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.