KO with Table of Critical Running Counts
January 22nd, 2026 at 9:33:56 PM
permalink
"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.
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.
January 22nd, 2026 at 9:47:14 PM
permalink
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!
January 23rd, 2026 at 2:21:23 AM
permalink
"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.
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.
January 23rd, 2026 at 3:59:31 AM
permalink
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?
January 23rd, 2026 at 11:01:53 AM
permalink
"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.
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.
Last edited by: BlackjackRebel on Jan 23, 2026
January 23rd, 2026 at 7:48:38 PM
permalink
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?
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?
January 24th, 2026 at 2:01:58 AM
permalink
"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.
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 2:10:14 AM
permalink
"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.
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 2:27:56 AM
permalink
"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.
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 3:55:05 AM
permalink
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 8:16:24 AM
permalink
Quote: BlackjackRebelYour 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.
January 24th, 2026 at 1:54:00 PM
permalink
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.)
January 24th, 2026 at 5:18:44 PM
permalink
"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.
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 5:26:35 PM
permalink
"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.
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 6:31:29 PM
permalink
I use the Zen method.
January 24th, 2026 at 7:04:41 PM
permalink
"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.
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 7:32:54 PM
permalink
"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.
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 7:44:02 PM
permalink
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!
January 24th, 2026 at 9:12:23 PM
permalink
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 9:25:35 PM
permalink
"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.
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 9:30:04 PM
permalink
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 9:35:44 PM
permalink
"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.
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.
January 24th, 2026 at 9:52:32 PM
permalink
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.
January 25th, 2026 at 5:07:46 AM
permalink
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.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
January 25th, 2026 at 9:48:57 AM
permalink
Oh Thank you very much. I did not see the QUOTE button. That is an excellent feature. I will use if from now on.
January 25th, 2026 at 10:17:09 AM
permalink
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: 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.
link to original post
So Zen indices are approximately twice the HL indices. But Zen is still level 2, requires more work and mental energy than the level 1 KO, still requires true count calculations and estimating decks to the nearest half deck, is not as accurate around a true count of 4 as the KO with TCRC is and KO does not require any true count calculations at all if TCRC is memorized and estimating decks to the nearest full deck is good enough for KO and Cacarulo's sims shows the KO SCORE with decks estimated to the nearest full deck exceeds the HL SCORE with decks estimated to the nearest half deck. This is all shown in the TKO sim link in KO with TCRC on Blackjack Review. Read that entire article over along with all links below the article and then compare with Zen to make your final decision.
Another problem with Zen is that the betting efficiency of Zen is only 96%. For the shoe game, betting is very important. If you use 5m7c as a side count and use brc = betting running count = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) you can increase betting efficiency to 99% where 5m7c is five minus seven count. 5m7c also helps KO with some playing strategy changes which I will not go over here.
After all of this if you still like Zen then go ahead and continue to use it. But I prefer the level 1 KO which is very easy to use and using KO with TCRC can be played almost as accurately as a computer would play it, HL indices can be used as KO indices directly, no true count calculations involved and you can play for hours with almost no mental energy at all expended. Then add simple balanced side counts to KO to improve power.
In the KO with TCRC BlackjackReview article look at the link at the end of the article entitled SCORE COMPARISON, Here two side counts were added to KO which is KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc and as you can see the SCORE greatly exceeds HO2 with ASC SCORE.
Also balanced plus/minus side counts are exact throughout the entire shoe and do not depend on decks played or decks remaining and also fluctuate around the mean of zero. Compare this with Ace side counts where Aces played are monotonically increasing and need to be kept track of as well as decks played or decks remaining and an Ace side count is most inaccurate near the end of the shoe where accuracy is most important..
January 25th, 2026 at 10:51:31 AM
permalink
Quote: gordonm888Blackjack 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.
link to original post
Oh no, the Quote button is too complicated and will cause errors. Copy & paste with quotation marks is a simpler system, and much more powerful. Everyone should be using it!
January 25th, 2026 at 11:45:53 AM
permalink
oh. I usually just want to concentrate on one sentence. So I guess the way to do it now that you say not to use the QUOTE button is to put a line of stars below the quote like this:
''Sentence that I am quoting'
******************* MY REPLY *****************************************************
Start with my reply.
''Sentence that I am quoting'
******************* MY REPLY *****************************************************
Start with my reply.
January 26th, 2026 at 8:25:52 AM
permalink
Have you seen my last post?
