Hi,

I'm learning the Knockout card counting system, not serious about it, just want to feel like I could play BJ without burning money.

My local game is an 8-deck shoe game which includes the European no-hole-card (NHC) rule (i.e. there is no dealer hole card, so no initial check for blackjack, and dealer takes all double and split bets if they blackjack). I have the KO book but it doesn't deal with this rule.

Since this is an 8 deck game, thankfully I don't have to deal with certain strategy adjustments, but it does recommend doubling 11 vs A, and 10 vs 10 and A, when the count gets to +3 or better (doubling 11 vs 10 is already assumed to be part of basic strategy, but it isn't vs NHC). Should I just skip all this vs NHC, or maybe move to doubling 11 vs 10 but skip the rest? Also, basic strategy vs NHC is not to split aces vs an ace. Would this be altered at a high count?

Bit of a longshot that I can get this answered here, but I thought I'd give it a go before asking on a blackjack forum.

Any NHC game I've ever played the player can only lose his original bet to a dealer's Blackjack, just like Hole Card BJ.
If you really do lose all splits and double-downs AVOID THIS GAME.
brutal...


Rainbow...

Eh.... You split and double less often depending on count. Other rules or absurd penetration could make this game v beatable.

I'm sure you could beat a 6:5 game with a big enough spread and penetration.

European No Hole Card only increases the house edge by 0.11%. Obviously it's not a favorable rule for the player, but it's not as bad as No Double After Split (0.14% increase) or Dealer Hits Soft 17 (0.22% increase). As such, if the player is able to count this game, and doesn't have alternatives with more favorable rules, I don't think he should necessarily give up because of this one rule.

Under basic strategy under the European no hole card rule, you should never double against 10 or A, and you should only split with AA against a 10. As such, situations where this rule costs extra bets against a dealer blackjack are exceedingly rare. The primary reason the house edge rises is the lost EV in situations where, under ordinary rules, you would split or double. However, since the primary value of being able to split or double comes when the dealer has a weak up-card, this impact is not that large.

See Wizard of Odds on house edge impact of blackjack rule changes, and European Blackjack strategy chart.

As to OP's question, sorry, I don't know, but the Wizard might be a good person to ask.

Edit to add: I'm not that well-versed on card counting, but since the shoe is eight decks, doesn't that make count-based shifts in basic strategy pretty unimportant? The large shoe makes situations where you should change your strategy less common, and also makes the EV impact of your change fairly marginal. Isn't the vast majority of your edge from counting a big shoe derived from betting more when the count is favorable?

This is correct, and even of the playing adjustments, the most important by far are insurance and standing 16 vs 10, the latter of which kicks in as soon as the count is favourable, which for 8 deck KO is -6. Insurance doesn't kick in until +3, but it comes up whenever dealer has an ace and so is important. None of the other strategy changes kick in until +4. Nevertheless, since I'm working with a pretty small edge anyway, I would rather know the exactly correct strategy.

It's also correct that NHC is not that bad a rule. KO Preferred goes +0.52% versus their benchmark 8-deck game. There are a few differences in rules between my local game and their benchmark - Double only on 9, 10, 11 (-0.11%), NHC (-0.11%) and Double After Split (+0.13%). Even knocking off a few more points for being unable to use one of the play adjustments, I'm still looking at +0.40%. And actually it would be better than that, since the other difference is that the KO benchmark game has 75% penetration and my local game has 87.5% penetration. That's likely to make a pretty big difference, especially if I'm wonging in.

I think the KO count as reversed and John Patrick type of inaccurate basic strategy is good when it comes to euro BJ or/and something else.

Personally, I reduce the basic strategy (from my head so no 100%, just thought about it today), and picked the best/optimal count system (that I reversed) and I think it all can turn out well.

BASIC STRATEGY (somewhat thought out)

SPL

22 2-6
33 2-6

Piling money when the dealer is in trouble and must keep drawing to every stiff hand. If there is double after split, vs 7 also (BS might do so no matter what).
--
66 2-6
77 2-7
88 2-8

Getting rid of stiff hands but not going overboard with them. Split 88 vs 9 if there is double after split, and vs A if there is no dealer BJ. Vs T if both (can double 11 vs T then, and even that is brave in this twice as good case). 66 vs 2 is an official if double after split. ALL else is what I have read and agree with or not, picking with my own butt like Patrick, rather than according to some buggy computer code with a 0.00001 cents per 1 million hands edge (but could be a big loser because math and computers think with their heads). I would rather have fun and do what I understand.
--
99 2-9 not 7
AA 2-9

You only get one card to split aces! So, spliting aces isnt as good as you might think, but I give more value than Patrick to changing my 12 (AA) to two 11s (A and A) and doubling it like (one) 11.

Splitting vs T and A, and ordinary doubling with 11, is to be used if there is something plus in it like no dealer BJ. The double after split isnt so relevant here (or worth some 0.1% as all pair splits), and vs T no BJ also would be needed.
--
12-16 (& A6) hits vs 7+ and stands (not A6) vs 6 and less. Makes basically sense, there being so many ten cards even as alone.

Stand 16 vs T if any bigger bet, and 16 vs 9 and 15 vs T if like the biggest bets. As long as one gets away with it. Maybe vary also.

You would not be hitting 12 vs 2-3 with bigger bests, so no point doing it with small to no bets even single deck as it would be too obvious you are counting cards (even flat betting) and they are worth marginally only with some extreme counts. Must vary if insisting.

