> An interesting point, John, but the fact
> that K-O is weaker away from the pivot is
> K-O's problem. It isn't UBZII's problem,
> which should be happy no matter what index
> it is at.

Does this sound reasonable?:

Given: unbalanced counts are less accurate at departures and amount-to-bet, the further they are
from pivot.

Consider the following hi-lo trues:

<-5 UBZII always 2 "better" than KO
-5: -7 below UBZII pivot, -9 below KO
-4: -6 below UBZII pivot, -8 below KO
-3: -5 below UBZII pivot, -7 below KO
-2: -4 below UBZII pivot, -6 below KO
-1: -3 below UBZII pivot, -5 below KO
0: -2 below UBZII pivot, -4 below KO
+1: -1 below UBZII pivot, -3 below KO
+2: right at UBZII pivot, -2 below KO
+3: 1 above UBZII pivot, -1 below KO
+4: 2 above UBZII pivot, right at KO
+5: 3 above UBZII pivot, 1 above KO
>5: UBZII always 2 "worse" than KO

Play-all, it all evens out, and UBZII level 2 has the edge.

But restrict to Wong only:

+1: -1 below UBZII pivot, -3 below KO
+2: at UBZII pivot, -2 below KO
+3: 1 above UBZII pivot, -1 below KO
+4: 2 above UBZII pivot, at KO
+5: 3 above UBZII pivot, 1 above KO
>5: UBZII always 2 "worse" than KO

UBZII only has the "accuracy advantage" at +1 and +2,
KO has the rest, which is probably just enough to overcome the
level 1 versus level 2.

Another observation. KO's disadvantage at negative counts would hurt it more than it does were it not for the fact that only around 1 unit is bet there anyway.

The reverse happens to UBZII at high counts, since we are at max anyway.

So, when we Wong, the key counts are +2, +3, +4, and +5, and KO has the accuracy edge there.

Or so it seems to me, just trying to "thought experiment" it.

Also, if what I am thinking is right, then it should hold that the larger the Wonging spread, the more KO should inch ahead, and the reverse.

But I could be wrong. Just trying to think what could explain those results.

John