KO with Table of Critical Running Counts

KO with TCRC (Table of Critical Running Counts) should replace HL as the standard blackjack count for the shoe game.

Check out article on Michael Dalton's Blackjack Review website: www.blackjackreview.com

https://www.blackjackreview.com/wp/2025/09/14/ko-with-table-of-critical-running-counts-2/

Also click on these two links at the end of the article:

EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS
TKO SIMULATIONS

For some reason the link to KO with TCRC on www.blackjackreview.com is not coming up.

So go to www.blackjackreview.com and search for KO with TCRC.

I need to warn you. This website is packed with many mathematicians. When making a statement here, get ready to back up with rigorous math derivations.

Cacarulo's simulations of TKO is included in a link at the end of KO with TCRC article on .

Click on these two links at the end of the article:

EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS
TKO SIMULATIONS

There's nothing so bad about the KO system tags, but nothing so great about them either. The way you are implementing it is more complicated than High-Low, and if you are willing to be more complicated than High-Low there are better things you can do than any kind of true counted KO.

I would never teach a new aspiring AP with an unbalanced count. High-Low has as its biggest benefit providing a clear picture of how counting works. Everything is very linear and straightforward, and uses manageable numbers.

The best counts are the ones you develop for yourself to do what you are going to be actually doing at the table. I like to have several things going on, usually a sidebet or two, so I'll pick a count that will hit on whatever else there is to play there, or a much simpler count because I'm going to be ace sequencing at the same time. Back when there was really good single deck available I would attack those with the Fry count (balanced 10s) and an ace sidecount. Now Fry is not a very powerful count for betting, but who cares, it's not like I'm going to be able to get down a huge spread at a SD game anyway. So I can treat the ace like a low card for insurance / 12 vs. 2, like a high card for betting and splitting 10s or doubling on 9 or 10, I'm sitting there making my money with the plays as well as a little bit of spread, and if the pit boss comes by and goes through the discards he's not going to know what's up, all he knows is High-Low (*with one exception!) That's the other advantage of using a less common count; it will take the people watching longer to recognize what you are doing.


The Exception: one time I'm playing a double deck game, and a young pit supervisor comes over to me, giggling and counting out loud as I spread. But he was counting in Hi-Opt II, just like I was. Not many people use that anymore, and I wouldn't expect it from a guy who was too young to be in a casino when it was popular. I had to give him a nod of admiration as I was leaving, for his knowing my count, and also knowing he wasn't going to have to do any more than that to get me out of his game, no creepy stuff where he's calling security clowns and yanking me around and all that.

The problem is this topic is combative. As I said earlier, blackjack is an entertainment, not a rigorous math. It’s intended for YouTube and podcasts.

Everyone thinks their Card Fu is superior.

The reasons I've heard for choosing Hi-Lo rarely include superlative performance.

From the comments I see it is obvious to me that these readers did not take the time to read KO with TCRC in Blackjack Review along with looking at the links EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS and TKO SIMULATIONS at the end of that article.

KO with TCRC is EASIER to use than HL and estimating decks to the nearest full deck is good enough and actually the SCORE of KO with TCRC with decks estimated to the nearest full deck significantly exceeds the SCORE of HL with decks estimated to the nearest half deck.

No true count calculations are needed with KO with TCRC. If TCRC is memorized then there is no calculations needed at all and if not a very simple critical running count calculation is used.

For true counts greater than three (which are the important true counts) KO with TCRC is more accurate than HL and you make your large bets when KO >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks and 32 for n = 8 decks. No more guesses when to bet big and no more missed big bet betting opportunities. Easier to use, less mental fatigue, quicker decisions (all decision require comparing just two integers which are KO and crc(t) for the strategy change) so more money made per hour.

Read this post I found on blackjacktheforum that is in TKO sims link
**************************************************
Parker: Re: What is the difference in TKO and HiLo?
TKO is the KO count, true-counted. It performs somewhat differently (read: better) than Hi-Lo for several reasons.

First, the 7 is counted, a fairly important card which Hi-lo does not count in order to remain balanced.

In addition, all counts, balanced and unbalanced, are most accurate at their pivot point. At the Hi-lo pivot (all balanced counts have a pivot point of 0), not much is happening, other than 16 vs. 10. At the KO pivot of +4 (Hi-lo equivalent), there is much going on - we have a sizeable edge, and many of the I-18 indices are at/near this point, including insurance.

Some experts (most notably Australian Dr. Brett Harris) feel that an unbalanced, true-counted system may be the best system of all.
************************************************

KO with TCRC with decks estimated to the nearest full deck and using the simple critical running count formulas or memorizing TCRC is easier to use that HL and calculation of HL true counts, requires less computation and so less errors, can be played quicker with less mental fatigue than HL and is a stronger system than HL and so KO with TCRC should replace HL as the industry standard for the shoe game.

So I would ask before any more comments are made to please thoroughly read the KO with TCRC on Blackjack Review along with the links EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS and TKO SIMULATIONS at the end of that article. If you use KO with TCRC enough you will have TCRC memorized so you do not even have to do any critical running count calculations (which are much easier than HL calculations). No more HL true count calculations or trying to estimated decks to the nearest half deck. KO with TCRC only requires estimating decks to the nearest full deck with just simple crc calculations or menially looking up crc in memorized TCRC and it beats HL estimated to the nearest half deck which requires true count calculations.

Also since KO starts at zero and is unbalanced at four per deck almost all counts are positive which makes counting even easier.

TKO is difficult to use and I would never recommend learning TKO. KO with TCRC which gives the same KO true counts as TKO but KO with TCRC, unlike TKO, is easy to keep and use.

So again, please read thoroughly KO with TCRC with the links EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS and TKO SIMULATIONS at the end of that article before making any more comments.

Also consider testing KO with TCRC with a new player who just learned basic strategy and how to count with KO and learned the TCRC along with the few risk averse strategy changes in EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS and compare him to a seasoned HL player with years of experience and you should see that this new counter will play on par with the seasoned HL player. This means you can put together top notch blackjack teams quickly using KO with TCRC.

Another advantage is that If starting to count down a six or eight deck shoe using KO after a deck or two decks have
been played, as soon as KO ≥ crc(4) maximum bets of four or more units can be made on each of two hands without any true count calculations and without worrying about how many decks were not counted. This is a huge advantage over using the balanced HL count where you have to take into account the number of decks not counted and then do true count calculations by dividing by the total of the decks remaining and decks not counted, all of which are rough estimates in addition to possible errors in HL true count calculations.

