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
No, it's a snap! Didn't you know? Much easier than Hi-Lo. Every Tom Dick,and Harry can do it in his sleep. Water into wine. Utter bullshit!
Don
There are many versions of KO, such as of KO Rookie, KO Preferred, REKO and TKO, and they are all flawed.
I’d like you to explain this statement about TKO: why do you say it has flaws? As far as I know, and having used TKO for a long time, the system is superior to Hi-Lo, KO, and any of their variations. In fact, among level 1 systems, it turns out to be the strongest. I don’t think counting negative numbers is a problem.
Sincerely,
Cac
You can start you count system anywhere you want, I started KO at zero just like HL is started at zero. Because KO is unbalanced at 4 per deck the expected value of KO with 1 deck played is 4, with 2 decks played is 8 and with "dp" decks played is 4*dp. So KO with be positive most of the time.
So the deviation of KO from its expected value is KO - 4*dp and you get the true count by tc(KO) = t = (KO - 4*dp) / dr where dp = decks played and dr = decks remaining.
Just like HL has an expected value of zero throughout the shoe. So deviation from expected value is HL - 0 and tc(HL) = (HL - 0) / dr = HL / dr.
So using tc(KO) = t = (KO - 4*dp) / dr you get all of the other KO true count formulas, that is you get crc(t), And these all assume you start KO at zero just like HL.
And the formula I like the most is crc(t) = 4*n + (t - 4)*dr where n = # decks, and dr = decks remaining. You can use that formula (or others I derived and showed you in a previous thread) to construct TCRC.
I hope this answers your question.
You can start you count system anywhere you want, I started KO at zero just like HL is started at zero. Because KO is unbalanced at 4 per deck the expected value of KO with 1 deck played is 4, with 2 decks played is 8 and with "dp" decks played is 4*dp. So KO with be positive most of the time.
So the deviation of KO from its expected value is KO - 4*dp and you get the true count by tc(KO) = t = (KO - 4*dp) / dr where dp = decks played and dr = decks remaining.
Just like HL has an expected value of zero throughout the shoe. So deviation from expected value is HL - 0 and tc(HL) = (HL - 0) / dr = HL / dr.
So using tc(KO) = t = (KO - 4*dp) / dr you get all of the other KO true count formulas, that is you get crc(t), And these all assume you start KO at zero just like HL.
And the formula I like the most is crc(t) = 4*n + (t - 4)*dr where n = # decks, and dr = decks remaining. You can use that formula (or others I derived and showed you in a previous thread) to construct TCRC.
I hope this answers your question.
You haven’t actually told me what the flaws of TKO are. What I see is that you are trying to convert an "unbalanced system" that works in "RC mode", in this case KO, into one that is "balanced" but works in "TC mode", that is, TKO.
The problem, in my opinion, is that you’re doing it in a very convoluted way.
All that’s needed is to start the count (IRC=Initial Running Count) at -4 × nd at the very beginning and then divide the current RC by the remaining decks, just like with Hi-Lo.
The TKO indices will be shifted down by 4 compared to the Hi-Lo indices. If in Hi-Lo the index for 16 vs T is 0, in TKO it will be -4. If insurance in Hi-Lo is +3, in TKO it will be -1. The same goes for betting ramps. If in Hi-Lo the first advantage occurs at +1, in TKO it will occur at -3.
Sincerely,
Cac
Sorry I hit enter too quickly before I finished typing. Below is my full review: TKO does give KO give KO true counts just like KO with TCRC does. There is no flaw in TKO except that it is extremely difficult to use and so subject to mental exhuastiong and errors are true counts still need to be calculatoins and you are using HL indices (actaully HL inidices minus 4) for all strategy changes. While most KO indices are similar to HL indices thare are a few KO indices that are different. In particular the index for standing on hard 14 v T and also for hard 15, hard 16 v 7, 8, 9 the seven should be counted as -1 whereas KO counts the 7 as plus one so the CC of those plays are greatly decreased compared to HL and so with KO you should use basic strategy and hit.
