While your post is well written and the ideas expressed clearly, you simply are blinded to the fact that some people have the intellectual capacity to do exactly the same things with a level-2 or level-3 count that you do with level 1. And, your failure to acknowledge this colors all of your argumentation.

People tend to write about and support ideas and concepts that stem from their own experience. But, when you are advocating something that may apply to a much larger, disparate, group than what encompasses your own experience, generalizing your personal capabilities, or lack thereof, to the entire population is a mistake.

After just a year of playing Hi-Lo, it became apparent to me that learning the Revere Point Count would be child's play for me. I have a facility with numbers, and this ace-reckoned level-2 count, which would increase Hi-Lo return, seemed easily attainable for me. It is now 40 years later. Do you think for one minute that I am failing to "acknowledge my scientifically proven error rate," which is, unavoidably, higher than your Hi-Lo error rate? Any time you'd like to go head-to-head in a skills contest with me, just name the place and time -- but you'll need to make it worth my while.

The simple point is: you can't play Hi-Lo any more accurately than I play the RPC -- and that's with 150 indices, to boot! So now, we keep going. Someone else plays AOII or Hi-Opt II, level-2 counts, but with a side of aces, for example. And, they get so proficient at it that they are painstakingly accurate. You seem to think that this isn't possible, but that is a terribly naive and simplistic point of view. Of course it's possible! So, instead of advocating simplicity, anyone who discusses this topic should advocate crawling before you walk and then walking before you run. Should Hi-Opt II be the FIRST count you ever learn? No, I don't think so. Should you NEVER aspire to it, because you're inevitably "doomed" to a higher error rate if you dare to try? Again, that's just plain silly. Socrates's "Know thyself" comes to mind.

Bottom line: anything worth doing is worth doing well. Experienced counters should aspire to the highest level count -- whatever the complexity -- and the number of strategy indices that they can master thoroughly. Anything less is cheating themselves. Anything more may very well be the "diminishing returns" that you allude to. But stop painting the entire blackjack-playing community with the same brush, and recognize that "There are more things in heaven and earth, KJ, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Finally, people reading these lines, from none other than the creator of the Illustrious 18, may see a certain irony and even a contradictory aspect to the remarks but they shouldn't. The purpose of the I18 was NEVER to advocate that players learn just that much and no more. The purpose was simply to make players aware of the fact that, by learning just the 18 (and later Fab 4 and Catch 22), they could, especially in a shoe game, capture the lion's share (80%-85%, as you mention) of the attainable gain. It was then left to the individual to decide whether or not to leave the remaining dollars (not pennies!) quite literally on the table or not. I am not my brother's keeper!

Don