Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[bjanalyst]

Attached is an example of using a plus/minus side count for the Lucky Lucky bet which is added to the primary KO count. This is similar to adding the side count AA89mTc to the HL for the Lucky Ladies bet. You get to keep the KO count for blackjack and by simply adding a side count to the KO count you get a derived count that can be used for the side bet. Elliott Jacobson and the You Tube video miss that point entirely. They both suggest give up any hope of any count for blackjack and just use a very difficult level 2 or level 3 count to play the Lucky Lucky side bet. But with linear combinations of a primary count and side count you keep the primary KO count for blackjack and you also had a derive count for the Lucky Lucky bet. My analysis included below of the Lucky Lucky side bet is including in my 4th book.

I really do not understand by everyone on this website keeps on complaining that plus minus side counts are difficult to keep and difficult to use. You are merely multiplying and adding to integers and comparing the result to a third integer. How is that difficult.

So attached is my Lucky Lucky analysis that shows the power of using linear combinations of counts.
Lucky Lucky Bet (1).jpg
Lucky Lucky Bet (2).jpg
Lucky Lucky Bet (3).jpg

[bjanalyst]

As another example of using linear combinations of counts to help with blackjack and a side bet ,I will include below my analysis of the Over/Under 13 bet using Arnold Snyder's EoR. Arnold suggested forget about blackjack and even forget about the under 13 bet and just keep a count for the over 13 bet. Unfortunately Arnold missed the boar just like Elliott Jacobson did.If you use linear combinations of a primary count and a side count you will have good counts for blackjack, over 13 and under 13, I had included this over/under 13 side bet analysis in my 2nd or 3rd book.

Also in my 3rd and 4th books I used linear combinations of Katerina Walker's HL for Spanish 21 (which is unbalanced with a pivot of a true count of 4 because the Tens are removed from the Spanish 21 deck and so is KO Table of Critical Running Counts can also be used for Spanish 21 HL). So I added plus/minus side counts to Spanish 21 HL to improve on Katerina Walker's primary HL count. So again linear combinations of a primacy count and side counts comes to the rescue in improving Spanish 21 betting and playing strategy variations.

I am not including any Spanish 21 analysis here. I am just including Over/Under 13 analysis with a primacy count and side count to show once again the power of linear combinations of a plus/minus primacy count and plus/minus side count.
Over Under 13 (1).jpg
Over Under 13 (2).jpg
Over Under 13 (3).jpg

[bjanalyst]

Very good point. And for betting, doesn't HiLo outperform HiOpt2 w/ASC?

HL underperforms HO2 withi ASC for betting. I showed in previous exhibits where the Betting Correlation (BC) for S17, DAS, no LS game of the HL was 96.48%, BC of HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) as 97.38% and BC of HO2 - 2*(Adef) as 98.45%. Gronbog used just the HL in his simluations for betting and did not use the improved betting running count (brc) of brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c). If he used brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) instead of using brc = HL then the simluaitoin results of HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c would have been closer to HO2 with ASC. I am confident that the playing strategy of HL wiht AA78mTc and 5m6c surpassed HO2 with ASC but HO2 with ASC has superior BC and thus HO2 with ASC beat HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c where brc = HL.

[bjanalyst]

Another count debate.

Amazing........

So, I can train and learn a new count that is harder than most humans can not accomplish only to learn it falls short of HIOptII ASC, which we have all know about forever.
I continue to suggest there are more lucrative improvements in the area of betting and longevity than trying to squeek out another bit from playing.

I would like to address each of your points.

First I explained in multiple posts that HL with side counts was used for simulations because there are canned HL programs that could be easily modified which proved that my technique was correct. My suggestion all along was to use KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c and I have shown the advantage of the KO for true count calculations for true counts > 2 and plus minus side counts being EXACT. And I have shown how easily it is to keep plus/minus side counts and I have shown that both the Betting and Playing Efficiency of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c surpasses HO2 with ASC and there is a lot of extra camouflage plays as well.