January 26th, 2026 at 10:46:44 AM
permalink
'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!"
Have you seen my last post?
==================== My Reply ============================================
Sorry I missed your last post where you were asking for EoR for hard 15 v T.
I created an Excel Spreadsheet with over 100 playing strategy changes with EoR in a table for each of these strategy changes. ETFAN, Arnold Snyder's math guy, verified my Excel Spreadsheet around 15 years ago as correct. It is correct as that is where I got all of my indices and values of "k" in KO and HL with side counts which were verified as correct by Gronbog's sims.
So I only post the HL and KO CC results. I am not going to post the actual EoR for each strategic situation..Actually I could not do that as it would be copyright violations of Don S. Blackjack Attack.3rd edition where Don posted the EoR in tables in the Appendix of his book. I could post a specific example for illustration though so I could have posted the HL and KO CC using EoR for hard 15 v T but that is not the example I chose to post.. But I posted details with EoR for the Betting CC for KO and HL for LS and no LS that I showed you before. This way you can see how it works. So I got the EoR from Don S. Blackjack Attack 3rd edition. You can get all EoR from that book.
Have you seen my last post?
==================== My Reply ============================================
Sorry I missed your last post where you were asking for EoR for hard 15 v T.
I created an Excel Spreadsheet with over 100 playing strategy changes with EoR in a table for each of these strategy changes. ETFAN, Arnold Snyder's math guy, verified my Excel Spreadsheet around 15 years ago as correct. It is correct as that is where I got all of my indices and values of "k" in KO and HL with side counts which were verified as correct by Gronbog's sims.
So I only post the HL and KO CC results. I am not going to post the actual EoR for each strategic situation..Actually I could not do that as it would be copyright violations of Don S. Blackjack Attack.3rd edition where Don posted the EoR in tables in the Appendix of his book. I could post a specific example for illustration though so I could have posted the HL and KO CC using EoR for hard 15 v T but that is not the example I chose to post.. But I posted details with EoR for the Betting CC for KO and HL for LS and no LS that I showed you before. This way you can see how it works. So I got the EoR from Don S. Blackjack Attack 3rd edition. You can get all EoR from that book.
January 26th, 2026 at 11:09:26 AM
permalink
We are going circles! If you do not give me the book page number for me to get the EOR numbers, I will not endorse your book. Think about it!
January 26th, 2026 at 1:55:54 PM
permalink
Quote: acesideWe are going circles! If you do not give me the book page number for me to get the EOR numbers, I will not endorse your book. Think about it!
link to original post
You have to buy Blackjack Attack 3rd edition. There is an Appendix at the end of the book that has EoR for many different situations. Just buy the book, go to the Appendix and look for hard 15 v T. All you need to know is that my spreadsheet calculations using Don S. EoR are correct. ETFAN verfiied my spreadsheet, the LSL (Least Square Line) technique that I used produced the same indices as Peter Griffin's Proportional Deflection method for several situations tested, the HL indices produced by the Excel spreadsheet matched published HL indices and around 20 different Gronbog simulations of HL and kO with side counts derived from that spreadsheet produced increasing SCORE values when the Weighed CC and Betting CC increased. Also Cacarulo's sims of TKO showed that a true counted KO like TKO or KO with TCRC produces superior SCORE values to HL even when KO is estimated to the nearest full deck and HL is estimated to the nearest half deck. There really is not much else to say.
What I am really interested is feedback from players actually using KO with TCRC and compare it to HL. I would like reviews of people actually using KO with TCRC and let me know what they think. This would be helpful to everyone.
If you go ot You Tube or some counting practice software that counts with the HL and displays HL running count and true count after each round, what readers can do is count the shoe with KO with TCRC instead and compare decisions with KO with TCRC to the HL decisions shown on the screen. If TCRC is memorized there is no need to calculate true counts and for true counts of 3 or more, KO with TCRC produces more accuarte true counts than HL and place big bets whenever KO >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks or 32 for n = 8 decks.
January 26th, 2026 at 2:03:22 PM
permalink
Again, too long for me to read. I have the book, but there are more than 14 pages of tables for me to look up. So, which table to use?
Moreover, I can just ask Don myself today to verify. You need to be specific.
Moreover, I can just ask Don myself today to verify. You need to be specific.
January 26th, 2026 at 2:28:53 PM
permalink
Quote: acesideAgain, too long for me to read. I have the book, but there are more than 14 pages of tables for me to look up. So, which table to use?
Moreover, I can just ask Don myself today to verify. You need to be specific.
link to original post
When I get a chance I will look for my copy of Blackjack Attack.
But I guarantee readers are not interested in that. They want to know how to use the KO with TCRC and it is more accurate for true counts of 3 or more and easier to use than the HL so players can play for longer sessions with less fatigue and mental energy expended and less errors at high true counts..They also want to know that KO with TCRC actually works. As shown by Cacarulo's TKO sims and so KO with TCRC has a higher SCORE than HL even when KO is estimated to the nearest full deck and HL is estimated to the nearest half deck. No one cares about the EoR for hard 15 v T.
Last edited by: BlackjackRebel on Jan 26, 2026
January 26th, 2026 at 2:33:01 PM
permalink
I like this part because I’m an amateur mathematician!
January 26th, 2026 at 7:21:44 PM
permalink
Quote: acesideI like this part because I’m an amateur mathematician!
link to original post
Is it possible to upload a small PDF on this site? I can make a PDF of hard 15 v T for both HL and KO and upload it which is similar to the Betting CC PDF but with EoR for hard 15 v T.
But as I said earlier I am more interested in comments from user feedback of using KO with TCRC compared to using HL and if they would actually switch from HL to KO with TCRC for the shoe game.
January 26th, 2026 at 10:34:31 PM
permalink
Quote: acesideI like this part because I’m an amateur mathematician!
link to original post
I created a one page PDF for hard 15 v T stand and uploaded it to this:
https://www.pdffiller.com/jsfiller-desk10/?traceparent=00-3c1e0a3166bdb447e243c555eec7cbbd-4b856fbb2e901cf3-00&flat_pdf_quality=high&requestHash=121cf8b6e0252c924e7b373b38494a9c15647c769693d66e4f6060bd55a1a64d&projectId=2024159938&richTextFormatting=true&jsf-page-rearrange-v2=true&jsf-redesign-full=true&jsf-fake-edit-embedded=true&isSkipEditorLoadFrequency=true&jsf-probability-70=true&jsf-socket-io=true&jsf-simplified-modes-iteration-1=true&jsf-offline-mode=false&jsf-fake-edit-stream-editing=true&acc-share-button-in-editor=true&jsf-all-tools-tab=false&jsf-all-tools-tab-branch-b=false&jsf-editor-pdfjs-five=true&jsf-context-menu-to-right-panel=false&jsf-disable-autosave=true&jsf-disable-browser-translation=true&jsf-web-mobile-new-filling-experience=false&e-sign-assign-fields-experiment=false&routeId=c2beb42bcbf7820d2ea2f3601b7b1e28#37181b72c903480388bf84c37b0ef5d7
January 27th, 2026 at 6:21:16 AM
permalink
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: gordonm888Blackjack 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.
link to original post
Oh no, the Quote button is too complicated and will cause errors. Copy & paste with quotation marks is a simpler system, and much more powerful. Everyone should be using it!
link to original post
I assume this post above by AutomaticMonkey was just sarcasm.
We have had problems in the past with people who would deliberately misquote other members (adding or subtracting words) to make them sound stupid, or would quote a comment out of context, again to make people appear stupid. That's why the QUOTE feature includes a link to the original post.
You too can become a moderator and get stuck with making boring posts that explain the QUOTE feature.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
January 27th, 2026 at 2:11:53 PM
permalink
Quote: BlackjackRebel
I created a one page PDF for hard 15 v T stand and uploaded it to this:
I cannot retrieve this pdf file. Could you please convert it into a jpg picture file and insert it here as an attachment?
January 27th, 2026 at 8:08:13 PM
permalink
Quote: acesideQuote: BlackjackRebel
I created a one page PDF for hard 15 v T stand and uploaded it to this:
I cannot retrieve this pdf file. Could you please convert it into a jpg picture file and insert it here as an attachment?
link to original post
Note that this agrees with my calculations in HL vs KO indices in my KO with TCRC article.
SD(HL) = 0.877
SD(KO) = 0.917
SD(KO) / SD(HL) = 1.045
CC(HL) = 76.72%
CC(KO) = 77.54%
CC(HL) / CC(KO) = 0.989
Idx(KO) = 1.045 x 0.989 * Idx(HL) = 1.033 * Idx(HL) = 1.033 * 3.874 = 4.004
This identity and many other derivations are in KO with TCRC which you can buy the Kindle Version on Amazon for $10.
Last edited by: BlackjackRebel on Jan 27, 2026
January 27th, 2026 at 10:01:25 PM
permalink
Thank you very much for your table. I've looked up these numbers. They are in the book BJA 3rd Edition Page 515, Table D10.
For the hand 15vT Hard Hitting,
Card = {2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A}
EoR = [0.1873 -0.3168 -0.7279 -1.7532 -2.2287 -0.537 0.0853 0.6642 11992 -1.1699].
I need to figure out the meaning of these numbers first and then try to calculate them out myself.
For the hand 15vT Hard Hitting,
Card = {2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A}
EoR = [0.1873 -0.3168 -0.7279 -1.7532 -2.2287 -0.537 0.0853 0.6642 11992 -1.1699].
I need to figure out the meaning of these numbers first and then try to calculate them out myself.
January 27th, 2026 at 10:42:35 PM
permalink
Quote: acesideThank you very much for your table. I've looked up these numbers. They are in the book BJA 3rd Edition Page 515, Table D10.
For the hand 15vT Hard Hitting,
Card = {2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A}
EoR = [0.1873 -0.3168 -0.7279 -1.7532 -2.2287 -0.537 0.0853 0.6642 11992 -1.1699].
I need to figure out the meaning of these numbers first and then try to calculate them out myself.
link to original post
I would not even attempt to calculate EoR. They are very complicated to calculate and were calculated with high speed computers. Forget trying to calculate by hand.
Concentrate on using KO with TCRC which is what other blackjack players care about.
As I said before I am interested in feedback and comments from players who use KO with TCRC and compare it to using HL
I am not trying to prove KO with TCRC is correct. The math including sims by Cacarulos shows that KO with TCRC is correct.
I just want comments from readers who actually use KO with TCRC and compare it to HL, I am still waiting for user feedback and comments.
I stand by my original comment which is KO with TCRC should replace HL as the industry standard for the shoe game and blackjack teams should switch form HL to KO with TCRC for the shoe game.
For the shoe game, stop teaching HL and teach KO with TCRC instead.
January 27th, 2026 at 10:46:09 PM
permalink
What are you talking about? I can calculate them out by hand.
January 28th, 2026 at 4:25:21 AM
permalink
Quote: acesideWhat are you talking about? I can calculate them out by hand.
link to original post
Read over how the EoR were calcluated in Blackjack Attack. The tables in BJA were created recently when high speed computers. When Peter Griffin wrote Theory of Blackjack only a few EoR were calculated and then to only a few digits. The only EoR that is easy to calculated by hand is for insurance.
If you want to spend more time just add 5m7c as a side count to KO which is covered in KO with 5m7c book on Amazon Kindle
January 28th, 2026 at 4:37:55 AM
permalink
Let me explain. Your conclusion is based on the work of Cac’s simulation and on the work of Don’s book tables; however, neither of these authors has shown any interest of supporting your work. Trust me: I’m on your side, because I’m able to develop my own math toward this research direction..
January 28th, 2026 at 6:49:33 AM
permalink
Quote: BlackjackRebel
I would not even attempt to calculate EoR. They are very complicated to calculate and were calculated with high speed computers. Forget trying to calculate by hand.
link to original post
Nah, it's trivial to calculate those EORs with either of the composition-dependent BJ calculators that are available online. The Wizard has such a calculator on the WOO site and there is a composition-dependent BJ calculator on the bjstrat.com site. With either calculator: simply input the situation in question and calculate the EV then remove one card of the given rank and look at the change in EV. Easy peasy.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
January 28th, 2026 at 8:56:44 AM
permalink
Quote: gordonm888Quote: BlackjackRebel
I would not even attempt to calculate EoR. They are very complicated to calculate and were calculated with high speed computers. Forget trying to calculate by hand.
link to original post
Nah, it's trivial to calculate those EORs with either of the composition-dependent BJ calculators that are available online. The Wizard has such a calculator on the WOO site and there is a composition-dependent BJ calculator on the bjstrat.com site. With either calculator: simply input the situation in question and calculate the EV then remove one card of the given rank and look at the change in EV. Easy peasy.
link to original post
Very nice. Good to know. Thanks for that information. .
