KO with TCRC versus REKO

There are many versions of KO, such as of KO Rookie, KO Preferred, REKO and TKO, and they are all flawed

I will concentrate on REKO. So that you can see the difference between these KO systems and KO with TCRC

.

https://www.qfit.com/rekostrategy.htm

Card Counting Tags

Cards 2-7: +1, 8 & 9: 0, Ten & Ace: -1

The Initial Running Counts are:

·        Single Deck: -1

·        Double Deck: -5

·        Six Decks: -20

·        Eight Decks: -27

With REKO you are counting in negative numbers most of the time and starting at various negative numbers depending on number of decks. In KO with TCRC I start KO at zero so you are courting positive numbers almost all the time. And you start betting two hands at one unit each with KO = crc(1) = 4*n - 3*dr = 4*dp + dr

Indexes

All indexes are the same for double deck or six decks: +2. Another way of looking at it is using two basic strategies. Use one basic strategy for running counts up to +1. Then a different strategy for +2 and above.

• Insurance
• 16vT
• 15vT
• 12v2
• 12v3
• 12v4
• 11vA
• 10vA
• 10vT
• 9v2
• 9v7
• 8v5
• 8v6
• A8v5
• A8v6

Surrender

• 15v9
• 15vA
• 8,8vT
• 14vT (includes 7,7vT)

For six decks, using REKO starting at -20 when REKO = 2 then this is equivalent to KO with TCRC count which starts at zero having a value of KO = 22.  Starting at zero you are almost always counting positive numbers (which is a lot easier and less likely to make a mistake then always counting with negative numbers of REKO) and you are most of the time using the HL indices (with a few exceptions, KO indices are the same as HL indices), not an estimate as shown above. So the above strategy changes suggested at KO = 22 are equivalent to the following true counts.

tc(KO) = 4 + (KO – 4*n)/dr = 4 + (KO – 24)/dr

1. dp =1,  KO = 22 then tc(KO) = 4 + (22 – 24)/5 = 3.6
2. dp =2,  KO = 22 then tc(KO) = 4 + (22 – 24)/4 = 3.5
3. dp =3,  KO = 22 then tc(KO) = 4 + (22 – 24)/3 = 3.3
4. dp =4,  KO = 22 then tc(KO) = 4 + (22 – 24)/2 = 3.0
5. dp =5,  KO = 22 then tc(KO) = 4 + (22 – 24)/1 = 2.0

The index for standing on hard 16 v T and hard 12 v 4 should be zero which is KO >= crc(0) = 4*n - 4*dr = 4*(n - dr) = 4*dp. So if dp = 3 stand on hard 16 v T if KO >= 4*dp = 12, not KO = 22 as suggested by the REKO = 2 in this article. Using this REKO = 2 means KO = 22 which means you are standing on hard 16 v T at KO true counts ranging from 2 to 3.6. Very imprecise.

KO with TCRC uses the KO indices which are with a few exceptions equal to the HL indices and calculates crc(Idx) for strategy changes at the Idx = Index. Thus for example, doubling h9 v 7 has a risk averse index of 5 which means for six decks crc(5) = 24 + dr and if dr = 3 then double hard 7 v 9 if KO > crc(5) = 27.  Very precise. Using REKO = 2 which is KO = 22 you are doubling hard 7 v 9 at true counts ranging from 2 to 3.6 as shown above which are all below the EV index of 4.  You are doubling in a negative situation.

With KO with TCRC you are using for the most part HL indices so nothing new to learn and the deviations are very precise.. 

Suggested Betting Ramps

These tables are bets for each running count. You need to decide your own unit size and maximum bet and level off your betting at that point. Note: These schedules require a fairly large bankroll - at least $10,000 for a reasonable risk.

• Six Deck:

This is crazy difficult. For six decks using KO with TCRC start betting one unit on each of two hands when KO >= crc(1) = 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively and you can bet two units on each of two hands with KO between crc(1) and crc(4) and when KO >= crc(4) = 24 for six decks you can start with your big bets. These REKO betting schedules above are tediously complex and inaccurate. 