I never had some many complaints about a plus/minus side counts being difficult. Plus/Minus side counts are easy. So it is difficult for you to multiply and add small integers and compare to a third integer to make your playing strategy decisions. really?? So you are telling me you have problems multiply and adding small integers which a 3rd grader can do!

As far are more lucrative improvements consider the side bets and using linear combinations of the primacy count and side count to make the side bets. I already explained to you the Lucky Ladies bet where I use LLc = Lucky Ladies Count = Tc = Ten count = KO + AA89mTc to make my Lucky Ladies bet. And I have included analysis of Lucky Lucky bet and Over/Under 13 bet using a primacy count and a plus/minus side count.

The first time I had anyone at all ever say my system was difficult to learn and use is when I posted my system on this forum. Everyone else I taught my system to thought it was easy. I taught my system to another counter and he said he mastered it in a matter of days. I taught my system to Carla who knew nothing about counting and learned both the KO and AA89mTc in a matter of a couple of weeks. And Carla is not exceptional or talented by any means. So why do you say that this system is harder than most humans can accomplish?

Carla is now very proficient in back counting the six deck, five deck dealt S17, DAS, LS with Lucky Ladies offered and she calls me over or I call her over whenever ether KO >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks or LLc >= crc(4) = 24 . If LLc is between 24 and 30 we bet $5 on the LL and if LLc > 30 then we start increasing LL bets from $10 up to $25 if we are winning and we bet $15 on blackjack and play as many spots as possible. I bring a $1,000 day trip bankroll and we play for only 4 hours or so and of course a lot of that time is back counting. And the casinos are near where we live so we go often. And a few times a year we get lucky and get QHQH for 200 to 1 payoff. I have yet to get QHQH with dealer blackjack for 1000 to 1 payoff. Everyone knows us at the casino and they are all friendly and like us and they give us no problem because our bets are so small. One pit boss who did not know me told me I could only bet $100 a hand. But I bet $15 a hand!! That is why $1,000 for 4 or 5 hours of back counted play with the LL bets is more than adequate.

So I play blackjack so that I can play Lucky Ladies. LL is where I make my money. Obviously I could never make any money at all the way I play if I was playing just blackjack.

[bjanalyst]

Attached is some miscellaneous information that I left out. I want to be complete. I have included the selected basic strategy calculations for KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c along with an updated chart. I gave Gronbog a copy of my Excel program with LSL calculations where I used Excel Solver to fine the values of k1 and k2 that maximized he absolute value of the CC between the tag values of the derived count and the EoR for any given situation. I hope that this clears up things a bit.

[bjanalyst]

One more proof attached..
Proof 2.jpg

[Stealth]

I never had some many complaints about a plus/minus side counts being difficult. Plus/Minus side counts are easy. So it is difficult for you to multiply and add small integers and compare to a third integer to make your playing strategy decisions. really?? So you are telling me you have problems multiply and adding small integers which a 3rd grader can do!

You are not in a real world. I have trained and/or tested over 50 players in various counts and I can assure you that level 2 counts are more difficult than level 1. It is a basic premise that does not require a 3rd grader to understand.

My experience is well beyond betting $15 and it is not hypothetical.

I really don't care about the fractions of improvement you think you get because with a higher error rate (and it is a higher error rate) you may in fact lose advantage. Our solution is to have a large enough bankroll to take the variance while staying in our RoR. Then all I need to know is "do I have an advantage?", if so bet as much as I can within the store tolerances. There are many ways to improve longevity with playing and betting protocols designed to do so.

As I said above, the underlying reason Don created the Illustrious 18 was to simplify the playing without a material negative impact in EV. 80% of the value of departures for 20% of the departures. Get out of the four decimal trenches and concentrate on how to beat the damn casino not to conduct mental masturbation hoping for a happy ending.

[refinery]

He won't, Stealth, because he is a theoretician. I can't believe after all of this the response is "I play LL". Then use a ten count or the modified LL count. The list of what he claims to have "proven" is the highest of comedy!

[BJGenius007]

He won't, Stealth, because he is a theoretician. I can't believe after all of this the response is "I play LL". Then use a ten count or the modified LL count. The list of what he claims to have "proven" is the highest of comedy!

I am sure after reading these discussions, he will have more ideas and his fifth, sixth and seventh books are coming up for more side count combinations.

[seriousplayer]

You are correct. Betting is more important for the shoe game and playing strategy is more important for the two deck game. I covered many, many differnt combinations in my 4th book, High Low with plus minut side counts, much more than I can ever go over in these posts.

The HL is not my count of choice for the shoe game. I chose the HL because there are canned sim programs that use the HL and so the changes needed to this programs would be miminal. My count of choise is the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c for ths shoe game. And KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) has a BC of 99%. In the next post I will include my full charts (to supplement the I18) of the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c.

I would like to emphasize that my Excel program I created to calculate indices and values of k for side counts has now been proven to work through simulations. Gronbog added the indices and values of "k" I have him from my program into his simulations and each time he added more AA78mTc or 5m6c improvements to the HL the sims showed improvements. In addition when I first made my program in 2011 I had ETFAN review it who was the mathematician for Arnold Synder. ETFAN was not familiar with my LSL (Least Square Line) technique but he did know Griffin's PD (Proportional Deflection) which he taught me and which I also programmed into my spreadsheet. The results showed that the LSL and PD both gave identical results. In addition my program gave the HL indices that agreed with published indices. And not simulations show that the calculated indices and values of "k" lead to improvements. And the psrc (playing strategy running count) = HL + k1*(AA78mTc) + k2*(5m6c) formulas also make logical sense. So everything falls in place. My calculations are correct.

For the two deck game I think balanced counts should be used because you play all hands and the true counts go all over the place and would not be outside a table of critical running count extremely often. So analyzed the following counts in my 4th book for the two deck game: Note that what I call HL2 = High-Low 2 is a level two version of the HL using halves -- take the HL and decrease the tag value of the 2 from +1 to +1/2 and increase the tag value of 7 from zero to +1/2 so that the count is still balanced. So HL2 has 2 and 7 as +1/2, 3, 4, 5, 6 as +1, 8, 9 as zero and T and Ace as -1. So there is hat I analyzed:

1	One side count
		HL with Am6c. brc = HL has betting efficiency = 96.5%.
2	One side count: Before adding a 2nd side count, switch from HL to HL2
		HL2 with Am6c where HL2 is the HL with 2's and 7's counted at one-half. Use indices and "k" values of HL, Am6c for HL2, Am6c. Actual infinite deck indices and values ok "k" for HL2 with Am6c have been calculated and are included in this chapter and should be used instead of approximations. brc = HL2 has betting efficiency = 97.6%.
3	Two side counts
		Add 5m9c to HL2 with Am6c. Use indices and "k1" and "k2" values of HL, Am6c, 5m9c for HL2, Am6c, 5m9c. Actual infinite deck indices and values of "k1" and "k2" for HL2 with Am6c and 5m9c have been calculated and are included in this chapter and should be used instead of approximations. brc = HL2 + ½*(5m9c) is Wong's Halves with betting efficiency = 99.3%.
4	Alternate second side count
		Instead of switching from HL to HL2, keep the HL with Am6c and add 7m9c. For the one and two deck game, hit/stand on hard 14 v T is an important decision. Adding 7m9c increases the CC of this decision from 41% to 78%. 7m9c also helps with betting where brc = HL + ½*(7m9c) with betting efficiency of 98.1%.

If it is correct why aren't you doing it than? Instead you are doing the opposite.

Attached is my more complete analysis of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c.