I did some research on TKO (true count KO) and I believe that TKO starts KO at (– 4*n) where n = # decks and then calculates a KO true using the KO started at (-4*n) and compares that to HL indices minus 4. This is incredibility difficult to do and is the same technique that Katarina Walker used for Spanish 21 HL to calculate the Spanish 21 true counts.
I will show that TKO is equivalent to KO with TCRC with KO starting and zero and where with KO with TCRC, critical running counts are calculated avoiding any true count calculations.
Let src = shifted running count = (KO – 4*n) so you are starting KO at KO = (-4*n) in TKO instead of at zero with KO with TCRC. So src is the TKO KO running count where KO is started at (-4*n).
Now I showed earlier that tc(KO) = t = (KO – 4*dp) / dr when KO is started at zero.
src = KO – 4*n so KO = src + 4*n
So t = (KO – 4*dp)/dr = ((src + 4*n) – 4*dp) / dr = (src + 4*(n – dp)) / dr = (src + 4*dr) / dr = src / dr + 4.
So t = src / dr + 4
Note t = 4 + src / dr = 4 + (KO – 4*n) / dr which is one of my KO true count formulas.
So (t – 4) = src / dr
Thus with TKO calculated the KO true count which is src / dr and compare it to the HL index minus 4. This is absolutely terrible and extremely tedious to do.
Remember HL was chosen as the industry standard for blackjack, not because it was the theoretically most powerful system but because it was the easiest count system to use and learn. TKO Is much harder to use that HL but KO with TCRC is easier to use than HL and is also more accurate and uses critical running counts to replace HL true count calculations.
Also with TKO High Low minus 4 indices are used for all strategy changes. I have shown that for most strategy changes with KO with TCRC the HL index can be used for the KO index. But there are a few indices where KO index differs from HL indices. For example, standing on hard 14 v T is done at KO true count of 7 or more, that is, stand on hard 14 v T if tc(KO) is 7 or more or if KO >= crc(7) = 4*n + 3*dr. The HL index for standing on hard 14 v T is over 10.
I explained to you that I have been using KO with TCRC for years and it works great. Also Gronbog did sims on the complicated KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc which used TCRC and it handily beat HO2 with ASC. KO with TCRC.
So doing a sim on both KO with TCRC and HL with both estimated to the nearest full deck and other criteria I mentioned in my article entitled Request for sim of KO with TCRC vs HL you will see the difference. KO is slightly theoretically more powerful than HL which will have some effect on increasing the KO SCORE but the largest effect on increasing the KO SCORE will be the accuracy of both KO with TCRC and HL estimated to the nearest full deck at true counts of 3 or more which is equivalent to HL estimated to the nearest quarter deck and true count quarter deck calculations.
Sorry I hit enter too quickly before I finished typing. Below is my full review: TKO does give KO give KO true counts just like KO with TCRC does. There is no flaw in TKO except that it is extremely difficult to use and so subject to mental exhuastiong and errors are true counts still need to be calculatoins and you are using HL indices (actaully HL inidices minus 4) for all strategy changes. While most KO indices are similar to HL indices thare are a few KO indices that are different. In particular the index for standing on hard 14 v T and also for hard 15, hard 16 v 7, 8, 9 the seven should be counted as -1 whereas KO counts the 7 as plus one so the CC of those plays are greatly decreased compared to HL and so with KO you should use basic strategy and hit.
I did some research on TKO (true count KO) and I believe that TKO starts KO at (– 4*n) where n = # decks and then calculates a KO true using the KO started at (-4*n) and compares that to HL indices minus 4. This is incredibility difficult to do and is the same technique that Katarina Walker used for Spanish 21 HL to calculate the Spanish 21 true counts.
I will show that TKO is equivalent to KO with TCRC with KO starting and zero and where with KO with TCRC, critical running counts are calculated avoiding any true count calculations.