Finally with team play with a spotter and big player, the exact KO running count can be communicated to the big player using just the betting chips. No need for any verbal communication or hand signals. Thus if KO ≥ crc(4) where crc(4) = 24 for n = 6 decks or 32 for n = 8 decks, spotter can deviate from his usual table minimum bet of $10 or $15 and use the chips he bets to communicate the KO count to the big player. Thus if playing n = 6 decks and KO = 28 then KO ≥ crc(4) = 24 for n = 6 decks and spotter should call over the big player. Spotter can then bet five red chips (or a single green chip) to represent a KO count of 25 and bet three white chips as a tip to the dealer which represents a KO count of 3 giving a total KO count of 28. Big player will notice a deviation from spotter's usual $10 or $15 bets and can then pick up the KO count directly from looking at the players betting chips and tip.

Also since KO true counts around its pivot of a true count of 4 is very insensitive to errors in estimating decks played are decks remaining. At the pivot KO is a true count of 4 everywhere in the shoe and is totally independent of decks played or decks remaining. As long as KO >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks and 32 for n = 8 decks, big player can bet big without having to worry about making any mistakes. Big player catches every profitable betting opportunity.

This has been intensively discussed in another forum. Let me restate what I often say: even if you are equipped with a card-counting computer, you cannot beat this game of blackjack.

This is not another forum. Readers of this are not referencing another forum. I have included all of the information you need here and Cacarulo's sims prove that KO with TCRC is superior to HL, easier to use, more accurate at true counts of 3 or more and is more powerful than HL and can be played with less errors, less mental fatigue and less calculations and produce superior results. Nothing else to say and stick to what I said in this forum. I do not expect readers to be cross checking other forums. Everything needed is in the KO with TCRC article on Blackjack Review.

As far as beating a blackjack game you have to select the game with the best penetration and secondly the best rules. If you pick a lousy game you will not win.

As I told you, I’m more interested in your work with Spanish 21.

Using a KO running count with a deck estimation and a fudge factor is not easier or better than using High-Low with a running count and a deck estimation and a true count division. It's no worse really, and if you want to use it, go ahead. But it is not an improvement over anything. Every count is limited by the correlation of its system tags to game outcomes and the KO (and High-Low) system tags are what they are; a very rough approximation and you cannot improve that approximation by applying any math to it. When a 2, a 5, and a 7 are all counted the same, and an ace and a 10 are counted the same despite those cards all having very different effects when they appear on the table, there is no workaround.

Don't take it too hard- I see you did some work and I respect all work applied to advantage play, and this might be a system that's preferable to some players, as just another option. But it's not anything new, or a big advancement, or a substitute or improvement over balanced counts on shoe games.

I had asked that before posting any more comments to thoroughly read KO with TCRC and the two links at the end of the article with exhibits and TKO sims. It is obvious that you rushed through your reply without thoroughly reading KO with TCRC.

There is no fudge factor here. These calculations are EXACT and in TKO sims you can see that I proved the TKO true count and KO with TCRC produce the same true counts and TKO sims by Cacarulo to get the SCORE where 50 billion hands. So there is no fudge factor. These calculations are EXACT.

If you need to improve the KO count you need to add side counts but I want to keep things simple so the purpose of this is just to show KO with TCRC.

And yes, look at the link to the KO article called SCORE COMPARISON where Gronbog did sims of KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc which beat HO2 with ASC to a pulp using plus minus side counts. But improving KO is not the topic of this discussion. This discussion is about KO with TCRC which is the strongest level one count and is easier to use that HL and so can be played for more hours with less errors and so you make more money and is excellent for tema play or if entering the game in the middle of the shoe since big bets can be made whenvere KO >= crc(4) and since KO starts at zero almost all counts are positive integers. And so KO with TCRC should replace HL as the industry standard. You can more in the middle of the shoe and know when to bet big and it is excellent for team play also in calling over the big player and no big betting opportunities (limited by the betting efficiency of KO which is 96.5 for LS and 97.4% for no LS) which you may miss some of them with HL.

I would recommend adding just the simple side count 5m7c to KO with TCRC is you want to increase the power of KO with a simple plus minus side count which I estimated will tie HO2 with ASC.

Plus/Minus side counts have distinct advantages over a side count of a particular card, such as Aces. If ASC = Ace Side Count and Adef = deficiency of Aces left in the shoe, Ap = Aces played and dp = decks played, then Adef = Ap – 4*dp. Thus, if two-decks are played and 10 Aces are played then dp = 2 and Ap = 10 and Adef = Ap - 4*dp = 10 – 4*2 = 2. Since two-decks were played with four Aces per deck you would expect to have seen 4*dp = 4*2 = 8 Aces played but Ap = 10 so 2 extra Aces came out of the shoe than expected and so Adef = 2.

The problem with ASC is that it is an estimate since it depends on decks played which is an estimate. Also, Aces played is monotonically increasing throughout the shoe. Compare ASC with plus/minus side counts. Consider 5m7c for example. 5m7c is a balanced level one side count counting only two ranks. 5m7c is exact as it does not depend on any estimate of decks played. This is very important especially near the end of the shoe were at the one deck level, each running count point is equal to one true count. Also, with 5m7c you do not need to keep track of a continually increasing count as you do with Ap where Ap is monotonically increasing throughout the shoe. 5m7c is a balanced count which fluctuates around its mean of zero and thus is much easier to keep than Ap and the departure from its mean of zero is obvious by just glancing at the 5m7c chip stack to see if it is other than zero.

Finally you mentioned that you wanted to know details on how to improve HL or KO. I deliberately did not go into details here as I was trying to keep this simple but since you asked here is a quick summary of what I did to determine how to add plus/minus side counts to KO primary count.

Consider KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc):

Least Square Line calculation of infinite deck indices and optimum factors k1 and k2 to apply to linear approximation to maximize absolute value of correlation coefficient between effects of removal and tag values of the derived counts.
I used Excel Solver to find the optimal values of k1 and k2 to maximize the CC described above and then selected values of k1 and k2 that were easy to remember and still gave most of the CC increase.

I did not want to go into this detail here. This post was to just simply replace HL with KO with TCRC for the shoe game for the many reasons I have outlined above. But I have included this here to show you that all of my calculations are correct and there are no fudge factors. Gronbog did around 20 sims of HL with side counts and KO with side counts. Every single prediction I made was correct and every time the weighted correlation coefficients increased the SCORE increased. Also I made a bunch of predictions on KO with TCRC before Cacarulo did his TKO sims and Cacarulo’s sims proved that every single one of my predictions were correct.

So to summarize my calculations are correct and there are no fudge factors.

I am going to ask again, please read thoroughly KO with TCRC before making any more comments.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

I...
I am going to ask again, please read thoroughly KO with TCRC before making any more comments.
link to original post

What are you selling?

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: BlackjackRebel

I...
I am going to ask again, please read thoroughly KO with TCRC before making any more comments.
link to original post

What are you selling?
link to original post

AutomaticMonkey,

Here's a link to BR's author page on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Blackjack-Rebel/author/B0FTKJ1JKN

BR periodically appears on various BJ websites touting his claims.

Dog Hand

Dear Administrator:

First I am not trying to sell anything and I did not put up any links to any of my books. Automatic Monkey did, not me.

I referenced my article KO with TCRC which is on Blackjack Review by Michael Dalton which is public and free.

There has been a lot of back and forth discussion here on my claim that KO with TCRC should replace HL as the industry standard for the shoe game.

To get a definitive answer on KO with TCRC compared to HL and my statement that KO with TCRC should replace HL for the shoe game, what I would like, if possible, is to see if the Wizard himself, Michael Shackleford, would review KO with TCRC on Blackjack Review and the links below that article and to review this thread on KO with TCRC and for the Wizard to post his comments on KO with TCRC compared to HL as far as ease of use and accuracy at true counts greater than 3 so that there are less errors and the system can be played quicker, longer and with less fatigue that HL. KO with TCRC is also slightly stronger than HL but the main advantages are the accuracy at true counts greater than 3 and ease of use which mean playing faster with less errors and longer because less mental fatigue so more money made per hour with less errors.

All decisions are made comparing only two integers, KO and crc(t). If TCRC is memorized then there are no true count calculations at all as crc(t) is mentally looked up in TCRC. Also estimating decks remaining to the nearest full deck is more than adequate and as Cacarulo's sims showed the SCORE of TKO (which gives the same true counts as KO with TCRC but is more difficult to use) with decks estimated to the nearest full decks significantly exceeds the SCORE of HL with decks estimated to the nearest half deck. If TCRC is not memozred then a simple crc formula is used (crc(t) = 4*n + (t - 4)*dr where n = # decks and dr = decks remaining and t = tc(KO)) instead of true count calculations. Also KO indices should be used but with must a few exceptions KO and HL indices are the same so HL indices can be used instead of KO indices. The few exceptions are mentioned in KO with TCRC article.

So see if the Wizard will review this post and KO with TCRC on Blackjack Review and then post his opinion and comment on my statement that KO with TCRC should replace HL as the industry standard for the shoe game.

Thanks

Do you see the problem with your post? There is no such a thing as “industry standard for the shoe game.” Moreover, card counting has died.

Tell Steven Bridges, Colin Jones of blackjack apprentice still has blackjack teams, and Andrea of Blackjack Advisors counting cards is dead. You need a team and travel to casino to casino because there is so much variance with blackjack.

The people I mentioned above as well as all teams I have heard of use HL. And by industry standard I mean what blackjack teams use. They want everyone to use the same count which must be simple and level one which is why they chose HL. They are most concerned with ease of use and everyone using the same count which is what I meant by "industry standard". They are not concerned that there are more powerful counts than HL. They want a count that can be played for hours with minimal mental through and played quickly and everyone uses the same count.

KO with TCRC is slightly more powerful than HL but that is not the reason I recommended KO with TCRC.

I recommended KO with TCRC because it is easier to use that HL and can be played for longer hours with less mental strain and less errors and for true counts of 3 or more it gives more accurate true counts than HL. And if TCRC is memorized there is no need to do any true count calculations at all and estimating decks to the nearest full deck is more than adequate for KO with TCRC. If TCRC is not memorized then simply calculate crc(t) = 4*n + (t - 4)*dr but if you use KO with TCRC enough you will have TCRC memorized so no calculations at all are required. Merely compare two integers, KO with crc(t), for betting and all playing strategy decisions. And you can use HL indices for KO as most of the indices are the same so there is very little new that needs to be learned.

And Cacarulo's sims showed TKO (which gave thes ame true counts as KO with TCRC but which I would never recommend using as it is difficult to use) with decks estimated to the nearest full deck gives a significantly higher SCORE than HL estimated to the nearest half deck. So with KO with TCRC no more going crazy trying the estimate decks remaining and no more true count calculations. This means that using KO with TCRC there is less mental work so you can count faster and for longer periods of time and with less mental fatigue and less errors. Also KO with TCRC is easier to teach and less likely to make errors and you bet big whenever KO >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks and 32 for n = 8 decks. Also since KO starts at zero and is unbalanced you almost never have negative KO counts (which you should not even play).

So this is what I meant by industry standard - replace HL with KO with TCRC for team play and individual play.

So hopefully the Wizard will review KO with TCRC article on Michael Dalton's Blackjack Review along with the links to PDFs at the end of the article. I would like to see what the Wizard has to say about replacing HL with KO with TCRC.

Finally if you are playing Spanish 21 with Katarina's Walker HL, the HL is unbalanced with a unbalance of 4 per deck for the Spanish 21 deck just as KO is unbalanced at 4 per deck for blackjack so you can use the TCRC for Spanish 21 HL just like you use TCRC for KO for blackjack. And for Spanish 21 you can add the very simple 5mAc to help with HL betting.

So let's see what the Wizard has to say.


With also level one and is eaise

Why should there be a "standard"?

Each player should act how they feel will produce their desired results.

Quote: Dieter

Why should there be a "standard"?

Each player should act how they feel will produce their desired results.
link to original post

I think he's referring to "standard practice" for known BJ counting teams that make a living at Blackjack - hence, "industry standard".

Other than selling more product, why do you care if your work is adopted by the other BJ teams? If, and when, your work is seen as successful, others will use it.

Why are you insisting that I am trying to sell more product. I NEVER mentioned my books or provided any links to my books. I did not promoted my books or mentioned my books in any way. Automatic Monkey did, not me. I listed the free published article KO with TCRC on Michael Dalton's blackjack review as a community service to blackjack players as many other contributors to this website do.

Also the HL is so ingrained for blackjack teams to make them try KO with TCRC is very difficult. Cacarulo already did sims to comparing TKO to HL and KO with TCRC gives the same true counts as TKO but is much easier to use.

As I mentioned in my prior reply above. I suggest switching from HL to KO with TCRC not because it is more powerful than HL but because it is easier to use and produces more accurate true counts of 3 or more than HL does thus less errors, quicker play and more hours of play because of less mental fatigue. Estimating decks to the nearest full deck is more than adequate and there are no true count calculations. There is only easy crc calculations or if TCRC is memorized there are no calculations at all. All decisions are made comparing two integers: KO with crc(t).

But I would like KO with TCRC reviewed by the Wizard himself to give his opinion as to my suggestion that blackjack teams should replace HL for the shoe game with KO with TCRC.

Thus I hope that the Wizard looks at this thread and goes to Blackjack Review to look at KO with TCRC and give his opinion.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

Why are you insisting that I am trying to sell more product. I NEVER mentioned my books or provided any links to my books. I did not promoted my books or mentioned my books in any way...

The argumentative arrogance and focus on name-dropping to put the good reputation of others on your work gives it away. Did you get permission from Cacarulo et al. to cite them in this way?

A couple of people have mentioned this to you already- there is no "industry standard" in card counting. When you are a counter, you use whatever count you want. I use a bunch of them, for different purposes. There's a level 12 count and a level 5 count I use regularly. When you count as part of a team, you might also use whatever count you want depending on the configuration of the team. If you're just playing individually with a shared bank you use whatever count you use best. In most of the team play I've done, being there's no benefit to two counters using the same count on the same table, so several counts are used and the sums of and differences between the counts provide extra information, or sometimes a count is being used for a sidebet. There are only a few situations where all the team members need to be using the same count.

As far as KO, there's nothing wrong with it, but its compelling feature is ease. You can play good blackjack with an advantage just using a level 1 running count and a few indices. I happen to like unbalanced systems for reasons of playability. I can come in after the beginning of a shoe, or I can get up and drain the lizard in the middle of the shoe and all I lose is some penetration; I don't need to compensate for that in any way. It's also easier when I'm counting multiple shoes, which I usually am. But once you add things to KO any kind of deck estimation or compensation for the unbalance, then you might as well use RPC or Zen.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

...But I would like KO with TCRC reviewed by the Wizard himself to give his opinion as to my suggestion that blackjack teams should replace HL for the shoe game with KO with TCRC.

Thus I hope that the Wizard looks at this thread and goes to Blackjack Review to look at KO with TCRC and give his opinion.
link to original post

Why, so you can drop his name without permission to sell your books too?

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: BlackjackRebel

Why are you insisting that I am trying to sell more product. I NEVER mentioned my books or provided any links to my books. I did not promoted my books or mentioned my books in any way...

The argumentative arrogance and focus on name-dropping to put the good reputation of others on your work gives it away. Did you get permission from Cacarulo et al. to cite them in this way?

That's not how citation works. You don't need permission from any one to cite their work.

As someone who actually went through this circus: it is mostly a waste of time trying to get citations. The general public don't care-it gives you an impression you are part of some weird clique they don't know anything about. And they are so meaningless: the people in question never read your book. You can tell because they never say anything intelligent about your book. Their endorsement (and yes I got them) is solely based on politics, social pressure to be nice, and wanting you to go away.

You'd think this wouldn't happen with quality gambling authors but my experience is that they were actually slightly worse at this. You get these slightly revolting cliques forming-it is far more important what you say about them and their work and their friends than whether you wrote anything decent.

Good example of this was the David Mcdowell Ace Location book. He did the usual thing, sent around a bunch of books and got endorsements from every luminary under the sun. Then he annoyed Arnold Snyder for some petty reason, and Snyder using his considerable influence at the time went around ALL the luminaries in question and extracted retractions from EVERY SINGLE ONE. None of them had the balls to stand by what they wrote.

The moral of the lesson is: make up your own mind.

On bj21. com there was an extensive thread that I initialed around a month ago on KO with TCRC. Cacarulo was replying to my thread and was commentiing on KO and he offered his sim results on TKO which he published on bj21 .com. Then I asked him for more extensive sims and he provided his more extensive sims on bj21 . com. Both Cacarulo and I were discussing KO true counting extensively. I asked Cacarulo for sims and he produced it and published it on bj21 .com so iit is public information already. And I replied to his sims and summarized them.. Anything that I have listed on Cacarulo's sims has already published and is public information on bj21 . com If you want to see details search for the threads on KO with TCRC on bj21. com or look at the PDF that is listed as TKO simulation link at the end on my KO with TCRC article on Michael Dalton's blackjack review.

As far as you mentioning my books I do not care. I did not publish my books to make money. They are less than $10 each for the KIndle version. I only mentioned your name because other users were claiming I only was trying to make money by promoting my books which is not true.

Cacarulo's sims just proved that what I said about KO with TCRC was correct all along since both KO with TCRC and TKO produce the same KO true counts.. KO with TCRC is more accurate than HL for true counts of three or more. But Cacarulo used TKO which is very difficult to use. I proved that KO true counts produced by TKO is the same as KO with TCRC true counts. But KO with TCRC is easier to use.

So my contention is that KO with TCRC should replace HL I am not recommending KO with TCRC not because it is more powerful than HL (although is it slightly more powerful). I am recommedingi replacing HL with KO with TCRC because it is more accurate for true counts of 3 or more and is easier to use as decks estimated to the nearest bull deck is more than adequate and there is no true count calculations involved. Instead there is simple crc calculations or if TCRC is memoried, which is would be if you play KO with TCRC enough. there are no calculations involved at all. All decisions ae made comparing two integers KO with crc(t).. So more accurate means you can play KO with TCRC with less errors than HL and ease of use means you can play longer with minimal mental effort. If TCRC is memorized you can mentally look up crcIt) in less than one second and make your decision which is very accurate.

And before you make any more comments please go to Michael Daltons blackjack review website and look up KO with TCRC and also review the links below the article so you will understand KO with TCRC and can then make comments more intelligently as you will then know the KO with TCRC system.

Also you need to true count KO with either TKO (which is difficult to use) or with KO with TCRC (which is very simple to use).

Below is post I found on blackjacktheforum that is in TKO sims link and which I mentioned earlier in this thread but is worthwhile quoting again here.
**************************************************
Parker: Re: What is the difference in TKO and HiLo?
TKO is the KO count, true-counted. It performs somewhat differently (read: better) than Hi-Lo for several reasons.

First, the 7 is counted, a fairly important card which Hi-lo does not count in order to remain balanced.

In addition, all counts, balanced and unbalanced, are most accurate at their pivot point. At the Hi-lo pivot (all balanced counts have a pivot point of 0), not much is happening, other than 16 vs. 10. At the KO pivot of +4 (Hi-lo equivalent), there is much going on - we have a sizeable edge, and many of the I-18 indices are at/near this point, including insurance.

Some experts (most notably Australian Dr. Brett Harris) feel that an unbalanced, true-counted system may be the best system of all.
************************************************

So I would just like the Wizard to reivew KO with TCRC and compare to HL and give his opinion.

I’ve exchanged a lot of posts with you there, but my impression is that you are not a counter. I often regard you as a blackjack researcher. Quote your post on bj21: “The casino I go to deals 5 out of 6 decks on almost every table, S17, DAS, LS and they offer Lucky Ladies with full payout.” Well, I haven’t seen such a casino in America.

Quote: aceside

I’ve exchanged a lot of posts with you there, but my impression is that you are not a counter. I often regard you as a blackjack researcher. Quote your post on bj21: “The casino I go to deals 5 out of 6 decks on almost every table, S17, DAS, LS and they offer Lucky Ladies with full payout.” Well, I haven’t seen such a casino in America.
link to original post

Then you haven't been to a particular couple of stores in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the place to go, for straight counting. Although I think most stores have switched to King's Bounty for the sidebet.

Actually, I’ve played every casino around the Philadelphia area.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

On bj21. com there was an extensive thread that I initialed around a month ago on KO with TCRC. Cacarulo was replying to my thread and was commentiing on KO and he offered his sim results on TKO which he published on bj21 .com. Then I asked him for more extensive sims and he provided his more extensive sims on bj21 . com. Both Cacarulo and I were discussing KO true counting extensively. I asked Cacarulo for sims and he produced it and published it on bj21 .com so iit is public information already. And I replied to his sims and summarized them.. Anything that I have listed on Cacarulo's sims has already published and is public information on bj21 . com If you want to see details search for the threads on KO with TCRC on bj21. com or look at the PDF that is listed as TKO simulation link at the end on my KO with TCRC article on Michael Dalton's blackjack review.

As far as you mentioning my books I do not care. I did not publish my books to make money. They are less than $10 each for the KIndle version. I only mentioned your name because other users were claiming I only was trying to make money by promoting my books which is not true.

Cacarulo's sims just proved that what I said about KO with TCRC was correct all along since both KO with TCRC and TKO produce the same KO true counts.. KO with TCRC is more accurate than HL for true counts of three or more. But Cacarulo used TKO which is very difficult to use. I proved that KO true counts produced by TKO is the same as KO with TCRC true counts. But KO with TCRC is easier to use.

So my contention is that KO with TCRC should replace HL I am not recommending KO with TCRC not because it is more powerful than HL (although is it slightly more powerful). I am recommedingi replacing HL with KO with TCRC because it is more accurate for true counts of 3 or more and is easier to use as decks estimated to the nearest bull deck is more than adequate and there is no true count calculations involved. Instead there is simple crc calculations or if TCRC is memoried, which is would be if you play KO with TCRC enough. there are no calculations involved at all. All decisions ae made comparing two integers KO with crc(t).. So more accurate means you can play KO with TCRC with less errors than HL and ease of use means you can play longer with minimal mental effort. If TCRC is memorized you can mentally look up crcIt) in less than one second and make your decision which is very accurate.

And before you make any more comments please go to Michael Daltons blackjack review website and look up KO with TCRC and also review the links below the article so you will understand KO with TCRC and can then make comments more intelligently as you will then know the KO with TCRC system.

Also you need to true count KO with either TKO (which is difficult to use) or with KO with TCRC (which is very simple to use).

Below is post I found on blackjacktheforum that is in TKO sims link and which I mentioned earlier in this thread but is worthwhile quoting again here.
**************************************************
Parker: Re: What is the difference in TKO and HiLo?
TKO is the KO count, true-counted. It performs somewhat differently (read: better) than Hi-Lo for several reasons.

First, the 7 is counted, a fairly important card which Hi-lo does not count in order to remain balanced.

In addition, all counts, balanced and unbalanced, are most accurate at their pivot point. At the Hi-lo pivot (all balanced counts have a pivot point of 0), not much is happening, other than 16 vs. 10. At the KO pivot of +4 (Hi-lo equivalent), there is much going on - we have a sizeable edge, and many of the I-18 indices are at/near this point, including insurance.

Some experts (most notably Australian Dr. Brett Harris) feel that an unbalanced, true-counted system may be the best system of all.
************************************************

So I would just like the Wizard to reivew KO with TCRC and compare to HL and give his opinion.
link to original post

It is very simple: the KO system's main appeal is its lack of TC conversion. That's why it sold.

We know KO performs well with TC conversion - you aren't the first to observe this I remember discussions from decades back. But it just isn't something any one finds that interesting or attractive.

Quote: DougGander

Good example of this was the David Mcdowell Ace Location book. He did the usual thing, sent around a bunch of books and got endorsements from every luminary under the sun. Then he annoyed Arnold Snyder for some petty reason, and Snyder using his considerable influence at the time went around ALL the luminaries in question and extracted retractions from EVERY SINGLE ONE. None of them had the balls to stand by what they wrote.

The moral of the lesson is: make up your own mind.
link to original post

I find this story interesting! I guess BlackjackRebel probably will not get any endorsement from Don S; however, I am willing to write a book review of this work, if the author could send me a free copy of it.

Thanks for offering to do a review but I really would like a review by the Wizard himself.

I see that there are negative comments on the worth of reviews. But I also have Cacarulo's TKO sims that you cannot argue with.

Also I would like a review by the Wizard whose crediationats are impeccable.

KO with TCRC article on BlackjackReveiw and the links below that article is enough information to do a review.

Don S. has been constantly criticizing me. Yet every single prediction I made turned out to be true. He has never shown me to have made a mistake. Also it took Don almost three months for him to understand plus/minus side counts that Gronbog understood in one week. Also Gronborg did around twenty sims for me with HL with side counts and KO with side counts and with every single sim, if my weighted correlation coefficients and betting correlation coefficients increased the SCORE increased. And all of my predictions of KO with TCRC were shown to be true with Cacarulo's sims.

So I still do not think that Don fully understands simple plus/minus side counts so I would not take anything that Don has to say seriously. If you criticize me, show me that I am wrong. Don has never been able to do that. So I would never expect Don's endorsement. Cacaurlo's sims of TKO is what you should look at, not an endorsement by Don.

Both TKO and KO with TCRC produce the same true counts. The difference is TKO is hard to use but KO with TCRC is easy to use.

KO with TCRC is more powerful than HL but that is not the reason to use it. KO with TCRC is more accurate than HL for true counts of 3 or more so your strategy changes and beting are more accurate. Also estimating to the nearest full deck is more than adequate. And critical running counts replaces true counts. Also strategy change decisions and betting decisions are made by comparing two integers: KO and crc(t). If the TCRC is memorized then there is no need to do any calculations at all. You can mentally look up crc(t) in one second and make accurate playing and betting decisions. And since KO with TCRC is so simple to use you can play for more hours with less mental energy and more accurately and so less errors. That is why you should switch from HL to KO with TCRC.

Cacarulos' sims showed that the SCORE of TKO estimated to the nearest full deck significantly outperforms HL estimated to the nearest half deck. And I showed KO with TCRC true counts are the same as TKO true counts so it follows that the SCORE of KO with TCRC estimated to the nearest full deck significantly outperforms HL estimated to the nearest half deck. Also KO with TCRC does not involve any calculations if TCRC is memorzed or if TCRC is not memorized then use a simple crc(t) = 4*n + (t - 4)*dr calculation. If you use KO with TCRC enough you will have TCRC memorized.

KO with TCRC published on Michael Daltonn's blackjack review website will give you more than enough information on KO with TCRC to write a review.

So go to BlackjackReview . com and find this article KO with Table of Critical Running Counts (Update) September 14, 2025

Read that article and also read the links below the article
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS
SCORE COMPARISON
TKO SIMULATIONS

That will give you more than enough information to do a review.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

Thanks for offering to do a review but I really would like a review by the Wizard himself.

I see that there are negative comments on the worth of reviews. But I also have Cacarulo's TKO sims that you cannot argue with.

Also I would like a review by the Wizard whose crediationats are impeccable.

KO with TCRC article on BlackjackReveiw and the links below that article is enough information to do a review.

Don S. has been constantly criticizing me. Yet every single prediction I made turned out to be true. He has never shown me to have made a mistake. Also it took Don almost three months for him to understand plus/minus side counts that Gronbog understood in one week. Also Gronborg did around twenty sims for me with HL with side counts and KO with side counts and with every single sim, if my weighted correlation coefficients and betting correlation coefficients increased the SCORE increased. And all of my predictions of KO with TCRC were shown to be true with Cacarulo's sims.

So I still do not think that Don fully understands simple plus/minus side counts so I would not take anything that Don has to say seriously. If you criticize me, show me that I am wrong. Don has never been able to do that. So I would never expect Don's endorsement. Cacaurlo's sims of TKO is what you should look at, not an endorsement by Don.

Both TKO and KO with TCRC produce the same true counts. The difference is TKO is hard to use but KO with TCRC is easy to use.

KO with TCRC is more powerful than HL but that is not the reason to use it. KO with TCRC is more accurate than HL for true counts of 3 or more so your strategy changes and beting are more accurate. Also estimating to the nearest full deck is more than adequate. And critical running counts replaces true counts. Also strategy change decisions and betting decisions are made by comparing two integers: KO and crc(t). If the TCRC is memorized then there is no need to do any calculations at all. You can mentally look up crc(t) in one second and make accurate playing and betting decisions. And since KO with TCRC is so simple to use you can play for more hours with less mental energy and more accurately and so less errors. That is why you should switch from HL to KO with TCRC.

Cacarulos' sims showed that the SCORE of TKO estimated to the nearest full deck significantly outperforms HL estimated to the nearest half deck. And I showed KO with TCRC true counts are the same as TKO true counts so it follows that the SCORE of KO with TCRC estimated to the nearest full deck significantly outperforms HL estimated to the nearest half deck. Also KO with TCRC does not involve any calculations if TCRC is memorzed or if TCRC is not memorized then use a simple crc(t) = 4*n + (t - 4)*dr calculation. If you use KO with TCRC enough you will have TCRC memorized.

KO with TCRC published on Michael Daltonn's blackjack review website will give you more than enough information on KO with TCRC to write a review.

So go to BlackjackReview . com and find this article KO with Table of Critical Running Counts (Update) September 14, 2025

Read that article and also read the links below the article
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS
SCORE COMPARISON
TKO SIMULATIONS

That will give you more than enough information to do a review.
link to original post

Mike Shackleford does not appear to be as active on the forum as he used to be - that's been true for several years. If you want him to review something, may I suggest you send him a PM ? There are many forum members who have been BJ card counters at some time and who have extensive mathematical backgrounds, so you might benefit from being more open to the rough and tumble of forum discussion.

As Romes has emphasized in his articles and posts on this site, there is more than 'theoretical EV from bet size variation' to be considered when choosing a counting system. Ease of use under the real-time pressure of a BJ session and given the long grind of a counting session is often cited as an advantage for HiLo. Your insistence that everyone read your lengthy technical article is an indicator that KO with TCRC may not be intuitively or immediately comprehensible. I am frustrated by HiLo's shortcomings and find this thread interesting - but I'm still not convinced that an unbalanced count is the way to go.

I agree with Gordon. A few more words to OP, I’m the only man who understands and is willing to read his stuff; therefore, if he really needs a book review, I would be happy to provide one.

Quote: gordonm888

I am frustrated by HiLo's shortcomings and find this thread interesting - but I'm still not convinced that an unbalanced count is the way to go.

To be clear - it has been known for some time that KO with TC outperforms Hi-Lo.

The fact that KO is unbalanced is irrelevant for all practical purposes when you are using it with TC conversion.

We can divide the above statement into two parts. Surely, true-counted KO outperforms true-counted Hi-Lo for the insurance decision; however, does this still hold for the base game of blackjack only?

Quote: gordonm888

...
As Romes has emphasized in his articles and posts on this site, there is more than 'theoretical EV from bet size variation' to be considered when choosing a counting system. Ease of use under the real-time pressure of a BJ session and given the long grind of a counting session is often cited as an advantage for HiLo. Your insistence that everyone read your lengthy technical article is an indicator that KO with TCRC may not be intuitively or immediately comprehensible. I am frustrated by HiLo's shortcomings and find this thread interesting - but I'm still not convinced that an unbalanced count is the way to go.
link to original post

It can be, depending on what your counting. The best example of an unbalanced count working well is the Insurance Count (Archer), which is for a binary decision that is triggered exactly at the pivot point of the count. And it's also a reasonable count for the game of blackjack itself. You can do everything with just some kind of tens count. There are a lot of counts for sidebets that also happen to trigger a binary decision right at or near the pivot point. In fact when designing an unbalanced count for such a purpose sometimes it works better if you use system tags with slightly lower correlation to the effects of removal but that get your decision closer to or exactly at the pivot point, so that your accuracy is the same at any point in the shoe.

But I prefer ace neutral counts with sidecounts. That way I can treat the ace as high or low, and I look totally harmless to the pit when I'm occasionally taking insurance with a minimum bet down because the aces are all gone. If somebody wants to be a blackjack writer and produce something really useful and powerful, I might suggest finishing the job Lance Humble never really got to and fully documenting the Hi-Opt I and Hi-Opt II counts, with the different ways of using the sidecounts.

OK If someone else wants to review it then fine. Just present your qualifications. As I mentioned the sims prove the KO with TCRC is correct But I am interested in feedback on ACCURACY at true counts of 3 or more and EASE OF USE of KO with TCRC as compared to HL.

Also I never said to read any lengthily analysis. Actually I never included any derivations at all in my KO with TCRC article on Blackjack Review. My article is four pages long and explanatory Four pages is hardly the length for derivations. There are no derivations involves. this is just a HOW TO use KO with TCRC.

So go to BlackjackReview . com and find this article KO with Table of Critical Running Counts (Update) September 14, 2025

Read that article and also read the links below the article. The main article is 4 pages long and is explanatory on how to use KO with TCRC. There are no derivations.
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS
SCORE COMPARISON
TKO SIMULATIONS

I deliberately left out derivations in this article and look at EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS which shows TCRC in graphics form.

Here is critical running counts for six decks from EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS

crc(1) = 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 crc(1) = 24 - 3*dr
crc(2) = 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 crc(2) = 24 - 2*dr
crc(3) = 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 crc(3) = 24 - dr
crc(4) = 24 crc(4) = 24
crc(5) = 27, 26, 25 for dp = 3, 4, 5 crc(5) = 24 + dr
crc(6) = 30, 28, 26 for dp = 3, 4, 5 crc(6) = 24 + 2*dr

That is all you need to know. If you uss KO with TCRC enough you will have the TCRC memorized.

So if TCRC is memorized there are no calculations needed at all. You are just comparing two integers, KO and crc(t) to make all playing strategy and betting decisions

And there is contants referrals to power of KO with TCRC. I have continually said that although KO with TCRC is slightly moiré powerful than HL the reason to switch from HL to KO with TCRC is that is is MIORE ACCURATE at true counts greater than 3 (which means less errors in betting and playing strategy variations when your large bet is out) and it is EASIER to use than HL as there is no true count calculation. Instead of true count calculations there is critical running count calculations which are much easier and more accurate at true counts greater than 3 and if TCRC is memorized there is no calculations involved at all.

Here are some examples: (dp = decks played, dr = decks remaining)

1. Use TCRC for crc(2) and crc(3)
a. crc(l) = 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 for n = 6 decks, dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
b. crc(2) = 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 for n = 6 decks, dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, S
c. crc(3) = 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 for n = 6 decks, dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, S

2. Stand hard 12 v 3 if KO >= crc(2)
a. crc(2) = 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 for n = 6 decks, dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
b. If n = 6 decks and dp = 4 then dr = 2
i. crc(2) = 20
ii. If KO >= crc(2) = 20 then stand hard 12 v 3

3. Stand hard 12 v 2 if KO >= crc(3)
a. crc(3) = 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 for n = 6 decks, dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
b. If n = 6 decks and dp = 2 then dr = 4
i. crc(3) = 20
ii. If KO >= crc(3) = 20 then stand hard 12 v 2

4. Double hard 8 v 6 if KO >= crc(3) risk averse index (EV index rounded up)
a. crc(3) = 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 for n = 6 decks, dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
b. If n = 6 decks and dp = 5 then dr = 1
i. crc(3) = 23
ii. If KO >= crc(3) = 23 then double hard 8 v 6

Use TCRC for crc(S), crc(6) and crc(7)
a. crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks everywhere in the shoe
b. crc(S) = 27, 26, 25 for n = 6 decks, dp = 3, 4, 5
c. crc(6) = 30, 28, 26 for n = 6 decks, dp = 3, 4, 5
d. crc(7) = 33, 30, 27 for n = 6 decks, dp = 3, 4, 5

2. Stand hard 14 v T if KO >=:crc(7)
(most KO indices are the same as HL indices. Standing on hard 14 v T is an exception as KO index is 7 and HL index is 10)
a. crc(7) = 33, 30, 27 for n = 6 decks, dp = 3, 4, 5
b. If n = 6 decks and dp = 4 then dr = 2
i. crc(7) = 30
ii. If KO >=:crc(7) = 30 then stand hard 14 v T

3. Surrender hard 13 v T if KO >= crc(6) risk averse index (EV index rounded down)
a. crc(6) = 30, 28, 26 for n = 6 decks, dp = 3, 4, 5
b. If n = 6 decks and dp = 2 then dr = 4
i. crc(6) = 32
ii. If KO >= crc(6) = 32 then surrender hard 13 v T

4. Double hard 9 v 7 if KO >=: crc(5) risk averse index (EV index rounded up)
a. crc(5) = 28, 27, 26, 25 for n = 6 decks, dp = 2, 3, 4, 5
b. If n = 6 decks and d p = 5 then d r = 1
i. crc(5) = 25
ii. If KO >= crc(5) = 25 then double hard 9 v 7

Note that there are no calculations involved at all. Player sees the situation ad menially looks up crc(Itrue count = Index) for the playing strategy situation present. crc can be mentally looked up in one second. No calculations involved. Also for true counts of 3 ore more KO with TCRC is more accurate than HL so less mistakes. Estimating decks to the nearest full deck is more than adequate. The SCORE Of KO with TCRC estimated to the nearest full deck and requiring no calculations is significantly greater the the SCORE of HL with decks estimated to the nearest half deck and KO with TCRC does not require any tedious true count calculations.

So my reason to suggest switching from HL to KO with TCRC is it is MORE ACCURATE than HL for true counts of 3 or more and so less playing strategy and betting errors made and it is EASIER to use than HL and so you can play longer and with less mental fatigue. By mentally looking up crc from TCRC you have your playing strategy or betting decision in less than one second with no mental energy required at all.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

...
crc(1) = 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 crc(1) = 24 - 3*dr
crc(2) = 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 crc(2) = 24 - 2*dr
crc(3) = 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 crc(3) = 24 - 3*dr
crc(4) = 24 crc(4) = 24
crc(5) = 27, 26, 25 for dp = 3, 4, 5 crc(5) = 24 + dr
crc(6) = 30, 28, 26 for dp = 3, 4, 5 crc(6) = 24 + 2*dr
...

Explain again how this is easier than just learning a normal set of index numbers and doing a true count.

There is a typo in the above cited third line. The correct formula should be:
“crc(3) = 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 crc(3) = 24 - 1*dr”

BTW, I only care about the math part.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

OK If someone else wants to review it then fine. Just present your qualifications.
link to original post

I’m a well-known poster on various internet forums and I have extensively communicated with almost every important figure in the game of Blackjack. Does this qualify me for writing a book review for your work?

Thanks you very much. You are correct. crc(3) = 24 - dr. That was a typo on my part. But the numbers for six decks crc(3) = 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 for dp 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are correct. The point is if you have TCRC memorized there is actually no need to do any calculations at all.

Sims already showed that KO with TCRC is correct. The feedback I want is comments on accuracy and ease of use as compared to using HL.

I guess you would actually have to use KO with TCRC in actual play to see that.

If you go to you tube and bring up some six deck videos where they count with HL and show the HL true count you can count with KO with TCRC and see how using KO with TCRC is easier and more accurate than HL and most of the decisions should be the same.

As I mentioned above, I would like comments on the ease of use and accuracy of actually using KO with TCRC. After Cacarulo's sims there is no question of the power of KO with TCRC and tha tis is correct. So yes, I would like anyone, no expertise in blackjack analysis required, to comment on the ease of use and accuracy ic hey actually use KO wsith TCRC. You do not need any expertise or analysis. I just want to comment son how easy and accurate KO with TCRC is to HL.

I would like comments on how easy and accurate KO with TCRC is compared to using HL. If TCRC is memorized no true count calculations and for playing strategy decisions you mentally look up crc(Index) and you then compare KO to crc(Idx) and you know how to play the hand. Total elapsed time one second with zero calculations and estimating decks gto the nearest full deck is moiré than adequate and the SCORE of HL with TCRC with decks estimated to the nearest full deck exceeds the SCORE of HL with decks estimated to the nearest half deck. No difficult true count calculations and no estimating decks to the nearest half deck which makes for a much greater chance of errors. You can play quicker and more hours and more accurately and wilt less errors using KO with TCRC as compared to using HL. Also most ot the KO indices are the same as HL indices with just a few exceptions that I mentioned in my article KO with TCRC on BlacjackReview . com So you can initially use KO with TCRC using HL indices for strategy changes and you can later learn the few exceptions where KO indices are different from HL indices.

You are using the HL indices for KO indices. They are the same for most situations. THere are only a few exceptions where KO indices differ from HL indices. SO there is very little new to learn.

The mains exceptions are;
1. stand on hard 14 v T if KO >= crc(7). HL is stand if HL >= 10*dr
2. stand on hard 16 v 9 if KO >= crc(6). HL is stand if HL >= 4*dr
3. hard 16 v 7, 8 and hard 15 v 7, 8, 9 you should just hit if using KO as the KO index is much higher than the HL index.
4. surrender hard 13 v T if KO >= crc(6) HL is surrender if HL >= 8*dr
5. split T,T v 6 if KO >= crc(6) HL is split if HL >= 4*dr
6. split T,T v 5 if KO >= crc(6) HL is split if HL >= 5*dr

Make your large bets whenever KO >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks. At the KO pivot of a true count of 4 the true count is accurate and is totally independent of decks played or decks remaining. So you can make your large bets with total confidence that you are correct. The only limitation is the betting efficiency of KO which is 96.5% for S17, DAS, LS and 97.4% for S17, DAS, no LS. The HL betting efficiency is 96.5% for both S17, DAS, lS and S17, DAS, no LS.

Other than these few examples. just use HL indices for KO indices for playing strategy variations.

You frequently cited Cacarulo to support your conclusion, but that does not help. Here is why. As I posted earlier, there are two parts of expected value (EV) improvements. One is the insurance, and the other is the base game. Clearly, true-counted KO outperforms true-counted Hi-Lo for the insurance because the card 7 is correctly counted toward this decision, so we do not need any simulation on this part. However, we still do not know if true-counted KO is able to outperform true-counted Hi-Lo for the base game of blackjack. Further simulation work is still needed to answer this question. Do you agree?

Cacarulo sims covered all playing strategy decisions, not just insurance. Overall a true counted KO is more powerful than a true counted HL taking into account betting and all playing strategy decisions. .

But I am not covering power here. It has already been shown that true counted KO is slightly more powerful than true counted HL but that is not the issue I want covered by readers of this post.

I am interested in comments from users actually using KO with TCRC as compare to using HL and comments on accuracy and ease of use. You do not need any math expertise for comments on accuracy and ease of use. Just use KO with TCRC and compare with using HL.

Here was a n article I found on blackjacktheforum on true counted KO as far as power is concerned. But again. I am not discussing power. I want comments on accuarcy and ease of use of KO with TCRC as compared to HL

Parker: Re: What is the difference in TKO and HiLo?
TKO is the KO count, true-counted. It performs somewhat differently (read: better) than Hi-Lo for several reasons.
First, the 7 is counted, a fairly important card which Hi-lo does not count in order to remain balanced.
In addition, all counts, balanced and unbalanced, are most accurate at their pivot point. At the Hi-lo pivot (all balanced counts have a pivot point of 0), not much is happening, other than 16 vs. 10. At the KO pivot of +4 (Hi-lo equivalent), there is much going on - we have a sizeable edge, and many of the I-18 indices are at/near this point, including insurance.
Some experts (most notably Australian Dr. Brett Harris) feel that an unbalanced, true-counted system may be the best system of all.
.

I just edited and fixed my typo. Yes, crc(3) = 24 - dr for six deck game. Thanks for the catch and sorry for the typo

This is in response to your question "Explain again how this is easier than just learning a normal set of index numbers and doing a true count."

Please refer to previous replies where I explained that using TCRC you only have to estimated decks to the nearest full deck and if you memorize TCRC you can mentally look up crc(Index) in one second and make all playing strategy and betting decision by comparing only two integers, KO and crc(t), and as a bonus KO with TCRC is slightly more powerful than HL but that is not the reason to change. You can play faster, less mental fatigue, more hours and more accurately at true counts of 3 or more using KO with TCRC than using HL and no true count calculations or estimating decks to the nearest half deck, full deck estimation is good enough.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

Cacarulo sims covered all playing strategy decisions, not just insurance. Overall a true counted KO is more powerful than a true counted HL taking into account betting and all playing strategy decisions. .
link to original post

Ok, let’s go slow, one step a time. I only care about the powerfulness, not easiness at all. Cacarulo provided you a SCORE number, which was invented by Don S. That terminology does not represent powerfulness. Moreover, he is very against of you using this term because you probably haven’t understood it. What is your index of powerfulness?