I’m more interested in you applying your KO count to beat a Spanish 21 game with Stand-17 and 6-deck with 75% penetration. As far as Blackjack goes, I assure you, no hope. 

So says the "expert"!!! 🙄

I understand you helped the author doing this research, but I need to be honest with this. It’s reinventing the wheels. 

There are three criteria to consider in evaluating any card counting system as described in my article on Blackjack Review. 

1. Power
2. Accuracy
3. Ease of Use

And as I also made very clear in my article on Blackjack Review and in my first article on bj21, KO is only slightly more powerful than HL so in the sense of power there is nothing new with KO vs HL and it can be considered as reinventing the wheel.  But I am not concerned about power with KO with TCRC. I am concerned about accuracy and ease of use. If computers were playing HL and KO with TCRC perfectly there would be very little difference between the two. But computers are not playing blackjack, humans are. So humans using KO with TCRC is like a computer playing blackjack HL system perfectly.  So the increased accuracy of KO with TCRC and the ease of use of KO with TCRC as compared to HL with KO critical running counts replacing HL true counts, this is what makes KO with TCRC superior to HL. Humans can play it longer, with less errors, quicker and can have longer sessions with KO with TCRC than with HL. Also in my article on Blackjack Review I showed sims by Colin Jones of using HL estimated to the nearest deck compared to HL estimated to the nearest quarter deck and Colin’s sims showed HL estimated to the nearest quarter deck increase EV by 7%. KO with TCRC with decks estimated to the nearest full deck for true counts of three or more is like HL estimated to the nearest quarter deck. Thus is you have two players both estimating to the nearest full deck, one playing HL and one playing KO with TCRC, the player using KO with TCRC has his EV increased by 7% and that does not even take into account the increased speed accuracy, and longer session because of less mental fatigue. So you win more per hour and can play longer using KO with TCRC as compared to HL so you expected session with using KO with TCRC which is easier to use and more accurate than HL will significantly surpass HL. A humans sing KO with TRCR is like a computer playing blackjack using the HL system.  This is why I said for the shoe game KO with TCRC should replace HL as the standard count for blackjack – it is easier and more accurate than HL and also a slight bit more powerful. For the two deck game, still use HL.

So using KO with TCRC to learn TCRC which can be used which is critical to know if you are adding side counts to KO.  I wrote several books with side counts to HL not because I recommend it for the shoe game but because blackjack players love HL and will not switch. For the shoe game, KO is a much better primary count to add side counts to and should be used for the shoe game so learn TCRC is crucial if you want to add side counts to KO and if you add side counts to KO then your statement of nothing new here is no longer accurate.  Adding side counts greatly increases the theoretical power of KO. Gronbog did sims where KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc was used which left HO2 w ASC in the dust.  And remember plus/minus side counts are exact and do not involve any estimate of decks remaining or decks played as compared to ASC which is approximate.  Also all side counts used with KO are balance and any linear combination of balanced counts with and unbalanced count the derived count is also unbalanced with the same unbalance as the original unbalanced counts. Thus KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc) is unbalanced at four per deck just like KO is unbalanced at four per deck and so has extremely accurate true counts when true counts are three or more.

Also learning TCRC is critical for playing Spanish 21 since HL in Spanish 21 is unbalanced at four per deck just like KO in blackjack is unbalanced at four per deck. Thus a TCRC can be used with Spanish 21 HL. Katarina Walker used a complicated formula to get true counts. No complicated formula, use TCRC.

Also for Spanish 21 HL has a betting efficiency of only around 91% whereas HL with 5mAc has a betting efficiency of around 97%.  This is a huge increase in betting efficiency as compared with blackjack where for S17 game, KO has a betting efficiency of 96.5% and KO + (1/2*(5m7c) has a betting efficiency of 99.0% so the increase in blackjack betting efficiency using side counts is much less than the increase in betting efficiency of KO using side counts.