January 28th, 2026 at 9:14:25 AM
permalink
Quote: acesideLet me explain. Your conclusion is based on the work of Cac’s simulation and on the work of Don’s book tables; however, neither of these authors has shown any interest of supporting your work. Trust me: I’m on your side, because I’m able to develop my own math toward this research direction..
link to original post
Don S always had harsh words for me and does not like me. He did not even understand plus/minus side counts. It took me over four months trying to explain it to him before he finally understood and he is supposed to be an expert. I would not give much weight to what Don has to say about my work. So I would never expect endorsements from Don..
Don loves the HL but not KO. But to be fair Don did have favorable comments for HL with 7m9c which BlacjackReview published.
Blackjack
The Blackjack High-Low Count with 7m9c
October 13, 2024
[ Comments from Don Schlesinger ]
A very ambitious piece of work! Thank you for sending. Improvements in SCORE are impressive......
Gronbog understood plus/minus side counts in one week and did sims of KO and HL with side counts.and the sim results speak for themselves
As far as Cacarulo goes, Cacarulo and I had pleasant and polite exchanges of bj21 and Cacarulo provided the TKO sims I requested.. Cacarulo invented the Monkey Count for Spanish 21. I said use HL with 5mAc instead because although his Monkey Count increased Spanish 21 betting efficiency it totally destroyed playing strategy deviations for Spanish 21 and Cacarulo agreed.
Also Cacarulo supports and I think he created TKO and provided TKO simulation results that I requested. I showed that KO with TCRC produces the same KO true counts as does his complicated TKO formula. I never asked Cacarulo for endorsement of KO with TCRC bus since he endorses TKO he would also endoes KO with TCRC..
But as I said I an not looking for verification of KO with TCRC. It has been proven by Cacarulo's sims and my calculations. That is not what I am asking.
I am asking for readers to actually use KO with TCRC and compare it with using HL. I just wanted feedback from actual readers who use both counts.
These are just readers opinions I want, from actual casino use, not backjack experts. Regrular users of KO with TCRC and their comments on if they like it better than HL.
Remember most of the HL indices can be used as KO indices with just a few exceptions outlined in HL vs KO indices of KO with TCRC so there is not much new to learn.
TCRC shows true counts of 1 or more and for true count of zero use KO = 4*dp (dp = decks played). For negative true counts which you should not even be playing, KO accuracy at negative true counts (which are far away from its pivot of a true count of 4) are horrible. So for negative true counts you can just play most of the time basic basic strategy if you must play and deviate only if extremely negative true counts. I would use crc(0) = 4*dp, crc(-1) = 4*dp - dr, crc(-2) = 4*dp - 2*dr. ..
Last edited by: BlackjackRebel on Jan 28, 2026
January 28th, 2026 at 11:52:11 AM
permalink
Quote: BlackjackRebelThese are just readers opinions I want, from actual casino use, not backjack experts. Regrular users of KO with TCRC and their comments on if they like it better than HL.
Remember most of the HL indices can be used as KO indices with just a few exceptions outlined in HL vs KO indices of KO with TCRC so there is not much new to learn.
There are no readers. As I told you, I am the only reader.
Regarding the indices, I’m not so sure. That’s why I stick to the hit/stand decision of 15vT. The other indice you stress a lot is the hit/stand decision of 14vT, but I myself haven’t used it.
January 28th, 2026 at 4:42:01 PM
permalink
According to the administrator there are readers who do not post. Also some other readers did post such as using the Zen count and explained how great the Zen count is. In my opinion the Zen count is level 2 and so more difficult to use than level 1 counts. So you are not the only reader. .
There may be readers who tried KO with TCRC who do not want to post.which is fine. I just wanted feedback for my own curiosity. It is not essential to what I posted about KO with TCRC which has been shown to be correct.
I explained in detail the advantages, accuracy at true counts of 3 or more, no true counts necessary and the ease of use of KO with TCRC for the shoe game and I will leave it like that.
The other systems work so they can stick with what they learned and are used to if that is what they like and have used for years..
I have accomplished my goal in that I have presented KO with TCRC for others to try if they wish to.
There may be readers who tried KO with TCRC who do not want to post.which is fine. I just wanted feedback for my own curiosity. It is not essential to what I posted about KO with TCRC which has been shown to be correct.
I explained in detail the advantages, accuracy at true counts of 3 or more, no true counts necessary and the ease of use of KO with TCRC for the shoe game and I will leave it like that.
The other systems work so they can stick with what they learned and are used to if that is what they like and have used for years..
I have accomplished my goal in that I have presented KO with TCRC for others to try if they wish to.
