Mentor Count

I would like to begin learning the mentor count from hi-lo since it provides better PE. Is anyone currently using this system in shoe games and has it provided any marked improvement over the hi-lo system?

From what I've read a lot of folks have recommended Renzey's BJBBII as way to learn this system. Do you guys have any other recommendations that I can use to learn more about the system and indice tables?


Thanks

In the sims presented on pg 194 of BJBBII, the Mentor Count is shown to produce a higher EV than Hi/Lo by 7% in shoe games and by 11% in double deck play. There differences in "SCORE" would would be somewhat more pronounced due to being able to bet a bit higher with Mentor while having the same ROR (I wouldn't mind seeing those exact SCORE numbers if anybody cares to run them). The Mentor system is detailed in the book with a table of 80 index numbers.

mentor count is good becose you can use for any deck 1-8

Mentor is a well developed count. BJBBII has everything you need in it for under $20. it is well written, clear, concise. I don't use mentor or KISS, but i refer to that book often for other things.

Mr Renzey,
These are the results of some quick sims I ran as a comparison using CVData. CVCX generated the opt bet spread for each playing strategy for both 6d with WO-2 (1-12 spread) and DD play all (1-6 spread).

BJC

Thanks for all the replies. bjcount - thanks a lot for running the sim.

So, I was surprised to see that hi-lo ended up having a higher score. Would it be correct to conclude that it's not even worth it to learn the mentor count? Also what count do you guys recommend as the next progression from hi-lo to provide a higher score (using the same 6d rules in bjcount's sim)?

Notice that the 6d SCORE is too close to make judgement without running further sims, while the win rate is significantly higher. You need to look at the entire picture, not just one column.

You should learn a count your comfortable with and within your capabilities not by which strategy outperforms another in a simulation. The sim is computer generated, it makes no mistakes other then the ones you incorrectly program. If you make mistakes in real play using a powerful system above your capabilities your just wasting your time and throwing money away. Read up on both of them and see which one works best for your abilities. Remember, playing BS perfectly is your #1 goal. #2 is counting down a deck with the strategy you plan to use, and third is learning index deviation plays. You will also have to estimate the number of unseen decks in a flash, calculate your TC, deal with all the bells, whistles, drunks, half naked women, and other distractions that go on while you keep a perfect count, perfect bet, and perfect play.

Not everyone has access to SD & DD games, so take that into consideration when you decide. What games will you be playing most often? Some strats are better for pitch games while others are better for shoes.

Perfection is the key.

Good luck which ever way you decide.

BJC

PS: Many people recommend using ZEN with 1DTC indices, it's level 2. I use RPC (also level 2), which appears to be an antiquated strategy no one admits to using but is stronger then most of the others. There's not too much info out there on or about RPC, so that may explain the move to Zen by many players.

I am utterly befuddled by any sim results that show Hi/Lo outperforming Mentor!!!!! It's contrary to the billions of hands I've run with Hi/Lo, Mentor, Zen, RPC, KO, Kiss, Red 7 and UBZ. In my runs, Mentor outperformed all of them, either by a hair -- or by a comfortable margin!

Are you using the ChapterX! feature, through/in Cvdata, or are you going directly through CVCX?

Mr. Renzey,

Just to appease myself I ran these on my desktop (the previous results ran on my laptop). I reran CVCX opt bet spreads for each playing strategy, and then reran each playing strategy with their appropriate betting strategy. This time I added two other playing strategies. The first being the popular HO2 and the second which I call BJC, which are the indices I use for 6d/8d games just to see how they will do in a DD game. The sims were run using the indices provided with CVData for Mentor, HiLo, and HO2 (I do not believe ASC was set up to run w/HO2). Here are the results:

BJC

The bet spreads are generated directly using CVCX with the appropriate playing strats.

BJC

Here are the comparisons as shown by the canned sims in CVCX (6 Deck, DAS, RSA, 75%, 1-10 spread):

SCORE N0

Mentor Full Indexes 22.91 43,643
RPC Full Indexes 24.45 40,906
Hi-Lo Full Indexes 24.06 41,560
K-O Full Indexes 22.15 45,139
Zen Original Full Indexes 26.11 38,300
KISS III 23.38 42,773



Here are the 2 Deck, H17, DAS, RSA, 67%, 1-6 spread:

SCORE N0
Mentor Full Indexes 50.41 19,838
RPC Full Indexes 52.52 19,039
Hi-Lo Full Indexes 53.56 18,671
K-O Full Indexes 48.82 20,482
Zen Original Full Indexes 60.52 16,523
KISS III 47.84 20,904

These canned CVCX sims were run at 2 billion rounds each. I know in BJBB that the comparisons are shown as differences in EV. The KO book compares systems this way also. I'm no BJ expert, but Don Schlesinger claims the SCORE system as described in BJ Attack is the best way to compare systems.

I second that, I've run Mentor sims and it outperforms every single parameter count. Only by a percent or so against the level 2 counts, but significantly against High-Low.

just wondering out loud here about this mystery.
wondering if various penetrations might result in differing results as far as which system has a better score. :whip:

I have no reason to prove or disprove the performance of one strategy over another. These are the results from sims using identical playing parameters.

When you ran your sims did you use a "generic" 1-6 betting spread or did you use an optimum betting spread for each playing strategy?

Since these were play all sims there was no need to run multiple sims to find an equalization point of TC's to confirm skipped hands from wonging were equal across the playing strategies.

BJC

This is awesome, I really appreciate everyone's input. I feel discussions like this really help out the community.

The goal for me is to progress to system that has more accurate index plays especially during high counts so, when I read that the Mentor count has a PE of 61% vs hi-lo's 51%, it intrigued me.

So, it looks like I have quite a bit of research to do and until I can master a level 2 count, I'll continue to use the hi-lo count with the understanding that it's still a lot better to use a level 1 count with no mistakes than to use a level 2 count with mistakes (those -2 and +2 values are really going to trip me up).

Thanks Again

The one thing I have NOT verified when I posted these comparisons is "full indexes" means the same thing from one system to the next. My guess is Norm ran these with the full indices provided by each system's creator, so that could account for some differences. When you do a Sweet 16, Fab 4 comparison, you see these differences for 2 Deck:

SCORE N0

Mentor Sweet 16, Fab 4 - 44.87 22,284
RPC Sweet 16, Fab 4 - 46.69 21,420
Hi-Lo Sweet 16, Fab 4 - 43.81 22,827
Hi-Opt I, Sweet 16, Fab 4 - 40.86 24,475
Halves Sweet 16 Fab 4 -49.61 20,158

This might be a more realistic comparison as the systems use the same indices. Here Mentor comes out ahead of all of the Level 1 strategies.

Quite right. The canned sims are not meant to compare efficacy of tags or even systems. They are meant to calculate optimal bets, etc for the various systems as published. HiLo for example is published with an absurd number of indexes. Only a masochist would one use them all. I just ran what was in the various books. For accurate personal results, you need to run your own CVCX sim. Having said that, I'll look at the Mentor sims and see how they were run.

Whats wrong with this picture!? zg

You look like a psychodelic crazed gremlin?

Why not respond in more then one of your famous one line responses.

If you read the entire post Mr. Renzey said it would be nice if someone would run the sims.

Other then that would you be questioning if I equalized the TC value so that at a WO -2 the skipped hand percentage was the same among the compared sims.

No, I just realized that I did not, but play all comparisons should not require this adjustment.

BJC