Finally you asked for information on Spanish 21. I had some free time so I wrote ten books. Book Writing Craft published the books for me. They are very honest, set up my account on Amazon Kindle so I have total access and control over my account and royalties and they published all ten of my books. They are currently on Amazon Kindle and you can find them by going to Amazon and search for “Blackjack Rebel books”.

If there are beatable side bets such as Lucky Ladies or Super then I use KO with 45m79c, AA89mTc and Am8c using stacks of chips to keep my side counts to max out blackjack, LL and Super 4 betting efficiency. I am so used to this that with chips for my side counts I can do it effortlessly, quickly and for hours on end. If there are no beatable blackjack side bets than perhaps Spanish 21 with 5mAc or 455m8AAc is a better choice. 

Here are my ten books. That you will find. Note that two of the books are on Spanish 21. You can download the online version of any of these book for only around $10 a book.

HIGH-LOW WITH 7M9C

HIGH-LOW WITH 7M9C AND AM6C

HIGH-LOW WITH AA78MTC

HIGH-LOW WITH 57M9C TWO-DECK BLACKJACK

KO WITH TABLE OF CRITICAL RUNNING COUNTS

KO WITH 5M7C

KO WITH 45M79C AND AA89MTC

KO WITH ADVANCED SIDE COUNTS

SPANISH 21 HIGH-LOW WITH 5MAC

SPANISH 21 HIGH-LOW WITH 455M8AAC

I hope that this answers your questions and concerns.

Your posts are often too long, but I am good at extracting your central idea here, Quote “A humans sing KO with TRCR is like a computer playing blackjack using the HL system.”

All your 10 books can be summarized into two:

Gild-the-lily Hi-Lo;

Gild-the-lily KO. 
 

In my opinion, because it’s wasteful to add any extras to two working systems. 

My name is aceside, indicating I often side count aces.  It’s going to be hard for me to grasp your side counts. However, I’m more interested in your work on Secret Monkey Count (SMC) with ace side count on Spanish 21. I hope you can publish a book on this topic.

Also, I like what you write "Katarina Walker used a complicated formula to get true counts. No complicated formula, use TCRC." How about you say a little more about this part?

For us mere mortals who just count cards with our simple high-low, would you please explain the meanings of 45m79c, AA89mTc, Am8c and 455M8AAC. 

Probably just Blackjack Rebel asking himself. In any event, get ready for two more pages.

Don

Don,

Blackjack Rebel's posts may seem hauntingly familiar, because he is bjanalyst from Norm's board.

Dog Hand

Gronbog should know these better, but let me tell you now to avoid OP posting another long post.

45m79c means {4, 5} = Lo, {7, 9} = Hi;

AA89mTc means {A, A, 8, 9} = Lo, {T}= Hi, and every Ace is counted twice;

Am8c means {A} = Lo, {8} = Hi;

455m8AAc means {4, 5, 5} = Lo, {8, A, A} = Hi, and every 5 is counted twice and every Ace is counted twice. 

Yes, thanks. Am aware. Was he barred there forever? Now come to torture us here?

Don

No I was not barred from Blackjack Forum. My very last post I made I said I was voluntarily leaving blackjack forum forever because of the constant abuse and insults by many of the Blackjack Forum members and I am hoping that the abuse is not starting all over again.

The Secret Monkey count where the Ace is counted as -2 so the Spanish 21 HL is balanced does improve betting efficiency but totally destroys playing efficiency-- you might as well be playing Spanish 21 basic strategy  Also the SMC is balanced so that you do not get the accuracy or ease of use of using a TCRC.  I have two books on Spanish 21, Spanish 21 with 5mAc and Spanish 21 with 455m8AAc which are much better than SMC. But you have to learn TCRC to use Spanish 21 HL.

