Request for sim of KO with TCRC vs HL

I’m sorry for saying this in the wrong attitude. It’s clear to me you are an expert, especially on Las Vegas and surroundings. I played mainly double-decks at LV and haven’t played any six-decks there at all.

Also, I don’t want to do friendly fire. I wanted to fire all my bullets toward Blackjack Rebel because he disobeyed the norms of this community. He cited this high-hourly-earning game to justify his theory of quarter-deck and full-deck resolutions, but I was tired of hearing all this stuff. Also, this 6-deck RSA game is advertised as a money-making means, but this is misleading. 

In the article KO with TCRC vs REKO, Cac brought up TKO and made several claims about the SCORE of KO and HL and I told Cac the only way to get a definitive answer is to convince Gronbog to do a sim on KO with TCRC using the criteria I put forth in this article. Also Aceside and others also have questions. Doing a sim on KO with TCRC should be very simple compared to the complicated sim that Gronbog did on HL and KO with side counts. So if Gronbog does a sim you can compare the SCORE of back counted 1 to 8 and 1 to 12 spread KO with TCRC to HL and you will have your questions answered. I gave you my predictions in this article and in my replies in the article KO with TCRC vs REKO. My predictions have been correct in the past so I expect to be proven to be correct again if sims are run. . . 

As I told you, I can do a sim on a 6-deck 75% Pen game using Phil’s simulator to compare Hi-Lo and my TKO, but I do not want to sim a game of 5/6 Pen. Clearly, TKO will have a lot of EV gain from insurance when penetration is deep. 

Ok  Yes I have shown TKO and KO with TCRC both calculate KO true count correctly. You can do the TKO sim comparing TKO to HL but I would prefer a sim of KO with TCRC to HL which I am hoping Gronbog would be able to do. It really doesn't matter if sim is done for 4.5 out of 6 decks or 5 out of 6 decks, just want to see if KO with TCRC beats HL. And I want the decks estimated to the nearest full deck for both KO with TCRC and HL. Also you TKO system uses all HL indices.  While true most of the time there are exceptions as shown in my request .for a sim of KO with TCRC to HL. Finally I am not thrilled with TKO which still uses a true count calculation with src / dr >= (HL index - 4) for strategy changes as compared to KO with TCRC that does not involve any true count calculations but merely critical running counts with a simple crc formula or even mentally looking up the crc once the TCRC is used enough and memorized so zero calculations. with all decisions being made comparing two integers KO and crc.

Note that Colin Jones sims of HL with decks estimated to the nearest full deck and decks estimated to the nearest quarter deck were for 4.5 out of six decks dealt which showed HL with decks estimated to the nearest quarter deck increased EV by 7%.  And I showed the KO with TCRC for true counts of 3 or more with deck estimated to the nearest full deck is equivalent for true counts of 3 or more to HL with decks estimated to the nearest quarter deck so my prediction is this accuracy will increase KO with TCRC SCORE over HL when both have decks estimated to the nearest full deck.. .    

So my preference is to have sims by Gronbog with KO with TCRC vs HL using the criteria I posted at the beginning of this article. Then compare the SCORE of back counted KO with TCRC to HL for 1-8 and 1-12 bet spreads. That is the sim I am really interested in. 

Why not you do the sim yourself? The only blackjack simulation I trust is from Phil of this board. 
 

Also, I briefly read into Gronbog's simulation results on your proposal of 7m9c et al side counts, but they all sound garbage. 

The following is a comparison table between the three systems we’ve been discussing, based on the mentioned rules and penetration. Table A) includes LS, while table B) does not. Of course, you don’t need to rely on my simulations, since all six cases can easily be simulated with CVData. R22 (Revisited-22) refers to the Catch-22 indices where 10 vs T is replaced by TT vs 4. For TKO and Hi-Lo, the indices are floored, the division is by full decks, and the remaining deck estimate is rounded to the nearest half deck.
 

A) Rules: 6D, S17, DOA, DAS, SPA1, SPL3, LS, 5/6, R22+FAB4 indices, 50 billion rounds
 

            1-12(PA)    1-16(PA)    1-4(BC)
-------------------------------------------
TKO        54.79       62.21       90.41
HILO      53.10       60.27       87.45
KO          51.63       58.91       86.09
-------------------------------------------

B) Rules: 6D, S17, DOA, DAS, SPA1, SPL3, NS, 5/6, R22 indices, 50 billion rounds
 

            1-12(PA)    1-16(PA)    1-4(BC)
-------------------------------------------
TKO        37.03       42.94       66.96
KO          35.20       41.03       64.19
HILO      35.19       40.81       63.94
-------------------------------------------

Sincerely,
Cac

The above Cac’s work is quality research, but I don’t understand the terminology “1-4(BC).” Also, when comparing different counting systems, I always specify the Hi-Lo 1-12 spread like this:

$10/$25/$50/$75/$100/$125 at TC=0/+1/+2+/+3/+4/+5 respectively. 
 

