Don,
Got your book today - I have not been able to put it down.
I got drawn to chapter 10. There were some surprises, particularly how well UBZII performed. I have been using Fred Renzey's Mentor system (switched from Hi Opt I), which I believe is similiar to Zen.
Does anyone have a feel for if Mentor has a signifigantly higher SCORE than UBZII? I am wondering if it pays to keep the true count.
Marc
> Don,
> Got your book today - I have not been able
> to put it down.
> I got drawn to chapter 10. There were some
> surprises, particularly how well UBZII
> performed. I have been using Fred Renzey's
> Mentor system (switched from Hi Opt I),
> which I believe is similiar to Zen.
> Does anyone have a feel for if Mentor has a
> signifigantly higher SCORE than UBZII? I am
> wondering if it pays to keep the true count.
If Norm Wattenberger sees this, maybe he can do a quick sim for you. I think it's possible that Mentor will outperform both UBZII and Zen. But, you will have to true count, which isn't all that difficult.
Don
> Does anyone have a feel for if Mentor has a
> signifigantly higher SCORE than UBZII? I am
> wondering if it pays to keep the true count.
Yes, Mentor's SCORE is higher than UBZII in RC mode only. I did some work on that system a while back. These were my findings:
Conditions: 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,Catch-22 indices (floored),5000 million rounds played heads up.
1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16 1-20
-----------------------------------------------------
Zen 11.40 28.97 38.60 44.51 48.49
UBZII(T) 11.38 28.87 38.47 44.35 48.31
RPC 10.90 28.27 37.86 43.78 47.80
Mentor II 11.06 28.26 37.71 43.50 47.40
TKO 10.41 27.41 36.81 42.64 46.59
UBZII 10.79 27.72 36.61 41.92 45.43
However, there's another Mentor system that performs better than Zen, but it's a level-3 system.
Mentor III 11.54 29.31 39.09 45.08 49.13
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
Thanks very much, Cac. The Mentor II performs very closely to the Revere Point Count, as all indices are identical except for borrowing one negative point from the ace to give it to the 9, instead.
The result is a lower insurance efficiency for Mentor, a slightly lower BC, but a considerably higher PE. When using a large spread, these conspire to make the RPC slightly superior. When utilizing a small spread, just the opposite is true.
Don
Thanks for the responses.
Just for curiosity, where is Mentor III documented?
Marc
> Thanks for the responses.
You're welcome.
> Just for curiosity, where is Mentor III
> documented?
I don't remember where I got the info from (probably on some open forum) but these are the tags that I used:
Mentor II
---------
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
-1 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2
Mentor III
----------
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
-2 2 2 3 3 3 2 0 -1 -3
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks