Good info.
As I have said many times in the past, AZEO misleads people. The scoring benefit does not come from the “just one card” part, the benefit comes from lower utilization.
Most who recite AZEO as a method seem not to get this, or if they do understand, they do not pass on this key point.
As I have said many times in the past, AZEO misleads people. The scoring benefit does not come from the “just one card” part, the benefit comes from lower utilization.
Most who recite AZEO as a method seem not to get this, or if they do understand, they do not pass on this key point.
Do you have an example of someone with no baddies in their file, three cards, each card under 8% utilization, and they see any score change with 1/3 to 2/3 to 3/3?
And to be clear there can be no baddies in the file.
And to be clear there can be no baddies in the file.
Sure OM, go for it 
I don't really think the 3 cards thing here is relevant, as the test will yield similar results with more accounts, possibly even quicker. Many people on this forum like CGID and myself believe that the negative reason statement "too many accounts with balances" may apply also to the total integer number of accounts with a balance, not just the percentage of accounts with a balance. That being said, if you take a profile with twice as many cards... in this case 6 instead of 3, while remaining the same percentage wise (1 of 3 verses 2 of 6... 2 of 3 verses 4 of 6 or example) you'd be doubling the integer number of accounts with a balance. To me, this just means the chances of a penalty only increases (if you're one of the people that feel integer number matters) if the number of total accounts on one's credit report increases.
Again, when looking at this test I feel it's important to reference report/score changes with respect to only TU and EQ, as EX behaves much differently for many people.