comparing counts HI LOW to KO

Now that ive gotten a nice spread down pat prior to entering a table
the only thing that i doubt, or give consideration into, is which count to go with.

I like both of them (the high low and the KO), do you think one is better than the other? or whats the advantage to each, im completley comfortable with each of them, know them both just the same.
keep in mind my game situation

8 deck
75 percent pen
dealer stands soft 17
double any 2 cards
double after 2 cards
split aces get one card
no surrender

any ideas?

I like both of them (the high low and the KO), do you think one is better than the other? or whats the advantage to each, im completley comfortable with each of them, know them both just the same.
keep in mind my game situation

KO - Easier to keep count, and carry on conversations and such. Better for camoflage.

Hi Lo - Industry Standard - more acceptable to teams, balanced count is a pre-requisite for more advanced techniques such as shuffle tracking.

8 deck
75 percent pen
dealer stands soft 17
double any 2 cards
double after 2 cards
split aces get one card
no surrender
any ideas?

Find a better game.

... would like to add that Hi-Lo is somewhat more powerful than K-O The differences are not great. IF you go Hi-Lo you MUST have "Professional Blackjack" by Stanford Wong. After that you need to study Don Schlesinger's magnum opus -- "Blackjack Attack" (4th edition)

i see what you mean
however

i dont understand why ko is better than hi low accoriding to

http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm

it just doesnt make sense, hi low u always get a real "true count"
as opposed to ko
for instance

ko count is plus 1, and there is 50 cards left in the shoe to be dealt
or ko count is plus 1 and there is 200 cards left in the shoe to be dealt
they say to bet the same amount whenever the count is plus 1 for instance.

meanwhile its a better advantage when theyre are 50 cards left opposed to 200
i still dont see it?

any input guys?

The question is more complex than the two-dimensional table given in the link you posted. IE different numbers of decks changes things. I doubt there is a one-size-fits-all counting scheme. Most any done right will work. Most any done wrong will break you.

"Playing Efficiency (as defined by Griffin) is not relevant to unbalanced card counting systems and is only an estimate."

The differences between the Betting and Insurance Correlation figures are so small as to be virtually irrelevant. Errors in play could easily wipe out any potential gains one counting system has over the other.