Kiss II Blackjack Counting System

I would assume that "KISS" means "Keep it Simple, Stupid," which I guess is not a bad way to go about constructing a blackjack system, since the more complex the count, the more likely the practitioner of it is going to make mistakes that will cost money while players play blackjack.

The tags for the KISS II system, which was developed by Fred Renzey, make it a one-level count with a twist - the 2 is counted only half of the time. That makes it similar to Arnold Snyder's "Red Seven" count. The rationale, of course, is that while the two should not be ignored (i.e., not counted), its removal is not as beneficial to the player as the removal of, say a 3, and therefore it has perhaps only half the value in the count. Of course, the player could count it as 1/2, but instead can either alternate counting it or count either the red suits or the black suits. It's really a matter of personal preference.

The reason why this is a level-one count is that there are no values that are greater than -1 or +1. It is an improvement upon the KISS I count, which is strictly for those who are just beginning in blackjack card counting and not for anyone who is looking for a serious edge.

When you get into the KISS II blackjack system, you notice that it is an "unbalanced" count, which means that when you add up all the values throughout the deck you do not comes up with zero. Actually you get +2, and so you look to assign a value at the beginning of a shoe that is +2 times the number of decks in play. For example, if you're playing a six-deck game, you start at -12 and you know that you are going to have the odds in your favor when you get into a positive count.

The tags for the KISS II blackjack system are as follows: 3, 4, 5 and 6 are all counted as +1, with all ten-value cards counted as -1. The 7, 8 and 9 are neutral and not counted, and the Ace is neutral as well. Personally, I have never been a fan of this. Yes, the Ace can be of near-equal value to the player and the dealer for playing strategy purposes, but for betting purposes, it is certainly an edge to the player.

Because this count is not "ace-reckoned" (doesn't count it), which means you'll keep a side count for insurance purposes. If you do that, and do it successfully (the precision on keeping ace side counts is questionable), you will have a rather high insurance correlation with this system (.87). In fact, it will be one of the best of any count you could use. The playing efficiency is strong, compared to other counts that are as simple to implement (.62). However, the betting correlation, which is the most critical statistic you're looking for when adopting a blackjack card counting system, is very low (.90).

This is not the kind of card count you want to take into professional-level of blackjack.