Now for the rest of the recent discussion:
1.) The game is simply not played on a computer. It is played on the felt inside a casino. Computer simulations and software are a tool, nothing more.
2.) one of the great problems with the "count debate" is that proponents simply refuse to acknowledge a higher error rate associated with higher level counts. It is a scientific fact that any more complex task is associated with a higher error rate. This cannot be "wished" away, or dismissed by false claims of practice makes perfect. That goes against scientific fact. You might as well be denying that the earth isn't flat. Until proponent acknowledge this fact there is no realistic debate or discussion. It is one side living in an unrealistic alternative world.
Now I am not saying that a higher error rate is going to wipe away any benefit. Again that would be dependent on the individual, their abilities. But there can be no legitimate discussion until proven fact of higher error rate is acknowledged.
3.) I consider myself a lone wolf solo type player, although I currently have a blackjack partner (2 man EMFH team). I play a level one count. My partner plays a level one count, which is no surprise since I trained and mentor him. But almost every professional player that I know, have known and networked with play a level one count, most hi-lo.
Maybe if someone has a time machine, and can get us all back to the 1980's, with better games, single double deck games, yeah, I would consider the advantages of a higher level count. Until then with most of us professional players attacking 6 and 8 deck games (most DD games are counter traps or severely hawked by an overly paranoid industry), hi lo or other level 1 count is more than adequate.
And if someone is looking to improve their results, a higher level count is NOT the way to go. That's pennies! I employ a couple techniques, one of which I have discussed several times that improve my results 50-75%, not the 5-10% improvement of a higher count BEFORE you adjust for higher error rate.
Oh and BTW, for those of us that play professionally and mostly play shoe games, when we do play a double deck game, we side count aces and that additional information is just as beneficial as a higher level count for all practical purposed without employing different counts for different games. That is just a recipe for higher error rate. I mean how hard is it to track 8 aces? You should almost do that subconsciously anyway.