KO with Table of Critical Running Counts

This article proposes replacing HL with KO with Table of Critical Running Counts (TCRC) as the standard count system for the shoe game.

Below are my article published on Michael Dalton’s Blackjack Review website.

KO with Table of Critical Running Counts

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

Introductory Comments

https://static.bjrnet.com/pdf/KO_WithCriticalRunningCounts/KOwithTCRCcomments2025-09-14.pdf

First a little history behind the KO count.

The KO Count card counting system was developed by Ken Fuchs and Olaf Vancura. This system is known for its simplicity and effectiveness, making it a popular choice for beginners in blackjack card counting. The book "Knock-Out Blackjack: The Easiest Card Counting System Ever Devised" by Olaf Vancura and Ken Fuchs provides detailed instructions on using the KO Count system.

As you can see, KO has been labeled as a beginner’s card counting system. That is because previous to my TCRC there was no easy way to calculate the true counts with KO. So when the simplest and still powerful card count system was chosen as the standard, KO with not even in the running and HL was chosen.

The TCRC solves the problem of KO true counts and elevates KO with TCRC to a level higher than HL as it is easier to learn, use and more accurate than HL and with less mistakes than the HL.

In my introduction to KO with TCRC I mention that KO with TCRC is just marginally more theoretically powerful that HL. If both systems were played perfectly with a computer there would be very little difference and in that respect a statement such as “nothing new here” or “do not reinvent the wheel” would be correct. Also in my article I acknowledged that KO with TCRC is only marginally more theoretically powerful than HL. So theoretical power is not the reason to switch from HL to KO with TCRC.

The reason to switch from HL to KO with TCRC is that computers are not playing blackjack, humans are. The advantage of KO with TCRC is for human use where it is easier to use and more accurate than HL. Nothing new theoretically but for practical purposes and actual use KO with TCRC is easier to use, less errors, faster play, less mental fatigue and so longer sessions are possible coupled with Colin Jones simulations (see Introductory Comments link) showing an increase of 7% in EV when HL is estimated to the nearest quarter deck compared to the nearest full deck. My article shows that KO with TCRC estimated to the nearest full deck is equivalent to HL estimated to the nearest quarter deck for true counts of 3 or more and so KO with TCRC estimated to the nearest full deck, from Colin Jones’ simulations, increases EV by 7%. So players will be able to win more per hour and play for longer hours and with a system that is actually easier to use than HL and with less errors. And true count calculations are replaced with simple critical running counts and two integers, KO and critical running counts, are compared for make playing and betting decisions.

Compare a HL player struggling to estimate decks remaining to the nearest quarter deck and then does true count calculations to the nearest quarter deck along with how much these calculations are slowing down the game and the possibility of errors. The amount of mental energy expended and chance for error is very large and with all of that mental energy expended, this HL blackjack player will have to cut his sessions short from exhaustion.

Now compare this HL blackjack player estimating decks to the nearest quarter deck with a KO with TCRC player who estimates decks to the nearest full deck and instead of doing true count calculations makes all of his playing strategy and betting decisions by comparing only two integers, KO and critical running count. For true counts of three or more, this KO with TCRC player’s accuracy with decks estimated to the nearest full deck is the same as the HL player estimating decks played to the nearest quarter deck with quarter deck true count calculations and with none of the possible errors in true count calculations and none of the mental fatigue of dong such calculations that the HL player experiences.

When to bet big is extremely simple. When KO >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks then tc(KO) = 4 everywhere in the shoe and player should be making his big bets. There is no question about when to bet big and no big betting opportunities are missed. Betting big when KO >= crc(4) means no mistakes about not betting big when you should be betting big and no mistakes about betting big when you should not be betting big. Betting is exact with KO with TCRC.

For playing strategy decisions consider insurance for example. Player takes insurance if KO >= crc(3) = 24 – dr for n = 6 decks so if dr = 4 then player insures if KO >= 20. This is what I meant by no true count calculations involved and merely comparing two integers, KO with critical running count, for all betting and playing strategy variations.   

Because blackjack is played by humans and not computers and KO with TCRC is more accurate than HL at true counts of 3 or more and easier to use and more accurate as critical running counts replaces true count calculations, then this is why it is worthwhile to switch from HL to KO with TCRC as the industry standard for the shoe game. Another bonus is that most of KO with TCRC indices are the same as HL indices so there is very little new to learn.