I showed in previous posts that keeping two plus/minus side counts is easy. And using them is easy. You are just mutiply and addding integers and comparing the rsuls to a thrid integer, i.e. make a playing strategy change when psrc = KO + k1*(AA89mTc) + k2(5mc) >= crc(Idx) where Idx = index for that particular strategy change and k1 annd k2 are the values for that startegy change that maximize the CC between the tag valuse of the derived count, psrc, and the EoR from Schelsinger's BJA 3rd edition.

My analysis shows that BC for KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) beats HO2 - 2*(Adef) and that KO, AA89mTc and 5m7c CC beat HO2 w ASC for the majority of the I18 situations. In the attached charts you will see that there are even more strategy changes that could be camouflage plays when 5m7c is used with KO and AA89mTc than when 5m6c is used as the 2nd side count.

I emphasized KO, AA89mTc and 5m7c as my combination of counts of choice for the shoe game in my 3rd and 4th books. I did not want Gronbog to analyze those counts to begin with because that amount of changes to the sim programs would have been excess and errors could have been made. Much easier to prove that my technique was correct by using the HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c which he did. So you should be confident that my attached charts are no correct also. And based on the fact that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c had a higher Betting Efficiency and has higher CC for the vast majority of playing decisions tan HO2 with ASC does and so has a higher playing efficiency. then the appropriate conclusion is that the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats that HO2 with ASC and also have a lot of camouflage plays.
Attachment 3431
Attachment 3432
Attachment 3433
Attachment 3434
Attachment 3436

Attached is an example of using a plus/minus side count for the Lucky Lucky bet which is added to the primary KO count. This is similar to adding the side count AA89mTc to the HL for the Lucky Ladies bet. You get to keep the KO count for blackjack and by simply adding a side count to the KO count you get a derived count that can be used for the side bet. Elliott Jacobson and the You Tube video miss that point entirely. They both suggest give up any hope of any count for blackjack and just use a very difficult level 2 or level 3 count to play the Lucky Lucky side bet. But with linear combinations of a primary count and side count you keep the primary KO count for blackjack and you also had a derive count for the Lucky Lucky bet. My analysis included below of the Lucky Lucky side bet is including in my 4th book.

I really do not understand by everyone on this website keeps on complaining that plus minus side counts are difficult to keep and difficult to use. You are merely multiplying and adding to integers and comparing the result to a third integer. How is that difficult.

So attached is my Lucky Lucky analysis that shows the power of using linear combinations of counts.
Lucky Lucky Bet (1).jpg
Lucky Lucky Bet (2).jpg
Lucky Lucky Bet (3).jpg

As another example of using linear combinations of counts to help with blackjack and a side bet ,I will include below my analysis of the Over/Under 13 bet using Arnold Snyder's EoR. Arnold suggested forget about blackjack and even forget about the under 13 bet and just keep a count for the over 13 bet. Unfortunately Arnold missed the boar just like Elliott Jacobson did.If you use linear combinations of a primary count and a side count you will have good counts for blackjack, over 13 and under 13, I had included this over/under 13 side bet analysis in my 2nd or 3rd book.

Also in my 3rd and 4th books I used linear combinations of Katerina Walker's HL for Spanish 21 (which is unbalanced with a pivot of a true count of 4 because the Tens are removed from the Spanish 21 deck and so is KO Table of Critical Running Counts can also be used for Spanish 21 HL). So I added plus/minus side counts to Spanish 21 HL to improve on Katerina Walker's primary HL count. So again linear combinations of a primacy count and side counts comes to the rescue in improving Spanish 21 betting and playing strategy variations.

I am not including any Spanish 21 analysis here. I am just including Over/Under 13 analysis with a primacy count and side count to show once again the power of linear combinations of a plus/minus primacy count and plus/minus side count.
Over Under 13 (1).jpg
Over Under 13 (2).jpg
Over Under 13 (3).jpg

HL underperforms HO2 withi ASC for betting. I showed in previous exhibits where the Betting Correlation (BC) for S17, DAS, no LS game of the HL was 96.48%, BC of HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) as 97.38% and BC of HO2 - 2*(Adef) as 98.45%. Gronbog used just the HL in his simluations for betting and did not use the improved betting running count (brc) of brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c). If he used brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) instead of using brc = HL then the simluaitoin results of HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c would have been closer to HO2 with ASC. I am confident that the playing strategy of HL wiht AA78mTc and 5m6c surpassed HO2 with ASC but HO2 with ASC has superior BC and thus HO2 with ASC beat HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c where brc = HL.