Let src = shifted running count = (KO – 4*n) so you are starting KO at KO = (-4*n) in TKO instead of at zero with KO with TCRC. So src is the TKO KO running count where KO is started at (-4*n).
Now I showed earlier that tc(KO) = t = (KO – 4*dp) / dr when KO is started at zero.
src = KO – 4*n so KO = src + 4*n
So t = (KO – 4*dp)/dr = ((src + 4*n) – 4*dp) / dr = (src + 4*(n – dp)) / dr = (src + 4*dr) / dr = src / dr + 4.
So t = src / dr + 4
Note t = 4 + src / dr = 4 + (KO – 4*n) / dr which is one of my KO true count formulas.
So (t – 4) = src / dr
Thus with TKO calculated the KO true count which is src / dr and compare it to the HL index minus 4. This is absolutely terrible and extremely tedious to do.
Remember HL was chosen as the industry standard for blackjack, not because it was the theoretically most powerful system but because it was the easiest count system to use and learn. TKO Is much harder to use that HL but KO with TCRC is easier to use than HL and is also more accurate and uses critical running counts to replace HL true count calculations.
Also with TKO High Low minus 4 indices are used for all strategy changes. I have shown that for most strategy changes with KO with TCRC the HL index can be used for the KO index. But there are a few indices where KO index differs from HL indices. For example, standing on hard 14 v T is done at KO true count of 7 or more, that is, stand on hard 14 v T if tc(KO) is 7 or more or if KO >= crc(7) = 4*n + 3*dr. The HL index for standing on hard 14 v T is over 10.
I explained to you that I have been using KO with TCRC for years and it works great. Also Gronbog did sims on the complicated KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc which used TCRC and it handily beat HO2 with ASC. KO with TCRC.
So doing a sim on both KO with TCRC and HL with both estimated to the nearest full deck and other criteria I mentioned in my article entitled Request for sim of KO with TCRC vs HL you will see the difference. KO is slightly theoretically more powerful than HL which will have some effect on increasing the KO SCORE but the largest effect on increasing the KO SCORE will be the accuracy of both KO with TCRC and HL estimated to the nearest full deck at true counts of 3 or more which is equivalent to HL estimated to the nearest quarter deck and true count quarter deck calculations.
The part about being extremely difficult to use and prone to errors and mental fatigue is entirely your own opinion. Also, who said that TKO has to use Hi-Lo indices? While it’s true that several TKO indices resemble Hi-Lo (minus 4), the correct approach is to generate them specifically for the system you are going to use.
Katarina Walker’s technique for Spanish 21 is the proper way to calculate the TC, and I don’t think it’s incredibly difficult to do.
Later, I will post some comparative SCOREs. KO is not always superior to Hi-Lo, and it depends a lot on the rules. If LS is allowed, Hi-Lo is better; if not, then it isn’t.
Sincerely,
Cac
Take a look at the last three pages of this PDF as part of KO with TCRC article, page 6, 7 and 8
https://static.bjrnet.com/pdf/KO_WithCriticalRunningCounts/KOwithTCRCexhibits.pdf
Page 6, Betting Correlation Coefficients, you can see:
For S17, DAS, LS the HL and KO have the exact same betting efficiency. But for S17, DAS, no LS KO has a betting efficiency of 97.37% compare to HL 96.48%.
Page 7, HL vs KO, S17 Correlation Coefficients and indices for HL and KO are given along with AACpTCp which is Average Advantage Change per True count point. There were calculated using Least Squares Lines and Effects of Removal that will not go into here. You can see that for S17, KO weighted CC are greater than HL CC. That means that KO playing efficiency is greater than HL playing efficiency. Not by much but KO is still slightly theoretically more power than HL. Gronbog had done around 20 simulations of various HL and KO count combinations with side counts for me and every single time, without exception, whenever the CC increased the SCORE increased.
Page 8, the last page, compared HL and KO indices which are given on page 7 and I put a brief explanation comparing the logic behind some of the changes.
