KO with Table of Critical Running Counts

"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."

KO is accurate near its pivot of a true count of 4 where you want accuracy for playing strategy variations and betting since your big bets are out.

At true counts < 0 KO true count is far from its pivot and its accuracy is terrible. But you should be playing minimum bets or not betting at all at these true counts.

h12 v 3 has an index of 2 for boht HL and KO. Your other quoted examples indices are zero or less. Who cares about accuracy when you are betting minimum bets or not even betting at all. Just play basic strategy if you are even betting at true counts < 0.

Here is a quote I mentioned earlier which I will mention again.

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.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

"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....

No, not really. Not in a shoe game. You don't have any more than a minimum bet down if you are thinking about hitting 12 vs. 4, 12 vs. 5, or 13 vs. 2. Only 12 vs. 3 has some value as a play. Same for 16 vs. 10- as powerful as the index is relative to Basic Strategy, in a real shoe game where you are spreading you can always stand on 16 vs. 10 and it won't cost you much at all. This is especially true in a surrender game where you are surrendering a dealt 16 vs. 10. So 15 vs. 10 is really more important than 16 vs. 10.

The right way to determine the value of playing indices and the cards & system tags you use to determine them is a 3-way decision: always do it, never do it, or do it only when the index calls for it. Using the index is compared to the closer of "always" and "never," with your spread included in the calculation, and that is the real value of the index.

Once you do that- you rank your indices, you have a relative number representing the power of each of them, and you go to Blackjack Attack (3rd edition) to see how the cards hit on each of those plays, what each card is worth, multiply the absolute value of those numbers by your relative power for each index play, then all those all up for each card, and then discover that Zen is the best count for real-world playing efficiency in a shoe game!

"The right way to determine the value of playing indices and the cards & system tags you use to determine them is a 3-way decision: always do it, never do it, or do it only when the index calls for it. Using the index is compared to the closer of "always" and "never," with your spread included in the calculation, and that is the real value of the index."

There is no need to go into detail. Cacarulo's TKO sims show that the SCORE of TKO is greater than the SCORE of HL for the shoe game and since KO with TCRC gives the same true counts as TKO but is easier to use then just use KO with TCRC. No need to go into detail of the value of any particular play. You just want playing strategy an betting accuracy at true counts around the KO pivot of four where large bets are made. True counts of zero or less should have minimum bet or not being player at all so who cares about them.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

hard 15 v T CC(HL) = 76.7% cc(KO) = 77.6% and Idx.KO / Idx.HL = 1.03
link to original post

Actually, I like this part, but do not know how to calculate these two CC numbers. Can you derive them right here?

"Actually, I like this part, but do not know how to calculate these two CC numbers. Can you derive them right here?"

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 this link below..
EXAMPLES, CHARTS AND EXHIBITS

Look at:
Betting Correlation Coefficient

This shows how CC are calculated using EoR for betting

For hit/stand hard 15 v T just put in the EoR for that situation and use the same formula as for Betting Correlation Coefficient exhibit

EoR for each strategic situation is from Don' S. Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition.

I just looked up the article you cite above and found a major problem. Your betting Correlation (your CC) numbers are listed as 96.51% and 96.51% respectively for the Hi-Lo system and the KO. This HL CC number is reasonable, but your KO CC number is definitely a typo here. Online search gives me a rough value for the KO CC of about 98%.

As far as I know, the calculation of the betting CC for the KO system has been a major problem for several decades, because it is an unbalanced counting system. How do you calculate your KO CC number? What equation do you use?

"I just looked up the article you cite above and found a major problem. Your betting Correlation (your CC) numbers are listed as 96.51% and 96.51% respectively for the Hi-Lo system and the KO. This HL CC number is reasonable, but your KO CC number is definitely a typo here. Online search gives me a rough value for the KO CC of about 98%. As far as I know, the calculation of the betting CC for the KO system has been a major problem for several decades, because it is an unbalanced counting system. How do you calculate your KO CC number? What equation do you use?"

Let me answer one question at a time

Look closely at Betting CC. There are two scenarios in Betting CC each with its own EoR..

The first is for the S17, DAS, LS game. For that game both HL and KO have the same CC of 96.5%.

The second is for S17, DAS, no LS game. KO CC for no LS is 97.4%. So when you saw 98% betting CC for KO it was for the no LS game. Cacarulo's sims proved this to be the case also.

Your second question is for unbalanced counts.

CC of an unbalanced count = CC of count when it is balanced, that is CC(KO, EoR) = CC(bal.KO, EoR)

CC((X + constant),Y) = CC(X,Y) is a property of CC.

This is all explained with examples in KO with TCRC that you can buy for $10 on Amazon.

I did not include any of this in my short article in BlackjackReview since I just wanted that to be a "how to use" KO article which is all that most readers are interested in.

"No, not really. Not in a shoe game. You don't have any more than a minimum bet down if you are thinking about hitting 12 vs. 4, 12 vs. 5, or 13 vs. 2. Only 12 vs. 3 has some value as a play."

Exactly You agree with me. I put in quotes what I was replying to when you replied to me. I did not write that about these plays with indices around zero, another reader did. I just quoted them and then replied. My reply was that I am interested in accuracy in playing decision and betting near the KO pivot of a true count of 4 were your large bets are out. Who cares about indices near zero or worse below zero. You should have your minimum bet out or not even playing those.

The correct way to determine each playing decisions value for a particular count system is to use CC. This is shown in HL vs KO exhibits in one of the links below KO with TCRC BlacjackReview article.

"Zen is the best count for real-world playing efficiency in a shoe game!"

I do not recommend using a level 2 count. If you make even one mistake per hour you lost all of your theoretical advantage. Use KO with TCRC for the shoe game. If you want more power then add the simple side count, 5m7c, which I did not cover here. 5m7c helps with betting. Use brc = betting running count = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) for betting replacing using KO for betting.

KO with 5m7c is on Amazon Kindle for $10.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

"Zen is the best count for real-world playing efficiency in a shoe game!"

I do not recommend using a level 2 count. If you make even one mistake per hour you lost all of your theoretical advantage. Use KO with TCRC for the shoe game. If you want more power then add the simple side count, 5m7c, which I did not cover here. 5m7c helps with betting. Use brc = betting running count = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) for betting replacing using KO for betting.

KO with 5m7c is on Amazon Kindle for $10.
link to original post

While the sentence you are responding to is largely nonsensical, the "one mistake per hour costs you your edge" fallacy is just that.

Most individual mistakes do not wipe out profits from an hour of play. The type of mistake that occurs from using a count above your competence level is by definition, generally marginal.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

Your second question is for unbalanced counts.

CC of an unbalanced count = CC of count when it is balanced, that is CC(KO, EoR) = CC(bal.KO, EoR)

CC((X + constant),Y) = CC(X,Y) is a property of CC.
link to original post

This part has been discussed by Cac and me a few times on another forum. It all comes down to how you define your betting correlation (BC) number. I can easily reproduce your KO CC numbers of 96.51% for a LS game and 97.37% for a no LS game, but these numbers do not represent what you want them to mean.

By the way, your equation of "CC((X + constant),Y) = CC(X,Y)" is incorrect.

Also, let me bring up another statement of yours, "hard 15 v T CC(HL) = 76.7% cc(KO) = 77.6% and Idx.KO / Idx.HL = 1.03." Let me interpret it: for this hand of 15vT, the betting correlation of HL is worse than KO (you actually imply that the playing efficiency of HL is worse than KO). This does not make any sense! I can assure you: Hi-Lo is a lot more powerful than your true-counted KO toward this hand decision of 15vT.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

"Zen is the best count for real-world playing efficiency in a shoe game!"

I do not recommend using a level 2 count. If you make even one mistake per hour you lost all of your theoretical advantage. Use KO with TCRC for the shoe game. If you want more power then add the simple side count, 5m7c, which I did not cover here. 5m7c helps with betting. Use brc = betting running count = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) for betting replacing using KO for betting.

KO with 5m7c is on Amazon Kindle for $10.
link to original post

A little marketing advice for your bookselling- never put obscure, unclear, or self-created jargon in a book title. I happen to be a very experienced counter, and I don't know what "5m7c" means. What is it, something about sidecounts? You could call the book "Using KO With Modified True Counting and Sidecounts" and then I would know just what the book is about and if it's for me. When you put it in the title it can be taken as trying to baffle us with BS, hoping people will buy the book out of curiosity, to find out what it means, but people usually don't do that.

Now if you want to develop some jargon, a notation like "5m7c" that describes a sidecount, you can introduce and explain it early in the book, and then use it throughout the book. A lot of the jargon we use in AP came from books in that way and once that happens your book becomes part of the canon of AP and people will indeed buy it, just like people still buy Wong and Snyder and Schlesinger books.

As far as the advisability of level 2 or higher counts, you may have no idea how elaborate some of the systems those of us who do it every day use, especially when we are talking about multiple sidebets or games other than blackjack. I think my record is 6 different counts in one day, and none of them were level 1 and single parameter. After 12 hours like that my head is spinning, and it's time for hookers and blow! (or in reality, in my case, books and pill-ow.)

"While the sentence you are responding to is largely nonsensical, the "one mistake per hour costs you your edge" fallacy is just that.:

I was writing fast and loose. I meant if you make one mistake per hour you wipe out the EXTRA edge you would get using your more advanced system. I did not mean you wipe out your entire edge.

"By the way, your equation of "CC((X + constant),Y) = CC(X,Y)" is incorrect."

Your questions make it clear to me that you \did not bother spending $10 to get the full KO with TCRC book so you can raed the entire book with all proofs.

I did not include proofs in BlackjackRebel article which was more a "how to" use KO with TCRC. For those who want to see all of the proofs they can just spend $10 and buy KO with TCRC on Amazon.

Please do me a favor. Spend $10 and buy KO with TCRC on Amazon and read the entire book which should answer your questions that you are asking here. Read the entire KO with TCRC before asking any other questions.

But the vast majority of readers do not care about proofs or math details. They just want to know how to use the system and if the system work and if it is easy to use.

I use the Zen method.

"Now if you want to develop some jargon, a notation like "5m7c" that describes a sidecount, you can introduce and explain it early in the book, "

When going to the link to buy KO with 5m7c there is a short description of the book and an explanation that 5m7c is a side count. In the book itself 5m7c is defined immediately. You want to title short, not long and complicated and as long are reader knows what 5m7c is before buying the book the no problem. Also the price is only $10. I do not understand what the problem is. Your lunch will cost more than the book.

"I use the Zen method."

I looked up Zeon count and here is what I found:

Zen Count – Card Counting Strategies - qfit.com
Zen Count – An advanced, Level 2, balanced Blackjack strategy optimized for betting found in Arnold Snyder's Blackbelt in Blackjack, RGE Publishing, 1983.
Betting Correlation: .96
Playing Efficiency: .63
Level: II
Strategy Type: Balanced

Level 2 means it is much more difficult to use and more likely to make mistakes than the level 1 KO count. Also being balanced, it's accuracy at true counts around 4 which is the KO pivot is much less than the KO count's accuracy around true count of 4. You want accuracy for playing strategy changes and betting around true count of 4 where your large bets are made.

From BlackjackReview Card Counting Systems Comparisons I found that KO Betting Correlation 98% (actually this is for no LS and is really 97.4%, for LS KO betting correlation is 96.5% same as HL) and Playing Efficiency 55%.

Consider adding 5m7c (five minus seven count) as a plus/minus side count to KO. Then brc = betting running count = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) has a betting efficiency of 99% for both LS and no LS. which is 3% more than Zen's 96% betting efficiency. Also there are playing strategy changes using psrc = playing strategy running count = KO + k*(5m7c) where k = a constant that varies for different playing strategy decision. Note if k = 0 then psrc = KO.

So keep the simple level 1 KO count with its accuracy at its pivot of a true count of 4 and add a simple level one side count, 5m7c, and you have a system the outperforms Zen when its playing and betting strategies are included.

This is all covered in KO with 5m7c on Amazon for $10.

Just give me the page/table numbers in the book Blackjack Attack for me to find the EOR numbers to calculate “hard 15 v T CC(HL) = 76.7% cc(KO) = 77.6%.” I will say a few good words about you!

Quote: BlackjackRebel

"I use the Zen method."

I looked up Zeon count and here is what I found:

Zen Count – Card Counting Strategies - qfit.com
Zen Count – An advanced, Level 2, balanced Blackjack strategy optimized for betting found in Arnold Snyder's Blackbelt in Blackjack, RGE Publishing, 1983.
Betting Correlation: .96
Playing Efficiency: .63
Level: II
Strategy Type: Balanced

Level 2 means it is much more difficult to use and more likely to make mistakes than the level 1 KO count. Also being balanced, it's accuracy at true counts around 4 which is the KO pivot is much less than the KO count's accuracy around true count of 4. You want accuracy for playing strategy changes and betting around true count of 4 where your large bets are made.

From BlackjackReview Card Counting Systems Comparisons I found that KO Betting Correlation 98% (actually this is for no LS and is really 97.4%, for LS KO betting correlation is 96.5% same as HL) and Playing Efficiency 55%.

Consider adding 5m7c (five minus seven count) as a plus/minus side count to KO. Then brc = betting running count = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) has a betting efficiency of 99% for both LS and no LS. which is 3% more than Zen's 96% betting efficiency. Also there are playing strategy changes using psrc = playing strategy running count = KO + k*(5m7c) where k = a constant that varies for different playing strategy decision. Note if k = 0 then psrc = KO.

So keep the simple level 1 KO count with its accuracy at its pivot of a true count of 4 and add a simple level one side count, 5m7c, and you have a system the outperforms Zen when its playing and betting strategies are included.

This is all covered in KO with 5m7c on Amazon for $10.
link to original post

Zen is not that hard. The cancellation method, such as A+2 = 0, 4+J = 0, 2+7+Q = 0, etc. usually leaves few numbers to have to add or subtract in each hand.

Your method appears to be very complicated. Thanks but I'll stick to Zen.

"Your method appears to be very complicated. Thanks but I'll stick to Zen."

Good luck with Zen. If you are happy using it then go ahead. But blackjack teams will never use Zen,

Blackjack teams chose HL because it is powerful and simple. But KO is slightly more powerful than HL but that is not the main reason to switch from HL to KO.

KO with TCRC is more accurate at true counts of 3 or more and easier to use since if you memorize TCRC you do not even have to do any true count calculations and estimating decks to the nearest full deck is more than adequate. All decisions are made comparing two integers: KO and crc(Index). You know your decision in one second and it is very accurate so you are basically playing KO almost perfectly with almost no effort. So you can play longer sessions with less mental fatigue.

Zen is balanced level 2 and so it's accuracy at true counts of three or more is less than the accuracy of KO at true counts of 3 or more. Note I said accuracy of actual play, not theoretical. playing efficiency, If you have a computer playing KO and Zen perfectly then Zen would beat KO since Zen is theoretically more powerful. But computers are not playing blackjack. Humans are and humans make errors. So you want a system so simple to keep errors to a minimum. .

I would rather play a count system like KO with TCRC perfectly with minimal effort than a slightly more powerful system like Zen which is nowhere near the accuracy of KO at true counts of 3 or more.and requires true count calculations and decks estimated to the nearest half deck.

Quote: KevinAA

Zen is not that hard. The cancellation method, such as A+2 = 0, 4+J = 0, 2+7+Q = 0, etc. usually leaves few numbers to have to add or subtract in each hand.

Your method appears to be very complicated. Thanks but I'll stick to Zen.
link to original post

Good choice. A fun fact about Zen is that at the counts where you have a lot of money on the table, for the play decisions you have to make the ace acts like a high card, with about half the value of the 10. I don't use Zen normally but I often use Unbalanced Zen for single deck, and I've had trouble making anything else work significantly better. It's single parameter and easy enough that I have plenty of reserve for some ace sequencing and fun stuff like that.

"Good choice. A fun fact about Zen is that at the counts where you have a lot of money on the table, for the play decisions you have to make the ace acts like a high card, with about half the value of the 10. I don't use"

Another problem with Zen is that you need to learn new indices. For KO with TCRC you can use the HL indices for KO indices. There are only a a few exceptions where the indices differ.

Quote: BlackjackRebel

"Good choice. A fun fact about Zen is that at the counts where you have a lot of money on the table, for the play decisions you have to make the ace acts like a high card, with about half the value of the 10. I don't use"

Another problem with Zen is that you need to learn new indices. For KO with TCRC you can use the HL indices for KO indices. There are only a a few exceptions where the indices differ.
link to original post

Or you can double the HL indices, and it will be close enough with any level 2 balanced count that it will take millions of hands to notice the difference.

Blackjack Rebel: Please try using the "QUOTE button (rather than the REPLY button) when you are responding to someone's post and want to quote their post. It makes it easier for you to quote, and for readers to distinguish your comments from what is being quoted.