Officially A7 hits vs 9-A but it runs into no BJ rule and whatever. Hitting A7 vs 9 might be good because one cant bust with one card (but with more cards one tends to, losing 18 -- a bottom value hand is maybe 18.5, but 9 up isnt the best possible -- vs 9 that becomes garbage with one bad card) but might not be even as good (A7+T=18) as splitting 99 vs 9 that thinks the 9 gets a T-A so often that it beats pat 18, that might be reasonable with double after split to split 99 vs 9, and only as simple pair splitting it looks more simple to split it, but it isnt a stiff like its buddies 66-88. Vs 8 splitting 99 looks like a possible optimal even with no double after split but one can question that also (see what the math says about it with da split and w/o it. One loses at least a draw going after two wins with a double win, like doubling 9 vs 8 but being able to draw more cards).
--
Double 11 vs 2-9, 10 vs 2-8, 99 3-6, soft A6-7 vs 3-6.

Double 11 vs T and A if there is no dealer BJ (before double or so, and it is official also, though I thought about all of the stuffs without knowing first and some might not be official or I read wrong). Double 10 vs 9 if you want to (official euro), but I think I dont want to nor need to. I think Patrick is one or so steps tighter than even this with those hard hands at least, but I know he will pile against dealer small cards too often instead (counting out vs 2, I think, but as far as I possibly remember it busts 1/3rd of the time when an ace busts half or less that often, depending on rules).

I dont like to double with soft hands as long as I can keep the great opportunity to keep drawing more cards to them, but I double soft 17-18 because I have a hand already and could improve further. Easy logic and is played like hard 9 (that doesnt look like better to me). Doubling A2-A5 (13-16)? I guess I can probably pass without penalty and keep drawing to my hand. I wouldnt vary anything I dont have to when based on count, but if you do, it is best to vary them all the way also.

Soft double is worth 0.1% (all of them together, if there is a significant together over/under A6-A7), hard 9 doubling is worth 0.2%, split AA and 88, and that's all that is of any significance as basic strategy specials, and with the logical pair splitting like complete. I am possibly even much less than 0.1% lose from perfect play (but I dont have the numbers, just saw enough that makes me think it might be so) and could easily go to maybe 0.02% if I would want to, but I am a butt perfectionist.
--

THE COUNT (my details may not be accurate)

Reverse (I got this idea from Patrick) KO count, I think it is the best or optimal because red 7 count might fail because blacks come but not red or the other way around and 2-7 are all significant if given a count value (9 could be like the opposite of 7 or 2 but 9 isnt counted), and the pivot of red 7 is -2x the # of decks, when it isnt with the KO, so I guess red 7 is rounded); -3 is the (just from like 2.5 to 3.4 rounded? I might guess) pivot accurate (any # of decks), then take insurance (that together with 16 vs 10 are pretty much the only significant strategy changes). -4 is 15 vs T and 16 vs 9 stand. (-1 or whatever) 16 vs T stands (with a double bet).

These are near late surrender 16 vs 9-A and 15 vs T, so familiar as BS and not just for counters (??), and then there is insurance that also is for protection with bigger bets. No other strategy changes because they are up to worthless and they are reveling one is possibly or probably counting cards. It is already at maximum and questionable even as so.
--
The starting count that makes the reverse (my term, no such exists perhaps) KO to work: 1 deck to 4 deck 7s-3 (+1 [KO -1]and +5 [KO -5]); 6 deck 7s-4(+20); 8 decks 7s-5 (+27). 7s means the # of 7s, that is exact with red 7 (2 = the 2 at -2x # decks) but non exact with KO, so the minuses. These numbers are the same as with KO but minus is plus and plus is minus, and high cards counted as plus and small cards as minus. One is having a minus count only occasionally, and it might be easier to count the high cards as plus and minus cards as minus.

Hi-Lo count (2-6 vs T-A) isnt easier because you never know exactly where you are at and even at one deck one doesnt count the 7s, though one doesnt count the 9s either. One might count some cards like 9s and 8s as a side count to make more or less hits with at least 12 and 13, while being bad cards at least to 14-16, that is something to think about if one is trying to find new edges. But other than being specific, more complicated systems offer no edge.
--
Minimum bet spreads are maybe like 1 to 2 w 1 deck, 1 to 4 w 4 deck, 1 to 8 w more decks. Counts -2 to -4 or so one might bet a double bet with some camouflage (like based on if one is winning or not), and around -8 it is around 4x bet, and -16 8x. One is not supposed to play the too negative shoes at like 4-decks plus.

Reducing variance a little bit with basic strategy, one has mostly 0.1% less edge (when one has an edge instead of -0.1% rather than 0.0%) but can play a little bit bigger, and not being too obvious.

--
Online BJ? Some sticky bonuses maybe, other than that, I guess it needs to be one deck and playing a maximum number of hands during the same deal (if they dont use some sort of an infinite one deck or whatever).

ENHC is a brutal rule. Don't split or double against A or T. There is one exception, which I think is AA v T.

This version of the game is very popular online.

obo is a fairly common variant of this rule where the house takes the original bets only (obo) in the event of a dealer blackjack; that version is functionally identical to the standard version where the dealer peeks for blackjack with a little mirror.

Except cards are dealt and then negated which makes counting in that version less effective.

?