Which of these systems is stronger? In K-O blackjack by Vancura and Fuchs, they've determined that K-O performs equal if not better and at http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm the K-O count is also said to be stronger.
Do you play SD, DD, 6D?
Do you aspire to be a ST'er?
Do you multiple and divide very well? :)
Bottom line is they both produce similiar results but each has it's own uniqueness depending on what games you are playing, the rules involved, and how you play them.
Get Blackjack Attack II (or wait till Blackjack Attack III comes out.)
Many good side by side comparisons in there.
Use the search function here to find endless discussions about your question.
Hi/Lo and KO, by most comparisons, are very close. But the ease of KO, IMHO, can not be overstated. Learning to count at your kitchen table is one thing, once in the casino with all the distractions, and trying to look like you're not counting, is another. After regular practice and a few trips to the casino, I was able to use KO almost effortlessly.
Matter of fact, KO has come so easy to me, in such a short period of time, I sometimes wish I had tried a more challenging system. But KO gets the money, gets you to the things beyond counting, like your act & cover, more quickly.
In pratical terms the difference between HiLo and K-O systems is negligible. I have played with both methods , my prefernce is for the HiLo with SW's Playing strategies ( TC-4 To TC+6 } but then I played almost exclusively on shoe games. Besides I have been using the HiLo method long before Olaf & Ken's K-O method was even heard of. I am more comfortable with using it. Both systems are just as easy to learn and apply. No matter which system you choose make the effort to master it.
Cheers
Buccaneer
