First ZMF, I value your participation in this forum and find your responses to be , sometimes harsh, but always factual. I share some of your "direct" trait so can understand.
I do not know KJ (other than here) and have no axe to grind with either of you.
I do, however, find it hard not to give a fellow AP the benefit of the doubt regarding his statements. More directly, unless you have some basis for your conjecture then I suggest you have erred, at least in the modicum of discourse that we should all find acceptable.
Now, I am a HiLo player (semi-retired, not a full time AP) but the "between the lines" intent of your statement seemed to be no one could be effective using that count. Certainly, I am not one to argue such matters as to where the line of complexity crosses the line of effectiveness in selecting a count. If we were all capable, perhaps we might just remember every card played and retain every card remaining and always have perfect information. It is my experience that the bell shaped curve for that distribution of intelligence is way skewed to the negative.
Now with all that said, here is some data (not conjecture or general statements) about the performance of a HiLo counter. Not perfect , but real.
First, a cumulative graph of all the stuff you would want to know.
Stealth Play.JPG
Then some data to show you where he is toward the long term.
Long Term.JPG
Then some data to show how he did relative to Z-Scores for his sessions and how he track with a cumulative Z-Score which speaks to his long term ability.
Zscores.JPG
In summary, there are good reasons for people to select different systems and not all of those reasons are absolute to the technical best. Give room for them to work. Never underestimate the desire to work and win.
So, in my journey, I am pleased to know (albeit by forum) both you and KJ (and Three and others) and hope we can respect that there are multiple ways to "skin a cat", as my Grandaddy always said!
And yes, I am that Hi-Lo player.
Bookmarks