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.