I would like to address each of your points.

First I explained in multiple posts that HL with side counts was used for simulations because there are canned HL programs that could be easily modified which proved that my technique was correct. My suggestion all along was to use KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c and I have shown the advantage of the KO for true count calculations for true counts > 2 and plus minus side counts being EXACT. And I have shown how easily it is to keep plus/minus side counts and I have shown that both the Betting and Playing Efficiency of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c surpasses HO2 with ASC and there is a lot of extra camouflage plays as well.

I never had some many complaints about a plus/minus side counts being difficult. Plus/Minus side counts are easy. So it is difficult for you to multiply and add small integers and compare to a third integer to make your playing strategy decisions. really?? So you are telling me you have problems multiply and adding small integers which a 3rd grader can do!

As far are more lucrative improvements consider the side bets and using linear combinations of the primacy count and side count to make the side bets. I already explained to you the Lucky Ladies bet where I use LLc = Lucky Ladies Count = Tc = Ten count = KO + AA89mTc to make my Lucky Ladies bet. And I have included analysis of Lucky Lucky bet and Over/Under 13 bet using a primacy count and a plus/minus side count.

The first time I had anyone at all ever say my system was difficult to learn and use is when I posted my system on this forum. Everyone else I taught my system to thought it was easy. I taught my system to another counter and he said he mastered it in a matter of days. I taught my system to Carla who knew nothing about counting and learned both the KO and AA89mTc in a matter of a couple of weeks. And Carla is not exceptional or talented by any means. So why do you say that this system is harder than most humans can accomplish?

Carla is now very proficient in back counting the six deck, five deck dealt S17, DAS, LS with Lucky Ladies offered and she calls me over or I call her over whenever ether KO >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks or LLc >= crc(4) = 24 . If LLc is between 24 and 30 we bet $5 on the LL and if LLc > 30 then we start increasing LL bets from $10 up to $25 if we are winning and we bet $15 on blackjack and play as many spots as possible. I bring a $1,000 day trip bankroll and we play for only 4 hours or so and of course a lot of that time is back counting. And the casinos are near where we live so we go often. And a few times a year we get lucky and get QHQH for 200 to 1 payoff. I have yet to get QHQH with dealer blackjack for 1000 to 1 payoff. Everyone knows us at the casino and they are all friendly and like us and they give us no problem because our bets are so small. One pit boss who did not know me told me I could only bet $100 a hand. But I bet $15 a hand!! That is why $1,000 for 4 or 5 hours of back counted play with the LL bets is more than adequate.

So I play blackjack so that I can play Lucky Ladies. LL is where I make my money. Obviously I could never make any money at all the way I play if I was playing just blackjack.

Is your last name Three??

[Three]

HL underperforms HO2 withi ASC for betting. I showed in previous exhibits where the Betting Correlation (BC) for S17, DAS, no LS game of the HL was 96.48%, BC of HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) as 97.38% and BC of HO2 - 2*(Adef) as 98.45%. Gronbog used just the HL in his simluations for betting and did not use the improved betting running count (brc) of brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c). If he used brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) instead of using brc = HL then the simluaitoin results of HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c would have been closer to HO2 with ASC. I am confident that the playing strategy of HL wiht AA78mTc and 5m6c surpassed HO2 with ASC but HO2 with ASC has superior BC and thus HO2 with ASC beat HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c where brc = HL.

The biggest factor for bet size improvement is variance. The ratio of advantage squared to variance determines bet size in relationship to BR for each betting bin. More accurate decisions reduce variance by making the actual much closer to the average for the betting bin. But you are worried about EV and variance for average EV for the betting bin a lot than individual playing decisions. Playing decisions are a minor factor in the former. If you worried about improving betting accuracy (lowering variance for each betting bin) using something useful for playing decisions as well you would have much higher improvements for the effort. Again you worked the problem backwards and with the wrong priorities. You can use you two count technique to have a very accurate high level combined count without keeping high level counts. Then using different multiples either count added to the other you can adjust the tag strength of key cards for playing decisions so you can us a handful of playing counts that are very strong playing counts for the matchups each is best for.

If anyone is going to the trouble of doing something like this. Put a lot of thought into all the ways this technique can be used for gain and what are the most powerful one. Then carefully pick two counts that are expected to get the most of that gain. This is a difficult technique and a lot of research. Make sure what you produce is as strong as possible. Look at what cards would be good to be able to adjust the tag size. What combined count would give the strongest base betting count. Additional increase in optimal bet size can be produced by being able to make stronger plays that reduce variance and/or increase EV for frequent matchups or larger bets. At least then you will have tried to get the most gain you could for the effort you put into it. Like Don sad the gains won't be large (I get about 5% for Hopt2 and my balanced ace side count over ASC/ASC, 3% for the betting alone and an unknown additional amount for increased playing accuracy, which reduces variance for several reasons one is I am not adjusting bets to keep RoR the same for the additional playing accuracy), but you might find you like the way things play a lot better concerning heat and swings.

[bjanalyst]

I am not an expert on optimal betting. As I explained I back count and come in with $15 bj bets on as many hands as possible when KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) >= 24 and $5 LL bets when LLc = KO + AA89mTc >= 24 for the six deck, five deck dealt game and start increases LL bet when LLc >= 30 and if winning will increase LL bet up to $25 on as many hands as possible when LLc >= 30 and my day trip bankroll is only $1,000 for 4 or 5 hours of play which most of it is back couniting. So there really is not much for me to consider about optimal betting.

But I did include a chart with one-half Kelly betting and bet = (btc - 1) units where btc = tc(KO + (1/2)*(5m7c)) and if btc < 2 bet zero and maximum bet is 4 units when btc >= 5. So I guess that would be sort of optimal betting. This was a betting scheme I found on the Internet and I think it makes sense. The $10,000 day trip bankroll listed is what you have available -- you do not carry $10,000 cash on you -- I have only $1,000 when I go to the casino. I can take out more if I have to. So I am guessing that this one-half Kelly betting is close to optimal betting, but of course, I am not sure. But I do think it is conservative and reasonable betting and of course, as bankroll decreases, decrease the betting unit size.

So I will include that one-half Kelly betting again here and I will also include some graphics with chips to make it clear how easy it really is to keep the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c which is also very easy to use. I hope that this helps.
one-half kelly.jpg
chips KO AA89mTc 5m7c (1).jpg
chips KO AA89mTc 5m7c (2).jpg

[bjanalyst]

You are not in a real world. I have trained and/or tested over 50 players in various counts and I can assure you that level 2 counts are more difficult than level 1. It is a basic premise that does not require a 3rd grader to understand.

As I said above, the underlying reason Don created the Illustrious 18 was to simplify the playing without a material negative impact in EV. 80% of the value of departures for 20% of the departures. Get out of the four decimal trenches and concentrate on how to beat the damn casino not to conduct mental masturbation hoping for a happy ending.

I agree with you exactly. Level 2 counts are VERY difficult which is why I said I think the HO2 is difficult. KO is a level 1 count and 5m7c is a level 1 count and although AA89mTc is theoretically a level 2 count because the Aces are counted as +2, the AA89mTc counts only four different ranks, Aces, 8, 9 and Tens and there is a lot of cancellations and plenty of time to update the count in the shoe game. You update KO on the fly and AA89mTc after all cards are dealt and before players make their decisions and then continue to update as players play there hands. It is really VERY, VERY easy to do.

