Just to be clear here, when you say I took a single article as ‘the holy grail’, you are talking about a paragraph from Norm’s book. You are inferring two things, one that I have “interpreted it as I see fit”? Let me post Norm’s exact quote, Please tell me where I misinterpreted?
I wanted to add a few words about stepping up to a level II strategy. At first glance, the difference does not appear great. You sometimes add or subtract two instead of always adding or subtracting one. However, adding one to something is not the same as adding any other number, as adding one is simply counting. Your brain doesn’t access an addition table or handle carries. (You sometimes add a pair of ones, but this can be handled by counting twice.) The difference sounds subtle, but not when you are keeping a running count very quickly. Level I and level II strategies are handled in a fundamentally different manner by the brain. Incidentally, the same is true for early computers. An “incrementer” had a fraction of the circuitry of an “adder.” --Norm Wattenberger from Modern Blackjack
Second thing you infer is that I took this single statement as you called it….”the holy grail”. I did no such thing. There are numerous studies comparing simple tasks to complex tasks. And usually the complex task is not really very complex, just a second layer of simplicity, which mirrors what we are talking about here. Each and every one of these studies finds a higher error rate, with what they label as the complex tasks vs the error rate for the simple tasks.
Now I suppose the part you are going to fight me on is that adding and subtracting 1 and 2 is no more complex than adding 1. Findings show that it. But you, just like most pro-complex count advocates, refuse to accept the science that proves that it is, which happens to be what Norm rightfully concludes.
Now you bring up savants, or extreme cases. That is not really what we are talking about, but if it makes you feel better, I will amend my statement.
I don't care what anybody playing whatever level 2, level 3, or side counting count, says.... absent being a very extreme example, the likes of a math ‘savant’, they cannot pick up the count as quickly, with a fraction of a second glimpse, with the same accuracy. Those saying they can are flat out wrong. Probably lying to themselves rather than intentionally lying to us.
It is doubtful that I have changed your mind, so at that, I am in agreement that we should just drop it, each entitled to our own opinion.