I have read somewhere on this site that you did perform sims for Renzey's mentor count, but the results were too late to be inserted in chapter 9 of BJA 3. Could you confirm this? If the affirmative, could you publish the results of the sims here?
Thanks in advance,
JJ
> I have read somewhere on this site that you
> did perform sims for Renzey's mentor count,
> but the results were too late to be inserted
> in chapter 9 of BJA 3. Could you confirm
> this? If the affirmative, could you publish
> the results of the sims here?
> Thanks in advance,
> JJ
I didn't run the sims for the SCORE chapter; John Auston did. And then Norm reran all the sims for Chapter 10. I'm not sure if either of them has simmed results for the Mentor count, but if Norm did do them, I don't believe they're included in CVCX or CVData, but I may be wrong.
Don
I haven't run any Mentor sims. If I did, there is a bit of a problem. Mentor calls for a different TC calculation methodology. So comparing it fairly to other systems means either using this methodology, which some might consider unfair, or not using it, which really wouldn't be Mentor.
> I haven't run any Mentor sims. If I did,
> there is a bit of a problem. Mentor calls
> for a different TC calculation methodology.
> So comparing it fairly to other systems
> means either using this methodology, which
> some might consider unfair, or not using it,
> which really wouldn't be Mentor.
I did run Mentor sims but using the "standard" methodology (not the one indicated in the book) which is the same I used for Zen, Halves, Hi-Lo, etc.
Here are some SCOREs according to the "standard":
Rules: 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,C22 floored,Heads Up,5000 million rounds each. Indices and TCs calculated per full deck.
1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16 1-20
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
BTW, I don't have the book.
Sincerely,
Cac
> I haven't run any Mentor sims. If I did,
> there is a bit of a problem. Mentor calls
> for a different TC calculation methodology.
> So comparing it fairly to other systems
> means either using this methodology, which
> some might consider unfair, or not using it,
> which really wouldn't be Mentor.
As we've discussed privately, I don't believe that using the methodology in the book will improve on Cac's numbers, here. The logic escapes me.
Don
> I did run Mentor sims but using the
> "standard" methodology (not the
> one indicated in the book) which is the same
> I used for Zen, Halves, Hi-Lo, etc.
> Here are some SCOREs according to the
> "standard":
> Rules: 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,C22
> floored,Heads Up,5000 million rounds each.
> Indices and TCs calculated per full deck.
> 1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16
> 1-20
> 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
>
> BTW, I don't have the book.
> Sincerely,
> Cac
Do you have the sims results for RPC?
Thanks in advance,
JJ
> Do you have the sims results for RPC?
1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16 1-20
RPC 10.90 28.27 37.86 43.78 47.80
Sincerely,
Cac
Well it would seem from the sims you made that UBZII nearly performs as well as other true count level 2 systems, at least in play all games. This confirms what we saw in chapter 9 of BJA 3. The situation might be different when wonging 6 deck shoes is considered (which in practice most counters do). I suspect that the socres of true count systems, (Mentor, Zen or RPC) would outperfrom UBZ II by 7-8 %.
Agains thanks for your results.
JJ
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks