KO with Table of Critical Running Counts

"Ok, let’s go slow, one step a time. I only care about the powerfulness, not easiness at all."

You are concentrating on the wrong issue. Humans play blackjack, not computers. Concentrate on ease of use and accuracy, power is secondary..

By power I wman SCORE. The larger the SCORE the more powerful the system is.

Power is not the issue here. The issue is to make as much money per hour as possible with as little work as possible.

A count with a larger SCORE is more powerful. So that is what I mean by powe. By power I mean theoretical performance of a count if played perfectly.which only computers can do which is reflected in the SCORE.

A true counted KO is more powerful than HL as shown by SCORE values from Cacarulo's sims.

But power is not the reason I recommend switching from HL to KO with TCRC.

The reason I recommend switching from HL to KO with TCRC is that KO with TCRC is more accurate at true counts of 3 or more so less mistakes made and is easier to use if TCRC is memorized as there are no true count calculations involved and you can mentally look up crc(Index) in one second.

So you can play for more hours, with less fatigue and fewer errors.

We are talking about humans playing blackjack, not computers.

Your concentration on power would make sense if computers were playing. Since humans are playing concentrate on ease of use and accuracy.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

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.
link to original post

Full deck estimation is good enough for any count in a shoe game.

Maybe this method of adjusting a running count is easier for you. We all have our little quirks at the table. Some people have a hang-up about the division in true counting. I'm good at that, while deck estimation I'm not so good at and 1.5 and 2 decks look the same to me unless I have some reference to compare them to.

But for most people, I think this method of yours would be a nightmare to apply. Especially being you would need different numbers for 6 deck and 8 deck shoes, which is one of the problems true counting eliminates. Some of the Monkey counts are crazy and it might be tempting to say "Everybody should do it this way" but I know better, and that absolutely nobody but me should be doing it that way! I have some systems where I switch counts in some situations in the middle of a shoe, but I would never tell somebody else to do that unless they had developed and chosen to use it on their own, for their own reasons.

So to be clear, I don't think anyone here is saying what you are doing is "bad" or "wrong," as it works just fine, but when you say things like "industry standard" or "replacement for," that's what causes alarm, because in the counting world there are no such things- you count with whatever works for you, in the games and situations that you have available and choose to play.

Please go to BlackjackReview . com and search for KO with TCRC and read that entire artic and the links below that article. There is proof of what I am stating below. And go to You Tube and find a video where six decks are counted with the HL which also displays HL running count and true counts. Then count along with KO with TCRC and you can compare KO with TCRC to HL.

Full Deck vs Half Deck estimation of HL true counts has to do with accuracy of using the HIL system. I am concentrating on accuracy and ease of use.

And for HL estimation to the nearest half deck as compared to full deck, according to sims by Colin Jones, increases EV by 7%. And Cacarulo's sims showed that TKO SCORE estimated to the nearest full deck beat HL SCORE with decks estimated to the nearest half deck.

And you mention "I'm not so good at and 1.5 and 2 decks look the same to me". But near the end of the shoe is exactly where you need accurate true counts. With KO with TCRC you do not need true count calculations. If KO >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks you place a large bet anywhere in the shoe which is totally independent of decks played or decks remaining and with no true count calculations.

And yes there is a different TCRC table for six and eight decks butu the pattern is very easy to see so you are not really memorizing as there are easily recognized patterns in the TCRC.

For example for six decks crc(1) = 4*n - 3*dr is 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Note the numbers increase by 3 for each deck played.

For example for six decks crc(2) = 4*n - 2*dr is 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Note the numbers increase by 2 for each deck played.

For example for six decks crc(3) = 4*n - dr is 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Note the numbers increase by 1 for each deck played.

For example for six decks crc(4) = 4*n = 24 everywhere in the shoe.

For example for six decks crc(5) = 4*n + dr is 27, 26, 25 for dp = 3, 4, 5. Note the numbers decrease by 1 for each deck played.

For example for six decks crc(6) = 4*n + 2*dr is 30, 28, 25 for dp = 3, 4, 5. Note the numbers decrease by 2 for each deck played.

The point I have been making all along is that you want to win more money per hour with as little mental energy and errors as possible.

For KO with TCRC the accuracy of true counts of 3 or more exceeds the HL accuracy so you are making less playing strategy and betting mistakes using KO with TCRC than in using HL.

Also KO with TCRC does not involve any calculations at all. You merely compare two integers for all betting and playing decisions, you compare KO with crc(Index) and you get crc in one second if TCRC is memorized.

So with KO with TCRC you play more accurately and with less errors than using HL and you play quicker with no true count calculations and so less mental energy which means you can play for more hours and not get exhausted or mentally burned out or worry about errors in estimating decks remaining or treuc count calculations.

So what I have requested, which does not require any level of expertise in blackjack, is to just try out KO with TCRC and compare accuracy and ease of use to HL. You goal is to make as much money per hour with maximum accuracy and the least amount of mental energy expended and that is why KO with TCRC is better than HL for the shoe game. If you play enough you will have TCRC memorized and until you do just use the crc formula for six decks crc(t) = 24 + (t - 4)*dr and for eight decks crc(t) = 32 + (t - 4)*dr.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

By power I wman SCORE. The larger the SCORE the more powerful the system is.

Power is not the issue here. The issue is to make as much money per hour as possible with as little work as possible.
link to original post

This part is the main problem here. Let’s bring the math formula here:

SCORE = (EV/SD)^2,

Where EV is the expected value per 100 hands and SD is the corresponding standard deviation per 100 hands. These two values come from the simulation using the input parameters of bet spread and deck dealing penetration. So, SCORE does not represent the money per 100 hands that a player can make. Moreover, there is no parameter for you to input work being used toward this simulation. How does this SCORE number represent the power of a counting system?

It seems to me the main problem is the OP is preaching to a choir that left the building a long time ago. The last card counting team left the forum around 2018, and most BJ players here moved on to better things. Why eke out a living counting cards when there are so many other ways to beat the casino?
Find an audience with BJ players. Extolling your powerful system here would be like me bringing in Frank Viola to explain to the forum how to snap off a major league curveball.

Quote: billryan

It seems to me the main problem is the OP is preaching to a choir that left the building a long time ago. The last card counting team left the forum around 2018, and most BJ players here moved on to better things. Why eke out a living counting cards when there are so many other ways to beat the casino?
Find an audience with BJ players. Extolling your powerful system here would be like me bringing in Frank Viola to explain to the forum how to snap off a major league curveball.
link to original post

billryan absolutely does NOT speak for the Wizard of Vegas forum and has no business discouraging people from posting about gambling on this forum. Please be assured that there are many APs who browse this forum without calling attention to themselves by actively posting. BTW, I am a former card counter who has been thoughtfully following your thread.

Quote: gordonm888

Please be assured that there are many APs who browse this forum without calling attention to themselves by actively posting.

So there are multiple ap's browsing this forum, and never contributing? And you know this, how? Are we supposed to believe that multiple ap's are communicating with you on a regular basis about recent discussions here?

Are there also fairies at the bottom of your garden? I'm sure you will contrive some reason to suspend me for this comment but I'm simply pointing out what is already obvious to everyone: you are very obviously making stuff up and making yourself look ridiculous and untrustworthy in the process.

Quote: billryan

It seems to me the main problem is the OP is preaching to a choir that left the building a long time ago. The last card counting team left the forum around 2018, and most BJ players here moved on to better things. Why eke out a living counting cards when there are so many other ways to beat the casino?
link to original post

To be fair, I'm not sure there is actually ANY forum where counting cards is discussed much these days.

The truth is that most people just don't have the money to count cards. Discretionary capital just doesn't exist among the general public the way it used to. I agree there are better options.

"This part is the main problem here. Let’s bring the math formula here: SCORE = (EV/SD)^2"

By power I mean SCORE. But SCORE compares various count systems assuming each systems is played perfectly, that is, computers are playing each system which do not make mistakes and are 100% accurate and do not get tired and calling it quits.

As I mentioned the power of KO with TCRC as measured by SCORE slightly exceeds HL. But power is not the reason I recommend switching from HL to KO with TCRC.

Humans are playing blackjack and not computers and humans make errors and do not play as fast as computers and get tired and have to end their sessions early from exhaustion.

So the two other criteria I use are accuracy and easy of use of the system which is for human use, not computers and not SCORE values.

With KO with TCRC, true counts of 3 or more are more accurate than HL true counts and true count of four were your large bets are made are exact with KO with TCRC. Thus the humans makes more accurate betting and playing strategy decisions using KO with TCRC than HL and so less errors in betting and playing strategy.

Also KO with TCRC is much easier to use than HL. No more true count calculations or estimating decks to the nearest half deck. Estimation to the nearest full deck is more than adequate. And all decisions are made comparing two integers: KO and crc(Index) for the play under consideration. And once TCRC is memorized crc(t) can be mentally looked up in one second.

Thus using KO with TCRC there is minimal mental energy expended and you can play for more hours and with less errors without getting exhausted so each session can be longer so with longer sessions and less errors you make moire money per session.

That is why you should switch from HL to KO with TCRC.

When I started playing BJ in 1999, there were several BJ forums and sites. I was a regular on a few, and there wasn't much crossover.
The Las Vegas Advisor had a strong BJ forum and there was a forum for AC players. Few players from then are still posting anywhere, and everyone I was in touch with has moved on, mostly to sports betting.
If someone wants a serious conversation about BJ, they can find the players and post there, or they can post here and hope some players see it. If the OP wants a conversation, I'm not sure how silent lurkers will oblige. I do believe we are still allowed to express our opinions here.

"Extolling your powerful system"

I have said time and time again power is not the reason I recommend switching from HL to KO with TCRC: accuracy at true counts of 3 or more and ease of use is the reason I recommend switching.

And yes, blackjack is a highly volatile game. Eliot Jacobson agrees with you on finding something better than blackjack. For a single player with a small bankroll blackjack does not make any sense unless you are gong for comps.

You need to be betting big like $500 or more on two or three hands to make decent money. But such bets require a big bankroll and large variance. So you really need a team. Also with such big bet spreads you will be kicked out of casino after casino.

But KO with TCRC can be taught to beginners quicker and the beginners will make less errors than using HL so you can form an excellent team much quicker with KO with TCRC.

And there still are a few teams around. On You Tube I have seen Colin Jones, Blackjack Advisors and Steven Bridges who still play team blackjack. For these teams they should switch from HL to KO with TCRC.

There are still teams. They just don't frequent here.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

By power I mean SCORE. But SCORE compares various count systems assuming each systems is played perfectly, that is, computers are playing each system which do not make mistakes and are 100% accurate and do not get tired and calling it quits.

As I mentioned the power of KO with TCRC as measured by SCORE slightly exceeds HL. But power is not the reason I recommend switching from HL to KO with TCRC.
link to original post

First of all, the SCORE number Cac provided to you is just a random number, so do not think too much of it.

Secondly, this terminology SCORE is a baby of Don, who sells his Hi-Lo indices, but you are using his baby to compete against him, so there is an ethical concern here.

Thirdly, whenever we talk about powerfulness, you switch to easiness. It sounds like you really don’t care about this SCORE number.

Please go to BlackjackReview .com and search for KO with TCRC article.

KO with Table of Critical Running Counts (Update)
September 14, 2025

At the end of the article there are several links. Please review these links as well.
EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS
SCORE COMPARISON
TKO SIMULATIONS

Since you have questions on Cac sims look at the link TKO Simulations.

It shows TKO is slightly more powerful than HL based on the higher SCORE of TKO. TKO and KO with TCRC both produce the same true counts. But TKO is difficult to use and KO with TCRC is easy to use.

And actually you are correct. I do not care that much about SCORE. I am more concerned that humans play the system as accurately and quickly as possible with minimal mental energy required.

I care more about accuracy at true counts of 3 or more so as to minimized playing strategy and betting mistakes and also ease of use where decks estimated to the nearest full deck is more than adequate and if you have TCRC memorized you can mentally look up crc(Index) for the particular situation in one second. Almost no mental energy or exhaustion and you can then play for longer sessions so making more money per session.

If you were comparing two computers, one playing KO with TCRC and one playing HL, then you would not care about accuracy or ease of use since computer are 100% accurate in their playing strategy and betting decisions for the count system being simulated and calculate true count exactly.

But computers are not playing blackjack, human are. So accuracy and ease of use is a big concern.

So what I was hoping is that some readers can go to You Tube and find a six deck game counted with the HL where the HL running count and true count are displayed on the screen. For that video, you can count with KO with TCRC and you can see how KO with TCRC decisions and betting compare with HL decisions and betting. And you can see how much easier it is to use KO with TCRC than HL. You can see the accuracy and ease of use of KO with TCRC compared to using HL.

If I can get some feedback from readers who try this comparison and post there results and comments here I would appreciate it.

To compare Hi-Lo and KO, we firstly consider the insurance bet alone. If the trigger index for Hi-Lo insurance is 3.0 (keep to one decimal place), what is the trigger index for your true-counted KO insurance? Is it 2.9 or 3.1?

Quote: DougGander

Quote: gordonm888

Please be assured that there are many APs who browse this forum without calling attention to themselves by actively posting.

So there are multiple ap's browsing this forum, and never contributing? And you know this, how? Are we supposed to believe that multiple ap's are communicating with you on a regular basis about recent discussions here?

Yes, I believe this to be so. I know this from several different routes. Privately, I used to do mathematical analyses for APs of opportunities that they had spotted; I did these for free because I enjoyed doing the math. I know quite a few APs who post on this site rarely or never because they are very strict about maintaining their anonymity.

I have also had private discussions with Mike Shackleford, who is networked into many people in the AP community. I won't relate the specific content of what Mike has told me but Mike educated me on the circumstance that APs follow this site without contributing much content because of the secretive nature of the AP business. This is a difficult fact of life for those of us who are committed to supporting the site- a social media site needs content but it is inimicable to many of our AP audience to reveal their existence, much less their methods.

Quote: DougGander

Are there also fairies at the bottom of your garden?

No, there are not. And I don't appreciate this kind of tone. I'm sure you know many things that I do not, but I also perceive that I know many things that you do not. Perhaps you could listen and learn rather than strike out contemptuously.

Quote: DougGander

I'm sure you will contrive some reason to suspend me for this comment but I'm simply pointing out what is already obvious to everyone: you are very obviously making stuff up and making yourself look ridiculous and untrustworthy in the process.
link to original post

In WOV forum, the moderators try to give members a lot of rope - a lot of grace - when they are criticizing us. That has always been Mike Shackleford's policy and his guidance to the other moderators. It has been our functional role to be pinatas for the forum members who are enraged because they were once suspended for three days (after multiple warnings in your case.) Cest la vie. I usually try to wait for one of the other moderators to take action against someone who is clearly trolling me rather than take action myself.

"To compare Hi-Lo and KO, we firstly consider the insurance bet alone. If the trigger index for Hi-Lo insurance is 3.0 (keep to one decimal place), what is the trigger index for your true-counted KO insurance? Is it 2.9 or 3.1?"

First indices are rounded to nearest integer. It make no sense for you to talk about using 2.9 or 3.1 for insurance, just use 3.

And again you are concentrating on power. i.e. SCORE.

I have already mentioned that TKO and so KO with TCRC has a slightly higher SCORE than HL and so is more powerful than HL.

Also with just a few exceptions the HL indices can be used for the KO indices. So there is very little new to learn.

KO with TCRC concentrates on the human using the KO system as accurately as possible and with minimal mental energy. Any difference in power is very slight and you would never notice it.

What I am interested in getting feedback from readers on using KO with TCRC as compared to using HL.

I suggested going to YouTube and find a video where a six deck shoe is counted down with the HL and where the HL running count and true count are displayed on the screen. Then mute the video so as not to get distracted and count down that same shoe on the video using KO with TCRC and see how easy (no true count calculation if TCRC is memorized) and accurate (for true counts of there or more) KO with TCRC is compared to HL. Ignore all counts where KO < crc(1). You will only be playing if KO >= crc(1) = 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Also note that most of the playing strategy and betting decisions are the same, but KO with TCRC is more accurate in those decisions and is easier to use. This way you can compare on each round played KO with TCRC and HL side by side. Then I would like comments from readers on the accuracy and ease of use of KO with TCRC as compared to HL. No more true count calculations and estimating decks to the nearest full deck is more than adequate.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

Also with just a few exceptions the HL indices can be used for the KO indices. So there is very little new to learn.
link to original post

Actually, I believe this statement is problematic. Mathematically, I’d like to see you derive an equation to connect the Hi-Lo true count to your KO true count.

Quote: aceside

Quote: BlackjackRebel

Also with just a few exceptions the HL indices can be used for the KO indices. So there is very little new to learn.
link to original post

Actually, I believe this statement is problematic. Mathematically, I’d like to see you derive an equation to connect the Hi-Lo true count to your KO true count.
link to original post

Hi-Lo nothing, I want to see it compared to Unbalanced Zen Halves!

Have you ever tried Unbalanced Zen Halves? It goes like this:

{-1,1,2,2,3,2,1,0,-1,-2}
{A...10}

It's the perfect count for those of us who are a little... you know... unbalanced. The positive tags add up to 11, which makes it superior to the ones where they only add up to 5 or 6. So it's as good as High-Low and KO put together! "Turn it up to 11!" will be the slogan.

Incidentally, those system tags have an almost perfect betting correlation to... which game?

I haven’t tried a level 2 or 3 count, nor a 6:5 blackjack game. However, I’m very interested in it. How do you calculate the triggering index for insurance with your unbalanced count? I believe you are talking about a single deck game with a deep dealing penetration.

Quote: aceside

I haven’t tried a level 2 or 3 count, nor a 6:5 blackjack game. However, I’m very interested in it. How do you calculate the triggering index for insurance with your unbalanced count? I believe you are talking about a single deck game with a deep dealing penetration.
link to original post

With any unbalanced count like that you can just take insurance at the pivot point and it will be close enough that it doesn't make a difference.

But that really is close to my point- if you're going to complicate KO at all, then why KO, why not use a higher level count? And to answer my own question- why do either? What count you use has less impact on your results than scouting and game selection, and even planning your day better. When I go out to play I like to do some leg stretching first so I walk faster, and just walking faster from store to store and around a store is going to increase my EV, probably more than learning more playing indices or using a more elaborate count would.

" Mathematically, I’d like to see you derive an equation to connect the Hi-Lo true count to your KO true count."

I deliberately did not include derivations in KO with TCRC on BlackjackRebiew .com and kept is more as a how to use KO with TCRC. I Did not want to confuse reader.

If you want to know details on KO with TCRC including derivations go to Amazon Kindle and buy KO with TCRC by BLackjack Rebel for less than $10.

But I will include a short derivation below because you asked:

The base KO true count formula where all other KO with TCRC critical
running count and true counts formulas are derived as well the KO true
count formulas for TKO is:

tc(KO) = t = (KO – 4*dp) / dr where KO is started at zero

KO is unbalanced at four per deck. Thus, if dp = 1 then EV KO = 4, if dp
= 2 then EV KO = 8 and if “dp” decks are played then EV KO = 4*dp.
Thus (KO – EV KO) = (KO – 4*dp) is the deviation of KO from its
expected value and it is this difference which is divided by the decks
remaining to get tc(KO).

This is similar to the HL true count formula tc(HL) = HL / dr . It is just
that in the tc(HL) formula the EV HL is hidden since EV HL = 0
throughout the shoe since HL is balanced. KO is unbalanced at four per
deck and so have a pivot point at a true count of four. HL is balanced at
zero per deck and so has a pivot point of a true count of zero. The pivot
of the HL count is a true count of zero as compared to the pivot of the KO
count which is a true count of 4. So for HL the true formula is tc(HL) =
(HL – EV HL) / dr = (HL – 0) / dr = HL / dr

TKO (true count KO) starts KO at (– 4*n) where n = # decks and then
calculates a KO true using the KO started at (-4*n) and compares that to
HL indices minus 4. This is the same technique that Katarina Walker used
for Spanish 21 HL to calculate the Spanish 21 true counts.
I will show that TKO is equivalent to KO with TCRC with KO starting
at zero and where critical running counts are calculated avoiding any
true count calculations.

Let src = shifted running count = (KO – 4*n) so you are starting KO at
KO = (-4*n) in TKO instead of at zero as is done with KO with TCRC.
So src is the TKO KO running count where KO is started at (-4*n).

Now I showed earlier that tc(KO) = t = (KO – 4*dp) / dr where KO starts
at zero.
src = KO – 4*n so KO = src + 4*n
t = (KO – 4*dp)/dr = ((src + 4*n) – 4*dp) / dr
t = (src + 4*(n – dp)) / dr = (src + 4*dr) / dr = src / dr + 4.
t = src / dr + 4
So (t – 4) = src / dr

Thus with TKO calculated the KO true count which is src / dr and compare
it to the HL index minus 4 where it is assumed that that KO index and HL
index are the same which is true most of the time but not all of the time
as there are some exceptions.

Here are some more derivations: I hope this is enough to make you happy.

Below are derivations of some of the KO ere relationships:
dp = decks played dr = decks remaining,
n = number of decks t = tc(KO) = KO true count

1. t = (KO - 4*dp) / dr

2. From (1), using dp = (n - dr):
a. t=(KO-4*(n-dr))/dr
b. t=(KO-4*n+4*dr)/dr
c. t=(KO-4*n)/dr+4
d. t = 4 + (KO- 4*n) / dr

3. From (2d):
a. (t-4)=(KO-4*n)/dr
b. (t-4)*dr=KO-4*n
c. KO= 4*n + (t -4)*dr

4. From (3c), using n = (dp + dr):
a. KO= 4 *(dp + dr) + (t - 4)*dr
b. KO= 4*dp + 4*dr + t*dr-4*dr
c. KO= 4*dp + t*dr

5. From (4c), using dr = (n - dp):
a. KO= 4*dp + t*(n -dp)
b. KO= 4*dp + t*n -t*dp
c. KO = n*t + (4 - t)*dp

"How do you calculate the triggering index for insurance with your unbalanced count?"

I used the Least Squares Line (LSL) technique which works for balanced or unbalanced counts. You need the Effect of Removal for each playing strategy situation. I am not about to go into details on this here. If you are interested spend $10 and download Amazon Kindle KO with TCRC by BLackjack Rebel

"Hi-Lo nothing, I want to see it compared to Unbalanced Zen Halves!. Have you ever tried Unbalanced Zen Halves? It goes like this"

I wanted the most powerful level one system that is also easiest to use. I was not getting into advanced level 2 counts for example. A simple level one system can be taught to beginners and when forming a blackjack team so everyone uses the same count system.

HL was chosen as the count system to use for blackjack teams because it was easy to use and sill powerful.

But KO with TCRC is even easier to use than HL and is more accurate at true counts of 3 or more and so can be played almost perfectly with minimal mental energy so your sessions can be longer and estimating decks to the nearest full deck is more than adequate. In addition it is slightly more powerful than HL, but as I said many times, power is not the reason I suggested switching from HL to KO with TCRC - accuracy at true counts of 3 or more and ease of use are the reasons to switch.

I would not recommend switching to Unbalanced Zen Halves where you ahve a difficult count system which is a level 2 count system and difficult to teach to teams along with the possibility of making mistakes. Any mistakes you make will negate.any theoretical advantage.

The advantage of KO with TCRC is that you can play the system almost perfectly with hardly any mistakes for true counts of 3 or more because of the accuracy of KO with TCRC for true counts of three or more and ease of use of the system.. YOu will make more money with a simple system played accurately and for long hours because of ease of use than an more complicated system that is theoretically more powerful. I am stressing accuracy and ease of use over power. So forget Unbalanced Zen Halves.

"With any unbalanced count like that you can just take insurance at the pivot point and it will be close enough that it doesn't make a difference.

But that really is close to my point- if you're going to complicate KO at all, then why KO, why not use a higher level count? And to answer my own question- why do either? What count you use has less impact on your results than scouting and game selection, and even planning your day better. When I go out to play I like to do some leg stretching first so I walk faster, and just walking faster from store to store and around a store is going to increase my EV, probably more than learning more playing indices or using a more elaborate count would."

Insurance is taken at KO >= crc(3) where for six decks crc(3) = 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. crc(3) is close to crc(4) so of course since you take insurance at kO >= crc(3) you also take insurance at KO >= crc(4). But you have your TCRC memorized so use the KO TCRC values for each true count. So take insurance and all playing strategy variations at crc(Index) from the TCRC.

And using TCRC is simplifying KO, not complicating KO. Accuracy at true counts of 3 or more and no true count calculations if TCRC is memorized so less errors and less mental fatigue so longer sessions with less errors.

Also to answer your question "What count you use has less impact on your results than scouting and game selection". That is true so use scouting with KO with TCRC because it is more accurate for true counts of 3 or ore and easier to use so you can play longer with less mistakes. Also if KO >+ crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks you can place your big bets without any true count calculations at all. KO's pvit is a true count of 4 so at the pivoc KO it totally independent of decks played or decks remaining.. That is KO = crc(4) is a true count of four everywhere in the shoe regardless od decks played or decks remaining. So you can place your big bets with confidence.

Also if you happen to walk by a shoe with a deck or so played and notice a bunch of low cards you can backcount with KO and when KO >= crc(4) you can place big bets regardless of decks player or decks not counted.

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. With the unbalanced KO all that is
needed to compare KO to crc(4) = 4*n = 32 for
n = 8 decks and 24 for n = 6 decks and then
player makes his maximum bet of four or more
units on each of two hands. Every advantage
situation is found with no errors in true count
calculations and no errors in estimating
decks remaining and decks not counted.

Too long for me to read. Get to the point, as bellow:

Hi-Lo true count (TC)=0 is equivalent to your KO TC=0;
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=1 is equivalent to your KO TC=1.1;
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=2 is equivalent to your KO TC=2.2;
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=3 is equivalent to your KO TC=3.3;
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=4 is equivalent to your KO TC=4.4.

Is this correct?

KO with TCRC also makes big player and spotter team play more effective:

Communicate the exact KO running count 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
usually $10 or $15 bets and can then pick up the
KO count directly from looking at the players
betting chips and tip.

To make sure to draw the big player’s attention,
spotter should always place bets for the dealer
when KO ≥ crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks and 32 for
n = 8 decks. If KO is a multiple of five then white chips
are not needed and just green and red chips can be
used. Thus if KO were 30 instead of betting $30
consisting of six red chips or one green chip and one
red chip, player can bet five red chips or one green
chip and place a bet of $5 or one red chip as a tip for
the dealer. Adding the $25 bet and the $5 tip
communicates a KO count of 30 to the big player.
Since KO is a multiple of five there is no need to use
$1 white chips as dealer tips.

These tips for the dealer make it very clear to the big
player that the spotter is communicating a high count
to the big player. Big player should always look out
for spotters who are betting chips as tips for the
dealer as that means KO ≥ crc(4). When KO < crc(4)
spotter should not be placing any tips for the dealer.

The spotter communicated KO to the big player with
size of his blackjack bet and the size of the tip he
placed for the dealer. So big player knows KO. Then
when called to the table the big player can keep KO
count starting with the communicated value of KO
from the spotter. Then the big player can update the
KO count as he plays and the big player will no longer
rely on the spotter. The big player will know when KO <
crc(4) to reduce his bet size or leave the table and will
know when to increase his bet size if KO is significantly
over crc(4).

"Hi-Lo true count (TC)=0 is equivalent to your KO TC=0;
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=1 is equivalent to your KO TC=1.1;
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=2 is equivalent to your KO TC=2.2;
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=3 is equivalent to your KO TC=3.3;
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=4 is equivalent to your KO TC=4.4.
Is this correct?:"

KO has a slightly greater Standard Deviation than HL because the 7 included in KO increases the variablity of KO.
This can be seen in SD.KO / SD.HL = 1.045. Thus KO true counts are 4.5% larger than HL true counts
You show KO true counts as 10% larger than HL true counts which is not correct.
But I have already taken all of this into account which you would have realized if you read my entire KO with TCRC article.
The only point you really need to know is that for the most part HL indices can be used as KO indices.

I had asked readers to please go to BlackjackReview .com and search for KO with TCRC.
Please read entire article along with the links below the article as I have shown previously and which I will show again beow.

KO with Table of Critical Running Counts (Update)
September 14, 2025

At the end of the article there are several links. Please review these links as well.
EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS
SCORE COMPARISON
TKO SIMULATIONS

It you looked a Examples, Charts and Exhibits links you would not have asked this questions.

Look at "HL vs KO, S17" and "HL and KO indices" exhibits

Yes, KO has a slightly greater Standard Deviation than HL because the 7 included in KO increases the variablity of KO.
This can be seen in SD.KO / SD.HL = 1.045 which is why you get slithglyt larger KO true counts compared to HL true counts.
But you also need to take into account the Correlation Coeffiients to get indices. This was shown in "HL andKO indices"

ldx = k*(SD/CC)
ldx = Index, SD = Standard Deviation and CC = Correlation Coefficient of KO with EoR and HLwith EoR.
ldxl / ldx2 = (SDl/CCl) / (SD2/CC2) = (SD1/SD2) / (CC1/CC2)
ldx.KO / ldx.HL = (SD.KO/ SD.HL) / (CC.KO I CC.HL)
SD.KO / SD.HL = 1.045
ldx.KO / ldx.HL = 1.045 /(CC.KO/ CC.HL)
ldx.KO / Idx.HL = 1.045 * (CC.HL/ CC.KO)

So I already have taken into account the SD and CC in deriving the KO indices.

As you can see most of the KO indices are ths same as HL indicse.

So you can use HL indices for KO indices with very little error.

If you want to be precise then you can memorize the few situations were KO indices vary from HL indices.

These are all shown in "HL vs KO, S17" and "HL and KO indices" exhibits

Follow up:

Hi-Lo true count (TC)=-1 is equivalent to your KO TC=-0.95;
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=-2 is equivalent to your KO TC=-1.9
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=-3 is equivalent to your KO TC=-2.85
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=-4 is equivalent to your KO TC=-3.8.

Is this trend correct?

"Follow up:
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=-1 is equivalent to your KO TC=-0.95;
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=-2 is equivalent to your KO TC=-1.9
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=-3 is equivalent to your KO TC=-2.85
Hi-Lo true count (TC)=-4 is equivalent to your KO TC=-3.8.
Is this trend correct?"

SD(KO) / SD(HL) = 1.045 So tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL)

But I explained to you that Indices depend on both the SD and the CC and the HL indices and the KO indices are the same with a few exceptions shown in my article.

Alsw why are you addressing negative counts. KO is accurate for true counts around its pivot of a true count of 4. Negative counts are far from the pivot and the accuracy of the KO at negative true counts is horrible. But you should not even be playing negative true counts anyhow or betting as little as possible if you must play.

You should only be playing when for six decks KO >= crc(1) = 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Again, go slow, one step a time. Get to the point and answer my question above.

If you post lengthy posts too much, I’m worried both you and me may be banned from this website!

Quote: aceside

If you post lengthy posts too much, I’m worried both you and me may be banned from this website!
link to original post

No worries, LOL. There is no rule against being long-winded. Indeed, there are many mathematical threads that tend to have lengthy posts.

I just thought of another advantage of using KO with TCRC for team play with spotter and big bettor. So say six decks and KO = 28 >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks so spotter calls over big player with some type of signal (or if big player notices spotter betting a tip for the dealer then big player knows KO >= crc(4) without any other additional signal from the spotter minimizing casino surveillance catching onto spotter signals) and communicates the KO count to the big player by betting $25 on his blackjack hand and three white $1 chips as a tip for the dealer. So big player knows KO = 25 + 3 = 28 and can continue the count from there and does not need the spotter anymore and continues to make his big bets as long as KO >= 24 for the six deck game.

So big player is probably playing two hands and table may be full with the other four spots being played. Spotter should stay maybe one or two hands and then ask for a lamer to put in his spot and leave the table. If spotter left as soon as big player sat down then the pit may draw some conclusion that they are connected so have spotter wait a hand or two before leaving. If the spot next to him does not have a player the spotter should ask for a lamer for each to two spots to hold both spots for the spotter until he comes back. So what this does instead of big player betting two spots and four other players at the table all using up high cards when spotter leaves with one or two spots saved for him then big player is playing his two spots with only 3 or 2 other spots being played instead of 4 other spots being played. So this means that there will be more rounds with high cards for the big player to play before cut card comes out.

You should be able to teach dozens of spotters with KO with TCRC. No true count calculations and they just need to count KO which is positive most of the time making it even easier, spotter is just adding plus or minus one to positive integers most of the time, and all player needs to know is to call over big player when KO >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks and 32 for n = 8 decks. And spotter should know basic strategy and playing table minimum except when communicating KO running count to big player using his blackjack bet and tip for the dealer. So compared to teaching a HL spotter teaching a KO spotter is very easy and much less chance of KO spotter making a mistake so you can train dozens of spotter using KO with TCRC in a very short period of time and they will have high accuracy in calling over the big player whenever KO >= crc(4).

Also because spotters are so easy to teach with KO you can have many spotters so you can have the big player called over with different spotters as often as possible so the casino does not link a big player with any one particular spotter.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

SD(KO) / SD(HL) = 1.045 So tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL)
link to original post

I’ve thought about this part again and found it interesting. Your coefficient of 1.045 is reasonable, but this formula TC(KO) = 1.045 x TC(HL) does not sound correct. Let me explain why.

The Hi-Lo TC numbers are mirror symmetric around the TC=0 point. For every positive TC number, there exists a negative counterpart. However, this is not true for the KO TC numbers. For example, with exact three decks remaining of a six-deck shoe, there is a KO TC=+4, but there is not a KO TC=-4 in this situation.

So, I’m saying, the KO TC numbers are not mirror symmetric around its TC=0 point. Do you agree? I really hope you help think about this part for me!

"SD(KO) / SD(HL) = 1.045 So tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL)"

Most readers do not care about math details, they just care about how to use KO with TCRC but I will answer your question anyhow.

On Amazon search for KO with TCRC by Blackjack Rebel and download the book for less than $10 as it has a lot more details. I deliberately did not give details, just how to use KO with TCRC. If you want to know details, download the book.

I did some HL and KO true count sims in the book.

True counts, t, in sims = "t" true count in an small interval around "t".

Hi-Low True Count Frequency Distribution
10,000 Six Decks, 4.5 Decks Dealt Simulation
tc = HL / dr
Total Cards Dealt= 2,340,000

tc frequency
-4.0 6963
So tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL)
So for tc(HL) = -4 then tc(KO) = -4.18


KO True Count Frequency Distribution
10,000 Six Decks, 4.5 Decks Dealt Simulation
tc = (KO - 4*dp) / dr
Total Cards Dealt= 2,340,000

tc frequency
-4.5 5,431
-4.0 7,522
Interpolate get tc(-4.2) frequency is approximately 7,104 which is close to 6963

Now if CC for each strategy situation of HL and KO were the same then KO indices would be 1.045*HL indices.
But you need to take into account KO and HL CC (Correlation Coefficients with the EoR) for each specific situation to get the KO indices. For the most past KO indices are the same as HL indices and HL indices can be used as if they were KO indices. You can look at "HL and KO indices" exhibit under my KO with TCRC article on BlackjackReveiw . com for the few differences.

So the formula I gave you before is which is in "HL and KO indices":

ldx = k*(SD/CC)
ldx = Index, SD = Standard Deviation and CC = Correlation Coefficient of KO with EoR and HLwith EoR.
ldxl / ldx2 = (SDl/CCl) / (SD2/CC2) = (SD1/SD2) / (CC1/CC2)
ldx.KO / ldx.HL = (SD.KO/ SD.HL) / (CC.KO I CC.HL)
SD.KO / SD.HL = 1.045
ldx.KO / ldx.HL = 1.045 /(CC.KO / CC.HL)
ldx.KO /Idx.HL = 1.045 * (CC.HL / CC.KO)

But you are getting into details that someone using KO with TCRC does not need to know.

KO with TCRC is so simple that you can be aware of what is gong on around you at the casino.
As I showed above spotter can put a lamer to hold his spot and leave so big player has more high counts before cut card.

And teaching spotters with KO with TCRC is so easy as spotter just need to keep KO running count and call over big player
when KO >= crc(4) = 24 for six decks and then put a lamer and leave the table. Spotter does not need to do any true count
calculations and just keeps a simple running count, KO, which is almost always positive since KO is unbalanced at four per
decks so you can teach dozens of spotters quickly and they make no mistake since no true count calculation and big
player continues to make his big bets as long as KO >= crc(4) without worrying about make any errors and every big
bet opportunity is caught. That is what is important.

Again, too long for me to read. We do not need any simulation to show this formula wrong:

“tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL)"

Because Hi-Lo TC numbers are symmetrically distributed around its TC=0 point, but KO TC numbers are not.

If you can explain this part to me, your book will easily sell millions of copies!

"Again, too long for me to read. We do not need any simulation to show this formula wrong: “tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL)"

You asked for an explanation! I gave you the sims results which agreed with tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL).
SD.KO / SD. HL = 1.045 is covered as part of the Least Squares Line (LSL) technique to get indices which I will not cover here.
Also readers only care on how to use KO with TCRC. Very few are interested in the math details.
But if you are interested in details spend $10 and buy KO with TCRC on Amazon.
I gave you enough to use KO with TCRC which is all that most readers care about. I deliberately avoided the math details.

And I also showed you in my "HL and KO indices"
SD.KO / SD.HL = 1.045
ldx.KO /Idx.HL = 1.045 * (CC.HL / CC.KO)
So if CC.HL = CC.KO then KO indices would be 1.045*HL indices,
But CC need to be taken into account and the KO indices that are shown in HL and KO indices exhibit

I’m an amateur mathematician. Let me propose a new formula for you:

TC(KO) = c_0 + 1.045 x TC(HL).

Could you please find a number for my proposed c_0 constant?

Quote: BlackjackRebel

Also readers only care on how to use KO with TCRC. Very few are interested in the math details..

You must be kidding! If you can explain my concern well, I will endorse your book. If you have my endorsement, you will easily sell your book millions of copies.

"TC(KO) = c_0 + 1.045 x TC(HL).
Could you please find a number for my proposed c_0 constant?"

If you want more details spend $10 and buy KO with TCRC on Amazon.Kindle
Also KO with TCRC has been proven to be correct by Cacarulo's sims of TKO.
And most readers are not interested in math details but are interested in how to use the system.
But I will cover this here.

c_0 = 0.
tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL)
because SD(KO) = 1.045*SD(HL)

Remember tc(KO) = (KO - 4*dp) / dr
but KO - 4*dp is BALANCED KO. So in tc(KO), KO is balanced just like HL is balance.

Balanced KO
bal.KO = balanced KO
dp = decks played
cp = cards played
u = unbalance per deck= 4 for KO
bal.KO = KO - u*dp
dr = decks remaining
n = number of decks
tc.KO = KO true count
bal.KO = KO - 4*dp
bal.KO = KO - 4*(n - dr)
bal.KO = 4*dr + (KO - 4*n)
tc.KO = bal.KO / dr
tc.KO = (KO - 4*dp)/dr
tc.KO = (KO - 4*(n - dr))/dr
tc.KO = (4*dr + (KO - 4*n))/dr
tc.KO = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr
Show:
bal.KO = KO - 4*dp is the same as bal.KO = KO - (1/13)*(A23456789Tp)
bal.KO = KO - (cp/13)
bal.KO = KO - 4*dp
cp = (A23456789Tp)
dp = (cp/52) so 4*dp = (cp/13)
bal.KO = KO - (1/13)*(A23456789Tp)
KO = 234567p - "10"JQKAp
so bal.KO has tag values of (12/13) for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and (-1/13) for 8, 9 and (-1 and 1/13) for "10"JQKA
and SD(KO) = SD(bal.KO) and tc(KO) = (KO - 4*dp) / dr = KO.bal / dr
So Bal.KO is balanced just like HL

Quote: BlackjackRebel

c_0 = 0.
tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL)
because SD(KO) = 1.045*SD(HL)
link to original post

It looks like you are not doing any work for me, so I just tell you the answer for you to verify:

TC(KO) = -0.0195 + 1.045 x TC(HL).

Quote: BlackjackRebel

Also KO with TCRC has been proven to be correct by Cacarulo's sims of TKO.
link to original post

It looks like you cited Cacarulo a lot to support your work, so I suggest you ask him for help to derive the above TC_KO and TC_HL connection function I posted above. He must know it.

"It looks like you are not doing any work for me, so I just tell you the answer for you to verify:
TC(KO) = -0.0195 + 1.045 x TC(HL)."

I will attempt to explain this to you one more time.
But as I said the only real concern of at least 90% of blackjack counters is how to use KO with TCRC and knowing that it actually works.
Cacarulo's sims showed that KO with TCRC is correct and I showed how to use KO with TCRC. There really is nothing else necessary to say.

So here goes. tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL) with no other terms.
There is no extra term required.
tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL) means, for example, that if tc(HL) >= "t" a certain percentage of the time then t tc(KO) needs to be greater than t*1.045 for the same percentage of the time as HL is greater than t because SD(KO) = 1.045*SD(HL), My tc(KO) vs tc(HL) sims in my KO with TCRC book on Amazon Kindle also show this interpretation to be true.

So SD(KO) = 1.045*SD(HL) tends to make KO indices more extreme than HL indices.
But this is only half of the story. The KO indices calculations also need to be corrected for CC which I showed you before.

ldx = k*(SD/CC)
ldx = Index, SD = Standard Deviation and CC = Correlation Coefficient of KO with EoR and HLwith EoR.
ldxl / ldx2 = (SDl/CCl) / (SD2/CC2) = (SD1/SD2) / (CC1/CC2)
ldx.KO / ldx.HL = (SD.KO/ SD.HL) / (CC.KO I CC.HL)
SD.KO / SD.HL = 1.045
ldx.KO / ldx.HL = 1.045 /(CC.KO / CC.HL)
ldx.KO /Idx.HL = 1.045 * (CC.HL / CC.KO)

I showed you that tc(KO) = bal.KO / dr where bal.kO = KO - 4*dp.= balanced KO count.
So KO is balanced befoce tc(KO) is calculated so there is no extra unbalanced term needed to correct since here is no unbalance in tc(KO) calculation.
This tc(KO) is just like tc(HL) = HL / dr but no adjustment needs to be made to HL because HL is already balanced.
When tc(KO) is calculated KO is first balanced to bal.KO = KO - 4*dp
Then the tc(KO) is calculated
So for both tc(HL) and tc(KO) you are dealing with true count calculations using balanced running counts..
There is no extra woud term to correct for your perceived unbalance in tc(KO) as compared to tc(HL)
There is no unbalance in calculating tc(KO) just like there is no unbalance in calculating tc(HL).
tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL) and with no extra constant term that you are trying to add.

So tc(KO) is calculated from a balanced running count just like tc(HL) is calculied from HL.
The difference is HL is already balanced so can be used directly in calculating tc(HL).
But KO if unbalanced so must be balanced KO running count first before tc(KO) is calculated.. .

Let’s put our differences aside for now, because I’ll ask Gronbog to give me a simulation result for my c_0 constant.

Another part interesting to me is CC = Correlation Coefficient of KO with EoR. Let’s use this particular hand 15 vs. T as an example to compare HL and KO. Apparently, HL is a lot more effective than KO, toward this hit/stand decision at the HL deviation index of TC=+4. How do you quantify this effectiveness? In other words, how do you calculate your CC numbers for this hand?

Quote: aceside

Let’s put our differences aside for now, because I’ll ask Gronbog to give me a simulation result for my c_0 constant.

Another part interesting to me is CC = Correlation Coefficient of KO with EoR. Let’s use this particular hand 15 vs. T as an example to compare HL and KO. Apparently, HL is a lot more effective than KO, toward this hit/stand decision at the HL deviation index of TC=+4. How do you quantify this effectiveness? In other words, how do you calculate your CC numbers for this hand?
link to original post

You choice of 15vT seems to be selected because HL is particularly well suited to that decision. But the key index to exploit is 16vT where HL has problems because the 6 and 5 are both assigned the same count but have opposite influences on the Hit or Stand decision. 16vT is a much closer decision than 15vT and it occurs with high frequency.

The next most important close call decision (index play) is 12v4, along with 12v3, 13v2, and 12 v5. Both HL (and presumably KO) are not particularly effective at exploiting these close call situations. The key ratios when you have a hard 12 are 8,9 vs 10 and both HL and KO ignore the 8s and 9s.

Regarding the hit/stand decision of the hand16vT, we easily find that HL is more effective than KO. If the HL deviation index is at TC=+0, what is the corresponding TC index for KO? This is the part I’m not so confident about. And, what are the C.C numbers respectively for HL and KO?

Actually, another important decision is insurance. The HL insurance index is about TC=3.0; therefore, the KO index should be at TC=3.1. Blackjack Rebel proposes to use a C.C factor to adjust the HL index to KO index, so I’m particularly interested in how he would calculate the C.C. factor for the insurance index too.

Please reread my article.

Please go to BlackjackReview .com and search for KO with TCRC article.

KO with Table of Critical Running Counts (Update)
September 14, 2025

At the end of the article there are several links. Please review these links as well.
EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS
SCORE COMPARISON
TKO SIMULATIONS

In particular look at HL vs KOm S17 and HL and KO indices exhibits.

Here you are see the HL and KO indices and HIL and KO CC for many different situations.

And I showed you this before:
ldx = k*(SD/CC)
ldx = Index, SD = Standard Deviation and CC = Correlation Coefficient of KO with EoR and HLwith EoR.
ldxl / ldx2 = (SDl/CCl) / (SD2/CC2) = (SD1/SD2) / (CC1/CC2)
ldx.KO / ldx.HL = (SD.KO/ SD.HL) / (CC.KO I CC.HL)
SD.KO / SD.HL = 1.045
ldx.KO / ldx.HL = 1.045 / (CC.KO/ CC.HL)
ldx.KO / Idx.HL = 1.045 * (CC.HL/ CC.KO)

So Idx.KO depends on both SD and CC of both HL and KO.

If you look at the chart "Infinite Deck Index Comparisons" you will see the calculation of KO indices compared to HL for several important situations including insurance and standing on hard 16 v T.

Also in my main article I explained that KO is accurate near its pivot o a true count of 4 where large bets are made.

The index for hard 16 v T is zero and the pivot of HL is zero so of course HL is better for standing on hard 16 v T but who cares of accuracy at tc = 0 where small bets are made if betting at all. You want accurate around tc = 4 which is what the KO gives.

Finally SD(KO) / SD(HL) = 1.045 so tc(KO) = 1.045*tc(HL) because tc(KO) = (KO balanced) / dr = (KO - 4*dp) / dr so KO running count is balanced first before the true count is taken so there is no extra term that you are trying to add.

And finally in my article i wrote If t = 0 then crc(t) = 4*n + (t – 4)*dr gives crc(0) = 4*n – 4*dr = 4*(n – dr) = 4*dp

All of these questions you arsk are covered in my article and exhibits. So please carefully reread my article.

"You choice of 15vT seems to be selected because HL is particularly well suited to that decision. But the key index to exploit is 16vT where HL has problems because the 6 and 5 are both assigned the same count but have opposite influences on the Hit or Stand decision. 16vT is a much closer decision than 15vT and it occurs with high frequency."

The correct way is to calculate CC for each playing strategy decision.

Please go to BlackjackReview .com and search for KO with TCRC article.

KO with Table of Critical Running Counts (Update)
September 14, 2025

At the end of the article there are several links.
Look at this link.
EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS

Take a look at the exhibit Betting Correlation Coefficient

Here CC of HL and KO are calculated for betting.

There are EoR for each strategy decision.

So CC of both HL and KO are calculated for each strategy decision similar to those calculated for betting.

Look at exhibits HL vs KO, S17 and HL and KO indices.

The last exhibit shows: ldx.KO / Idx.HL = 1.045 * (CC.HL / CC.KO)

And you will also see:

hard 16 v T CC(HL) = 55.8% CC(KO) = 58.4% and Idx.KO / Idx.HL = 1.00
hard 15 v T CC(HL) = 76.7% cc(KO) = 77.6% and Idx.KO / Idx.HL = 1.03

That is how you calculate KO indices

And although h16 v T occurs most often the index is true count of zero where your minimum bet is out.

You are more concerned about big bets at true counts near the KO pivot of a true count of 4.

So accuracy in hard 15 v T strategy decision is more important than accuracy in hard 16 v T because hard 15 v T your large bet is out.

There is a giant leap in your math derivation, but you are not interested in explaining here, so we move on. To sell your books, you must be able to answer this question:

What are your EV and Standard Deviation numbers of your KO when using the following bet spread?

$10 at TC < +1:
$25 at +1 < = TC < +2;
$50 at +2 < = TC < +3;
$75 at +3 < = TC < +4;
$100 at +4 < = TC.

In his book of 36 years ago for a game of those days, Stanford Wong says his Hi-Lo EV and Standard Deviation numbers are $20 and $400, respectively.

"What are your EV and Standard Deviation numbers of your KO when using the following bet spread?"

TKO Sims were done by Cacarulo who used SCORE which was not available to Stanford Wong 36 years ago.

TKO SCORE beats HL SCORE.

You will find TKO Simulations in:

KO with Table of Critical Running Counts (Update)
September 14, 2025

At the end of the article there are several links.
Look at this link.
TKO Simulations