbers for deviating from basic strategy than the KO. Also, you begin the KISS at a positive initial running count so as to avoid coping with negative running counts.
    The KISS I is an abridged "break-in" count that tracks only half of all the cards dealt. The KISS II simply adds one more high rank and low rank to its structure. The KISS III again adds yet one more high and low rank to the KISS II. Hence, you can begin where you want, and progress as far as you want.
    The book also contains further refinements that you can make to all three KISS systems which will enhance their performances an additional 0.03% to 0.05%.
    In apples-to-apples, totally unbiased computer simulations, the "out-of-the-box" performances of all four unbalanced counts against a six deck shoe were as follows (in fact, I took the trouble to calculate and use 20 individual index numbers for the KO):

    KISS I: +0.48%
    KISS II: +0.64%
    KO: +0.68%
    KISS III: +0.70%

    The balanced Hi/Lo Count yielded +0.72%.
    If you can't find B/J Bluebook II at the store, your quickest way is probably thru Amazon.com. Also, the Gambler's Book Shop and Gambler's General Store in Vegas both carry it.
  • Renzey/John:

    Renzey: I think everyone would expect you to “tout your own stuff”. Nothin’ wrong with that. :wink: I did have a couple items regarding your post, as follows:

    Also, you begin the KISS at a positive initial running count so as to avoid coping with negative running counts.

    Just a comment for everyone….You can change the initial running count of the KO (or Red7) to do the same thing if you want.

    I took the trouble to calculate and use 20 individual index numbers for the KO):

    Curiosity question: Why did you do this, and what did you use? KO has its own 18 index numbers.

    John: I think the bottom line answer to your original question is that either the KISS III or the KO will work well for you, and will have your term of “similar effectiveness”. When you start talking in ‘hundredths’ with these methods it can get a little hazy…for example: I’m sure Renzey is confident of his math and he rates Hi-Lo stronger than KO, but conversely the authors of KO rate it stronger than Hi-Lo. The point is they are very close in performance.

    In your case, you have Renzey’s book and you have Renzey here for assistance. Why not go with the Kiss III??
  • I am going to learn Kiss III, I couldnt find his book locally so i had to order it from Amazon, should be here wed. Im so impatient, i hate waiting for things to come haha
  • GRIFTER: Why calculate new indices for KO? The KO uses a handful of "generalized" index numbers, each which triggers a "group" of hands. I calculated individual index numbers for each of the 20 B/S departures and ran the KO simulation using those -- which probably helped it out a tad. Also, my Hi/Lo simulation employed 61 index numbers, since balanced systems better lend themselves to deviating from B/S at extreme counts, particularly negative ones.
    But your right; using KISS III, KO, Hi/Lo or Red 7, you'll never realize a difference in yield that you'll be able to consciously notice. I just think the KISS accessories have been more definitively structured and more smoothly streamlined than the other unbalanced systems.
  • RENZEY - Thanks, I was just curious and that explains it. I agree that your "accessories" are more streamlined and give the Kiss more depth. If I remember right, when Arnold first came out with the Red7, it had four or five deviations from BS.
  • GRIFTER; Arnold Snyder has to be given his just recognition for coming up with the concept of unbalancing a card count by a half rank to get the running count to run close to the true count (with is Red 7; circa 1982). It was an idea ahead of its time, not fully appreciated until later when computer simulation programs substantiated its solid performance. Only then, did people like me jump in there and fully structure their operating accessories for optimal unbalanced performance.
  • Renzey - You are preaching to the choir. I was already using the Red7 in 1982. :wink: . My point was that it had five index numbers compared to your twenty.
  • Grifter said:
    Also, you begin the KISS at a positive initial running count so as to avoid coping with negative running counts.
    Just a comment for everyone….You can change the initial running count of the KO (or Red7) to do the same thing if you want.


    Does anyone know the initial running count of KO for double deck, six decks, and eight decks respectively?

    Thanx in advance :wink:
  • # of Decks, IRC, Key Count, Pivot
    1, 0, +2, +4
    2, -4, +1, +4
    4, -12, -1, +4
    6, -20, -4, +4
    8, -28, -6, +4

    More than you wanted to know!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!