An important point that I did not bring up is splitting T,T v 5 and 6. Here the KO index is larger than the HL index. The infinite deck indices for HL and KO are:
T,T v 6 HL index 4.5 KO index 4.9, KO index / HL index = 1.08
T,T v 5 HL index 5.1 KO index 5.5, KO index / HL index = 1.08
Also note that AACpTCp for splitting tens is around 5%. This means that for every increase of one true count point, the player’s edge increases 5%. So it is very, very important not to split Tens early especially for KO using HL indices this would be a problem since KO indices are larges. So for KO I would not split T,T v 5 and T,T v 6 until KO true count was 6 or more that is, I would use risk averse indices which are given on page 5 of the linked PDF. At the expected value index splitting and standing have the exact same EV. So it makes no sense to split and risk more money with very little if any additional EV. Increase the EV to get the AV (risk averse) index and split at KO true counts of 6 where the increase in EV warrants the increased risk of splitting.
I showed TKO does produce accurate KO true counts and KO with TCRC also produces accurate KO true counts. I showed in my previous thread both are correct. But I should have said “in my opinion” KO with TCRC is simpler than TKO. I base that TKO still required calculating src / dr and you are estimating dr and doing a true count calculation where TCRC totally avoids true count calculations and only involves calculating critical running counts. You can use the crc formulas I gave which are very simple or when playing enough blackjack you can memorize the TCRC and just mentally pick up the crc without even doing any calculations.
Look at page 2 Six Deck Critical Running Counts and page 4 Eight Deck Critical Running Counts which gives TCRC for six and eight decks respectively along with the formula. So for example, you have hard 12 v 3 stand decision and you are using KO. The HL and KO indices are both 2. So you stand on hard 12 v 3 if KO >= crc(2) = 24 – 2*dr for six decks. This crc(2) can be quickly calculations and you are making your hit/stand decision by comparing only two integers, KO and crc. That is what I mean by being easy. Also using TCRC enough you know crc(2) = 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for six decks. So if dp =2 then dr = 4 and you can calculate crc(2) = 24 – 2*dr = 24 – 2*4 = 16 or since you know crc(2) = 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 you can mentally look up crc at dp = 2 as 16 without even doing any calculations. SO that is what I mean by KO with TCRC being extremely easy to use.
For crc(1) do not use the formula crc (1) = 24 – 3*dr for six decks but just memorize crc(1) = 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 for dp = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as these numbers are important as they tell you when to start incasing yoru blackjack bet.
Finally for crc(0) use crc(0) = 4*dp The can be seen from crc(t) = 4*n + (t – 4)*dr since if t = 0 then crc(0) = 4*n + (0 – 4)*dr = 4*(n – dr) = 4*dp. Also 4*dp is the EV of KO which corresponds to a KO true count of zero just like HL = 0 corresponds to a HL true count of zero.
I see your last statements you said: Later, I will post some comparative SCOREs. KO is not always superior to Hi-Lo, and it depends a lot on the rules. If LS is allowed, Hi-Lo is better; if not, then it isn’t.
For the S17, DAS, LS five out of six deck game my CC show that KO is stronger than HL. And if no LS the betting efficiency of KO is increased as shown on page 6 Betting Correlations so for the no LS game, KO is even stronger than HL than for the LS game.
I had asked Gronbog to do a sim in the article Request for sim of KO with TCRC vs HL where I laid out criteria for six decks, five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS with both KO and HL estimated to the nearest full deck and using EV indices for both HL and KO and use a few KO indices that were different from the HL indices. If Gronbog does these sims then we can get accurate SCORES and see who is correct. I am confident my KO with TCRC will beat HL for two reasons. (1) it is slightly more theoretically powerful than HL which will increase the SCORE only slightly and (2) KO with TCRC is more accurate that HL for true counts of three or more. So the SCORES I am interested in is back counting SCORES of KO with TCRC vs HL for 1 to 8 and 1 to 12 spreads. Then we will get the definitive answer as to which of us is correct.