In this way, I can verify myself. Otherwise, I can not. 

OK, I'll take the bait. Please provide details showing how my work is garbage.

Since you asked, I would dig. Here is the SCORE Comparison, Quote: 

“Simulation # 4: KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc WITH Late Surrender

Copyright Gronbog, March 31 2019, All Rights Reserved

Rules: 6 Decks, 52 Cards Cut Off, S17, BJ 3/2, DOA, DAS, LS, SPL3, SA1, PEEK

Counting System: Hilo, KO

True Count Conversion Options

Deck Estimation: round to nearest 0.50 decks

True Count Conversion: floor to nearest 1.00

Index Strategy: KO + 5m7c + AA89mTc”

In your simulation of KO, what is your initial running count (IRC) of KO, and what is your bet spread at different KO running counts? 

If I get these numbers, I will be able to sim KO myself without any side bet. 

The above is a sim of KO + 5m7c + AA89mTc. As with all of Blackjack Rebel's KO systems, the IRC is 0. Because the comparisons are done using SCORE, the betting ramp is full Kelly optimal, rounded to the nearest dollar. All of other the conditions for SCORE BJA3 Chapters 9 and 10 are also in effect. As the expert you claim to be, you will have no problem recreating these conditions.

Don't bother to say that the IRC can not be zero. All of the actual experts here have already explained to you that this is OK as long as the indices are also generated or adjusted for this.

Still waiting for the reasons why you said that my work is garbage.

This part “Because the comparisons are done using SCORE, the betting ramp is full Kelly optimal, rounded to the nearest dollar” is garbage. I need more math details here. You cannot just say the same things over and over again.

To calculate true count with KO would the formula be:

(Running Count - (4*du)) / dr 

where du is decks used and dr is decks remaining?

I am not sure how to correctly calculate true count for unbalanced counts 

Thanks,

Phil

Aceside, I'm not buying it. You said my work was garbage before I wrote that.

Are you, the expert, saying that you don't know how to calculate Kelly optimal bets for Blackjack? That can't be true. If it were, then that would mean you're not an expert at all and really just an annoying troll.

I’m an amateur mathematician. I only derive formulas right here. To be honest, I don't know Kelly optimal bets very well. I just roughly know what that is from various forum posts, but I really haven't studied it systematically. That's why I post here. To learn and to develop. 
 

I must revise what I said about your work. All your work is very valuable for me. I was just kidding. 

Here is what I posted earlier about true-counted KO. Consider a 6-deck blackjack game. RC means running count; TC means true count; DR means decks remaining. 

RC=-24+x, where x is the sum of the tags of all removed Hi-Lo cards.

TC=RC/DR.

For example, if x=12 and DR=3, then 

TC=(-24+12)/3=-4. This is the neutral TC.

If x=15 and DR=2, then

Tc=(-24+15)/2=-4.5. This indicates you bet minimum. 

If you really want to learn about comparing counting systems fairly, then buy BJA3 and read about SCORE in chapters 9 and 10. Until you understand the concepts in those chapters, and until you purchase the  CVData/CVCX software from QFIT, you will be unable to run the sims you are proposing.

No disrespect to Phil, but from what I've read here, his software is not yet capable of generating SCOREs which is a requirement for comparing counting systems fairly.

In a thread on KO with TCRC versus REKO I showed that TKO and KO with TCRC both give correct KO true counts and I derived the formulas from the base formula given below. I hope this clears up true count calculations for unbalanced counts.

The base formula that is use for all KO true count is:

tc(KO) = t = (KO – 4*dp) / dr where KO starts at zero.  From this basic formula, all of the KO with TCRC formulas and critical running count formulas can be derived as well as TKO formulas can be derived.

KO is unbalanced at 4 per decks so if dp = 1 then EV KO = 4 and if dp 2 = then EV KO = 8 and if “dp” is decks played then EV KO is 4*dp.  Thus (KO – 4*dp) is the deviation of KO from its expected value and this is what is divided by decks remaining to get KO true count.

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 with the assumption that HL and KO indices are the same (For the most part they are but there are a few exceptions). This is the same technique that Katarina Walker used for Spanish 21 HL to calculate the Spanish 21 true counts.   

I will show that TKO starting at (-4*n) is equivalent to KO with TCRC with KO starting and zero and where 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 as is done 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 where KO starts at zero.

src = KO – 4*n so  KO = src + 4*n

t = (KO – 4*dp)/dr = ((src + 4*n) – 4*dp) / dr

t = (src + 4*(n – dp)) / dr = (src + 4*dr) / dr = src / dr + 4.

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 src / dr is compared to the HL index minus 4 where it is assumed that that KO index and HL index are the same which is true most of the time but not all of the time as there are some exceptions.

So with TKO, you make your strategy changes with (src/dr) >= (HL index – 4) where it is assumed KO index is the HL index which is true most of the time. If the KO index is known, then make your strategy changes with (src/dr) >= (KO index – 4).

I think to generate SCORE a simulation run needs a starting bankroll of $10,000 and a Risk of Ruin of 13.5% over the course of 100 hands among other requirements. In my simulator the starting amount is input as desired along with betting amounts and other inputs so the inputs may frequently not be what is required to generate SCORE. 

I guess I should put something in though to generate SCORE if the inputs are set up for it. 
 

I currently calculate the Desirability Index though.

Thank you,

Phil

Actually, you are doing the correct thing. Do not ever change. Trust me!

Here is my understanding of the Kelly. Your wager should be proportional to EV but inversely proportional to SD. How to use this is still debatable. Here is why.

It's tricky to compare a RC system to a TC system, such as, KO to Hi-Lo.  They have different step sizes: KO has a step size of RC=1, but Hi-Lo has a step size of TC=1.

Let me put it numerically. In Hi-Lo, we bet like $10/$25/$50/$75/$100/$125 at TC=0/+1/+2+/+3/+4/+5 respectively. In KO, we bet like $10/$11.6/$12.7/$13.83/$14.93/$15.36 at RC=0/+1/+2/+3/+4/+5 respectively. Are we comparing them properly? No. The latter has a much finer resolution for placing our wager, but it's not doable. As said by GW Bush.

It seems that we are wandering from the track of the purpose of this thread which was my request for a simulation of KO with TCRC for six deck, 4.5 or 5 decks dealt (does not really matter as it is the relative back counted 1-8 and 1-12 SCORE of HL and KO with TCRC that I would like compared) for S17, DAS, LS with decks estimated to the nearest full deck for both HL and KO with TCRC and using EV indices for both HL and KO.

Use HL indices for KO indices except for the few situations I mentioned were KO indices differed from HL indices, specifically standing on hard 14 v T with KO index of 7 to stand and hard 15 and 16 v 7, 8, 9 where these should just be hit with KO since the seven should be counted as -1 for standing and KO counts the seven as +1 so stick with basic strategy and hit hard 15, 16 v 7, 8, 9 when using KO..

I would like to add one additional change and that is to increase HL indices by one for T,T v 5 and T,T v 6 split because KO EV index is greater that HL EV index for these plays and AACpTCp (Average Advantage Change per True Count point) for splitting Tens is around 5%, the largest of any playing strategy deviation, so you definitely do not want to spit Tens early. If this last refinement can be put into the simulation that would be great.   

I have given you links to Colin Jones’ sims of 4.5 out of 6 decks dealt and his sims showed that if HL true counts were accurately calculated using decks estimated to the nearest quarter deck and true count accurately calculated with quarter decks that the HL EV would increase 7% as compare to HL with decks estimated to the nearest full deck.

I have shown you in a previous threads here the derivation of my critical running counts based on tc(KO) = t = (KO – 4*dp)/dr, so you can have confidence that they are correct. These KO critical running counts replace HL true counts when using KO with TCRC.

The crc formula for six decks, crc(t) = 24 + (t – 4)*dr, is very easy to use and calculate but if you play KO with TCRC enough and you memorized the TCRC then you would not even have to do any calculations at all as you can mentally look up the critical running count in the TCRC based on the required KO index and decks played. No calculations at all involved and you are just comparing two integers, KO and crc, to make your betting and playing strategy decisions.

I have also shown that for true counts of three or more that KO true counts estimated to the nearest full deck is equivalent to HL true counts estimated to the nearest quarter deck.

So here is where I make my leap of faith where I say if you compared both HL and KO with TCRC with both HL and KO having decks estimated to the nearest full deck, and you looked at the back counted SCORE for 1-8 and 1-12 spread of KO with TCRC and HL that the SCORE of KO with TCRC should be noticeably higher than the SCORE of HL mainly because of the increased accuracy of KO with TCRC true counts as compared to HL calculated true counts and to a much lesser degree because KO is theoretically slightly more powerful that HL.

Gronbog’s software is correct so if Gronbog could do this sim it would definitively answer my questions on KO with TCRC vs HL. If the back counted 1-8 and 1-12 KO with TCRC SCORE is significantly higher than the HL SCORE then that is another reason, besides KO being much easier to use and so less mistakes than KO, to switch from HL to KO with TCRC for the shoe game.