If I could just make a couple more...
This is an awesome thread. Everyone is making great suggestions. I just wanted to put in my two cents if I could.
#1: Hi-Lo is cool and your game is (the 2-deck w./ those rules) is spectacular compared to the rest of the gambling world. I'm guessing that you guys can only afford $5 tables but I don't know your bankroll and you don't seem to know much about risk of ruin or the Kelly Criterion. I'm not suggesting either of these in particular. However, you should do some research to see if you can "afford" $10. If you can, it's worth considering. In any case, it should ease your minds to know that your bankroll is large enough to play at $5 tables.
#2: It was dire that you got rid of that strategy of BS-deviation via "LOGIC." I say dire because decision points are extremely important at single deck and VERY IMPORTANT AT DD. I would forget about the "wonging research" for now but it does lead into this subject. I agree with the Illustrious 18 for making a big step up from "logic." However, with DD, I think you need to do more. Stanford Wong's Professional Blackjack has all the BS deviations for your game in Hi-Lo format and Halves from TC -10 to TC +10. My trick to memorizing a matrix is to copy it perfectly by hand or excel. Then I do it the next day off the top of my head and grade myself. Minus one point from a hundred per each mistake. Then I repeat the process until one day (takes 15 minutes per day), I got a hundred. Then, I wait a week and do it again every week. Then a month, etc.
#3: It seems that you are now playing at different tables which is awesome idea but do you know why? Lets say you each play 500 hands per trip at different tables with the same rules, strategy, skill level, etc. Also, your bankrolls (trip bankrolls) are adequate and transferrable (bathroom). Now lets say you each have a 55% chance of being above $-0- after 500 hands. Well, the team only has a 20% chance of YOU BOTH being in the red (45% of 45%) upon the completion of 500 hands each. If you play at the same table for 1,000 hands or if just one person (there is no team which is my personal situation) plays, the chance of landing in the red is around 40%. Now, I would be misleading if I didn't point out the fact that one person could lose a lot more than the other person won. However, the "negative correllation" (this is a good thing) still stands. In other words, YOUR VARIATIONS WILL DISCIPATE MUCH FASTER IF YOU PLAY AT DIFFERENT TABLES.
#4: It seems that sometimes you are forced to play at the same table or you both can't play at the same time. James Grosjean's Beyond Counting suggests a strategy for this occurrance. The prerequisite is that you both have dead-even skill with the same count (Hi-Lo). I call it "ex minus the other guy." If you're betting two boxes (obviously), you would multiply the default bet by 1.5 and then divide by 2 to figure the amount per box. For example, the TC is 6 and the default (single box) bet per teammate is $60. If playing 2 boxes, your bet should be 75% (1.5 divided by 2) of that--$45. Now, you know you are supposed to be betting $45 but this is way to obvious if you both bet this and ramp up and down on DD in unison. So, what is "ex minus the other guy"? Well, in this hand X=$90 or "the total of what you're both supposed to be betting." So, if your friend bets $50, you bet $40; if your friend bets $30, you bet $60; etc. The other option is for one person to keep an insurace count but this won't help your camouflage. Winning the insurance bets may even hurt your camouflage. If you've got a 12:1 bet spread, you do need some minimal camouflage techniques.
#5: The amount of players at a table matters a lot in DD. The main reason is slightly lower win rate but if you each only play one box all the time (a camouflage technique that I'm suggesting if it hasn't already been suggested), your standard deviation has already increased and additional civilians will increase it even more. Therefore, you may want to play at the same table (And use the technique discussed in #4.) in certain situations. For example, your table is full, the second table has 5 people at it and the third table only has your buddy at it. Say, "Hey, I'm gonna go see how my friend's doing," to the floor lady. You can probably both get the table to yourselves for at least a shoe and then go your seperate, negatively correlated ways again.