These acronyms sound very familiar to me. I know who wrote this. Let me summarize it: true-counted KO (TKO) is marginally better than Hi-Lo in multiple-deck games. 

I will avoid discussing Spanish 21 which was not the topic of this post. Spanish 21 and KO with side counts and HL with side counts are for a whole different discussion that I will not be covering here.

The purpose of this post was to introduce KO with TCRC and compare it with HL and to show that KO with TCRC should replace HL as the standard count for the shoe game.

And yes, KO is marginally better than HL as far as theoretical power is concerned and I stated that in my articles. But that is not the reason to switch from HL to KO with TCRC for the shoe game.

The main reason to switch is that KO with TCRC is more accurate than HL and easier to use.  Colin Jones posted sims of HL with decks remaining estimated to the nearest quarter deck compared to HL with decks estimated to the nearest full deck and his sims showed HL EV when decks remaining are estimated to the nearest quarter deck increased EV over decks remaining estimated to the nearest full deck by 7%. That is what he claims that his sims showed.

I did show that for true counts of three or more with KO with TCRC estimated to the nearest full deck is like HL estimated to the nearest quarter deck. So KO with TCRC with decks remaining estimated to the nearest full deck, based on Colin’s sims, should increase HL EV with deck remaining estimated to the nearest full deck by 7%.  Whether this is true or not I do not know and what effect this has on the SCORE I did not know. That is why sims of KO with TCRC compared to HL are necessary to get a definitive answer.

So I was hoping that a quick sim of KO with TCRC with decks estimated to the nearest full deck can be compared with HL with decks estimated to the nearest full deck with five out of six decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS and back counting with a spread from 1 to 8 and 1 to 12. I would like to compare the back counted SCORE of 1 to 8 and 1 to 12 of KO with TCRC and compare it with the back counted 1 to 8 and 1 to 12 SCORE of HL for the above scenario described in detail earlier in a thread I wrote on this post. That was the purpose of this post. This post was not meant to discuss Spanish 21 or side counts or any other topic.

The sim results would be greatly appreciated and would give a definitive answer as to whether KO with TCRC should replace HL as the standard count for the shoe game.  

Nonsense! You are talking about a game that does not exist in this world. Also, the goal of this proposal is ill-willed. You are supposed to beat the blackjack and the house, not the Hi-Lo. Even if you beat the Hi-Lo, what good can you bring to this community?
 

Maybe Gronbog is willing to take on this challenge. 

You are misunderstanding the advantage of KO with TCRC over HL it is not so much about beating HL as it is about ease of use and accuracy and making more money per hour and able to play longer sessions with little fatigue and mental energy because KO with TCRC is so easy to use.  

KO with TCRC is just slightly more theoretically powerful than HL but that is not the main reason to switch from HL to KO with TCRC  The advantage is the accuracy and ease of use. Critical running counts are easier than true counts to calculate and all playing and betting decisions are made comparing two integers, KO with crc. Your error rate is greatly reduced and you can play longer with less mental fatigue.  And your true count calculations for true counts of three or more are dead one.  So you are winning more per hour because with KO with TCRC you play for true counts of three or more is almost perfect and with less mental fatigue you can play longer sessions and make more money. . 

This is all explained in my article on Blackjack Review. 

KO with Table of Critical Running Counts

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

Also I will ask Gronbog to do a sim.  Gronbog did a sim on the complicated KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc. Doing a sim on the stand along KO with TCRC should be a cinch.

I will make a separate post with my request to see if Gronbog will do that sim.  And I did make a mistake in my post on sims where I had only two changes in HL indices, stand on hard 14 v T if KO >= crc(7) and I meant to say stand on hard 16 v 9 is KO >= crc(6) (but wrote stand on hard 16 v 7 by accident).  And then hit all hard 16 v 7, 8 and all hard 15 v 7, 8, 9.  Other than that you can use all HL indices as KO indices.

I have to question you. You say “KO with TCRC is so easy to use,” but Hi-Lo running count with TCRC is a lot easier than that.  Why not you consider Hi-Lo Running with TCRC first? 

C'mon now!  You can play longer sessions is hardly a real-world issue.  How long is a session is almost always determined by the conditions at the table or by the pit or surveillance, not by the player. A determining factor is more often getting out before you are thrown out, not fatigue from counting.