Also I concentrated on the I18 and I optimized the CC of the I18 with KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c.

Take a look at my graphic with chips for KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c that I just posted. I concentrated on the I18 but also added hard 16 v 7, 8 and hard 15 v 9 since these plays help with camouflage and do add to expected value and are easy to use. When KO >= crc(4) which is when your big bets are out and when the casino is observing your play, the decision is very simple: Stand on hard 15 v 9 and hard 16 v 7 if 5m7c >= 2*dr and stand on hard 16 v 8 if 5m7c >= 1.5*dr VERY SIMPLE!

This is all shown in the very simple chip graphics above. These plays are the major plays to add to the player's advantage and are very easy to use And you said you are mainly concerned with knowing when you have the edge. Then add the 5m7c, Use brc = betting running count = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) and when tc(brc) >= crc(4) or brc >= 4*n, n = number of decks, then you can start placing your big bets. KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) has a betting efficiency of 99% whereas KO or HL has a betting efficiency of 96.5% for S17, DAS, LS game.

Let me give an example where 5m7c helps with betting. Suppose KO = 24 with 4 out of 6 decks dealt. If 5m7c is not kept then average basic strategy advantage is 1.5% and you place your big bets out. Now SD(5m7c) is around one half the SD(HL) and HL for 5 out of 6 decks has a maximum and minimum value of +30 or -30. So 5m7 has a maximum and minimum value of +15 and -15. Of course these maximums and minimum values almost never occur but this gives you an idea of how extreme the values can be. So you can easily have a 5m7c value of +5 or -5 or even +10 or -10. Also note CC(5m7c, KO) = 0 so 5m7c is totally independent of KO and can have values all over the place independent of the KO count. So back to KO = 24 for 4 out of 6 decks dealt. And supposed 5m7c = -8. The brc = 24 + (1/2)*(-8) = 20. So with just using the table of critical running counts for six decks, a KO true count of 2 occurs when KO is 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 for dp (decks played) = 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. So for dp = 4, if brc = 20 then btc = 2. This can be done immediately by a mental table look up. But if you had to calculate it you could use the formula btc = (brc - 4*dp) / dr = (20 - 4*4)/2 = 4/2 =2. So now your bs (basic strategy) advantage is really on 0.5% and you should bet one unit but if just using the KO you are betting as if your bs advantage was 1.5% and are betting 3 units. So you are over betting in this instance when just KO is used.

Now consider the same case but near the end of the shoe. Suppose we have the same situation that I mentioned above where KO = 24 and 5m7c = -8 but now 5 out of 6 decks were dealt. So brc = KO + (1/2)*(-8) = 24 + (1/2)*(-8) = 20 again. But now with five decks played, crc(0) = 4*dp = 4*5 = 20, that is brc = crc(0) or btc = zero! So you have a bs advantage of -0.5%. That is you are betting 3 units as if your bs advantage was 1.5% when you are actually at a 0.5% disadvantage with a large bet out.

My second book was KO with 45m79c which has a betting correlation of 99.6 for S17, DAS, LS game. KO with 5m7c has a BC for 99% for S17, DAS, LS game. KO with 45m79c is more difficult to keep but does give an extra 0.6% edge if all you are concerned about it betting. And both 5m7c and 45m79c help with hard 15, hard 16 hit/stand and surrender decisions. But you lose the playing strategy gain of the AA89mTc if only 5m7c or 45m79c is only used and especially the fact that KO + AA89mTc gives 100% insurance efficiency and also has added cover since if KO = crc(6) for example but AA89mTc < -2*dr then Tc = KO + AA89mTc < crc(4) which would mean not to take insurance. So casinos would see you with a large bet out and you are not taking insurance.

My choice is to use KO with both AA89mTc and 5m7c. If you insisted on just maximizing betting efficiency then just drop AA89mTc and use KO with 5m7c for betting with brc = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) and then use 5m7c to help with hard 15 and hard 16 hit/stand and surrender decisions.