Also some comments on Ace Side Counts were brought up. An Ace side count is terrible compared to a plus/minus side count. ASC are estimated counts and depend on an ever increasing value of  Aces played and estimate of decks played and are difficult to calculate and imprecise especially near the end of a shoe when accuracy is most important. One the other hand plus/minus side counts do not depend on decks played, are exact throughout the entire shoe and instead of constantly increases as decks are played as ASC do, balanced plus/minus side counts fluctuate around their mean of zero..

I have shown that the advantages of KO with TCRC over HL are accuracy and ease of use. I also showed sims by Colin Jones that showed estimating HL to the nearest quarter deck increased EV by 7% as compared to using HL estimated to the nearest full deck. Thus KO with TCRC estimated to the nearest full deck (which is equivalent to HL estimated to the nearest quarter deck for true counts of three or more) should increase HL estimated to the nearest full deck EV by 7% for back counted shoe games with 1 to 8 or 1 to 12 spread. Thus I had suggested this.

Suggested Simulation comparing KO with TCRC to HL

1. Six decks, five dealt, S17, DAS, LS.
2. Decks Remaining are to be estimated to the nearest full deck.
3. Compare back counted results for 1 to 8 and 1 to 12 bet spreads.
4. Get standard HL program that has been run before and the SCORE has been recorded.
5. Use that same HL program with the following changes:
   1. Change HL count to KO count.
   2. To get a fair comparison between KO and HL, use EV indices for both HL and KO, that is do not use Risk Averse indices for either HL or KO.
   3. For KO simulation replace HL true counts with KO critical running counts where crc(t) = 24 + (t – 4)*dr.
   4. Use the exact same betting ramp for HL as for KO where HL tc(HL) is replaced with KO crc(t).
   5. Use all HL indices as KO indices for all playing decisions except for the following:
      1. Stand on hard 14 v T if KO >= crc(7).
      2. Stand on hard 16 v 7 if KO >= crc(6).
      3. Hit all hard 16 v 7 or 8.
      4. Hit all hard 15 v 7, 8, 9.
6. Compare KO SCORE with HL SCORE
   1. KO is slightly more powerful than HL and so this should increase KO SCORE.
   2. The major increase in KO SCORE will result from KO’s increase in accuracy for true counts of three or more when decks remaining are estimated to the nearest full deck.
   3. Ease of use is not reflected in simulations because computers do not get tired or fatigued and do not make errors but ease of use has real world implications that are not reflected in simulations.  So KO players will win more per session because:
      1. KO players will have a higher hourly win rate than HL players.
      2. KO players will be able to play quicker and with less mental fatigue and exhaustion and so will be able to play longer sessions that HL players.

In multiple-deck shoe games, playing efficiency is not important. Even if you play basic strategy, you should be able to beat these games. If you count the Ace as -2, it may diminish the playing efficiency of 11 vs T, but it may enhance that of 10 vs 8. How about you say a little more on this part. Which decisions are diminished and which are enhanced? 
 

I understand you sell many books, but you need to convince the audience here too.

What "Blackjack Rebel" says about the SMC count is absolutely correct. I’ve reached the same conclusion as him regarding betting and playing efficiencies. Indeed, SMC has a better BC than Hi-Lo, but its PE is much worse. This means that the SCORE obtained with Hi-Lo is higher than that of SMC, despite Hi-Lo having a lower BC.

Sincerely,
Cac

This is absolutely incorrect.

Sincerely,
Cac

Rarely was I pointed out incorrect. It’s just a matter of how you word it. OP is good at using acronyms, but they do not help him mathematically. I’d like to hear what Gronbog may say about this. 

I don’t understand at all what these mean. Is it saying those are the only cards counted with some counted twice?

Thanks,

Phil

OP calls these plus/minus side counts, but I’d rather call them secondary main counts. Let me use 455m8AAc as an example to explain.  Every card 4 is counted as +1, every 5 as +2, every 8 as -1, and every Ace as -2.  I just do not believe he can do it himself. 

Oh ok I see, yah that sounds difficult.

Phil