Request for sim of KO with TCRC vs HL

Dear Gronbog

Thank you very much for your previous sims. I am making a statement to the blackjack community that they should switch their standard count from HL to KO with TCRC for the shoe game. Without sim proof my statements will be discarded.

KO with TCRC is only slightly theoretically more powerful than HL and that is not the reason to switch. The reason to switch is because humans are using the count system and not computers. KO with TCRC is more accurate and easier to use than HL as explained in my article in Blackjack Review below.

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

Colin Jones says that HL with decks estimated to the nearest quarter deck increases EV over HL with decks estimated to the nearest full deck by 7%. Not sure if that is correct but I showed that KO with TCRC estimated to the nearest deck for true counts of three or more is equivalent to HL estimated to the nearest quarter deck. So I am very interested to see the back counted 1-8 and 1-12 SCORE of KO with TCRC compared to HL when decks remaining are estimated to the nearest full deck for both KO and HL.

To convince the blackjack community to switch for the shoe game from decades of using HL as the standard count to KO w TCRC sims are needed.

Below is my suggestion. But if you think my suggestion is biased feel free to change anything that I wrote below. I want the sims to be a fair comparison of HL to KO with TCRC for six decks, five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS when decks remaining are estimated to the nearest full deck.

Suggested Simulation comparing KO with TCRC to HL

I made a few changes in my suggested simulation in Blackjack Review article.  Here is how I would like the simulations done:

1. Six decks, five dealt, S17, DAS, LS.
2. Decks Remaining are to be estimated to the nearest full deck.
3. Compare back counted SCORE 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 9 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 because of increased true count accuracy and reduced errors.
      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.

I do not believe there is any merit in this. 

BJ REBEL....your post was not worth reading more than the first couple of sententences.

I see only 8 total posts, obviously not familiar in the maximum importance of a count w/max betting efficiency vs deteriorated/lack of favorable venues.

A .99 BE is needed vs the current work environs......yes, that means more work toward a perfected approach.

OP keeps talking about decks estimated to the nearest quarter deck and to the nearest full deck. I do not have any patience to read into these details, because I mostly use the running count to bet and play.

As I said earlier, it's more reasonable to consider Hi-Lo running count with TCRC first. It can be applied to both Blackjack and Spanish 21.  Moreover, it's a lot easier. 

You use RC for Hi-Lo???? That's a first.

Don

For deck estimation one can keep track of rounds played.  Heads up 5. 2 players 3, 3 players 2.5 per half deck.  Don't even need to eyeball the discard tray.  

But that doesn't avoid calculating the TC.

Don

True.  It's just so simple and easy this way.  For 2 deck find I know the TC without much thought.

It’s always more accurate to use a combination of RC and TC for different decisions. Eyeballing the remaining deck number is not accurate.  Let me show you the numbers. A shoe of eight decks stands about 120 mm tall when new but 140 mm when slightly used.  New cards from different manufacturers may be thicker or thinner by 15%. 

The main advantages of switching from HL to KO w TCRC for the shoe game is accuracy and ease of use which also means less errors. Calculating critical running counts is easier than calculating true counts especially if trying to estimate to the nearest quarter deck. For the two deck game, stick with HL.

Colin’s Guide to Deck Estimation is shown below. 

For HL with decks estimated to the nearest full deck, accuracy can be increased by estimating decks to the nearest quarter deck.

https://www.blackjackapprenticeship.com/bja-guide-to-deck-estimation/ 

Scenario: 6 Deck Game (4.5 of 6 decks dealt): S17, DAS, RSA
Bet Spread: 1-12 Spread, wong-out at True -2
EV with Full-Deck Divisor: $39.80/hr; N0: 343 hours
EV with Quarter-Deck Divisor: $42.50/hr; N0: 329 (7% more than Full Deck)

KO with TCRC estimated to the nearest full deck is, for true counts of three or more, equivalent to the HL estimated to the nearest quarter deck. Thus if Colin's sims are correct, KO with TCRC estimated to the nearest full deck compared to HL estimated to the nearest full deck should increase EV by about 7%. And this is for 4.5 out of 6 decks dealt. If you find 5 out of 6 decks dealt the difference should be even greater as accurate true counts are very important near end of the shoe. 

So KO with TCRC is easier to use than HL and its accuracy increases EV,

If +/- side counts are added then KO is a better primary count than HL to add side counts to so this is another reason to learn TCRC.

Finally if you are going to playing Spanish 21, the HL is unbalanced at 4 per deck like KO is for blackjack so you need TCRC for Spanish 21 as opposed to learning Katarina Walker's complicated true count calculations. 

In a reply about my Spanish 21 comments in  my post KO with TCRC versus REKO, Cac says

:
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.

I’ve never seen a “6 Deck Game (4.5 of 6 decks dealt): S17, DAS, RSA” in America.  The only RSA blackjack game I saw was an 8-deck 75% Pen. 

However, I am interested in this part “Finally if you are going to playing Spanish 21, the HL is unbalanced at 4 per deck like KO is for blackjack so you need TCRC for Spanish 21 as opposed to learning Katarina Walker's complicated true count calculations. ” How about you say a little more here?

Also, you copy and paste the same paragraphs to here over and over again. As far as I can tell, Cac does not play Spanish 21.

From what I'm seeing, all that is going on here is that the well-known formula for converting KO running counts to true counts is being used to pre-calculate a table of threshold running counts corresponding to true counts from +1 to +6 (using KO IRC = 0) for various estimates of unseen decks. The claim is that memorizing and applying this table while using KO will be easier than using Hi-Lo and calculating the true count using a single division on the fly.

Whether this is true or not is debatable. Everyone is different. What is easy for one person may be difficult for another. However, what prevents anyone from doing the exact same thing with Hi-Lo (or any other count)? From what I've read on various forums, some folks already do this. That would seem to render the entire discussion irrlevant.

Theoretically, using KO IRC =0 is incorrect.  The correct IRC must be four times of the negetive number of decks being used. 

Actually, you can use any IRC in KO, as long as the indices are calculated using the same IRC. What you mean is that it’s not what the book recommends. The only exception is that if you wanted to convert to TC, you should start with an IRC = -4 × nd (# of decks). In that case, we’d be talking about TKO instead of KO.
In the case of Hi-Lo for Spanish 21, you should also start with an IRC = -4 × nd and then convert to TC in the same way as with TKO.

Sincerely,
Cac

In her book, Walker does start her Hi-Lo count with IRC = -4 x nd, but she converts to true count by simply dividing by unseen decks as normal. You first end up with an advantage at a negative true count which depends on the number of decks in play.

As I said earlier, it's always more accurate to use a combination of RC and TC for different decisions; therefore, when choosing an IRC for this purpose, there is one and only.  

What needs to be researched by OP is, which decisions are determined by RC and which by TC.  

Sorry Dave, but what’s the difference from what I just said? 🤔

Sincerely,
Cac

I may be confused, but I thought that TKO uses a more complex formula for calculating TC than simply dividing RC by unseen decks.

No, it’s as simple as that. You just need to start the count with the appropriate IRC. In fact, any unbalanced system can be converted to TC. There’s a “Unbalanced Count Theorem” developed and proven by Dr. Brett Harris. I tried to Google it but couldn’t find it.

Sincerely,
Cac

"I’ve never seen a “6 Deck Game (4.5 of 6 decks dealt): S17, DAS, RSA” in America."

Really?  Have you never been to Las Vegas? There are dozens of such games on The Strip.