Zen vs. Mentor Count Hmmm...

[BJApprentice21]

Hey Zen, I was reading over some of your earlier posts, and you seem to be a big supporter of the zen counts.

You said that both Zen and Unbalanced Zen were the best counts in the two catigories, but at the same time, you seem to be a huge supporter of the mentor count.

So, Im just wondering, which one is more effective and/or complex? Could you help me find a balance so to speak to find which system I feel is appropriate?

Judging by your name I'd say that Zen is the winner as far as effectiveness. I'm asking because I'm currently mastering the Hi-Lo count, but I honestly feel I'm capable of a more difficult and efficient count, so I don't want my mind to get set on Hi-Lo and have to learn a new system...thats asking for trouble IMO.

Plus, Hi-Lo is just tooooooooo common/obvious IMO (even though I can't set foot in a casino yet[8 months and counting!]), and I would think playing with something more powerful/complex gives me a bigger advantage as far as both making money and security goes (assuming my brain can keep up[or better yet, stay ahead]!).

Thanks for any help man.

[zengrifter]

If you are brand new and feel rightly that you are up to the added challenge of a level-2 count, then my first consideration would be whether the true-count calculation will get in the way - TC must be reasonably accurate, and fast.

Maybe the level-2 count is no problem, but the TC is? If not then its a bit of a coin flip between ZEN and Mentor, with the caveat: do not learn the current Snyder BBIBJ version ZEN, which is based on a 1/4D TC. Learn the 1D TC version.

The above said, I am impressed by Renzey's Mentor count and its unusual 2D TC. If I wasn't already so ingrained with 1D TC ZEN I would likely opt for the 2D TC approach and Mentor.

And IF the TC itself could be an impediment, then UBZ is, for the most part, just as strong, why not begin with a no-TC approach? zg

[BJApprentice21]

Thanks man.

So what I get from that is that you personally consider the Mentor count easier/better due to the unique 2D TC. Also, the Mentor count is just as, if not more (due to ease), effective than the Zen count.

Correct?

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by BJApprentice21

Thanks man.

So what I get from that is that you personally consider the Mentor count easier/better due to the unique 2D TC. Also, the Mentor count is just as, if not more (due to ease), effective than the Zen count.

Correct?

Yes. zg

[BJinNJ]

but like a 1D TC, like Hi/Lo. Mr. Renzey posted that it
is OK to use a 1D TC, if one uses precisely 1/2
values of his published indices. So, I'm learning Mentor
with 1D TC and the I18, using 1/2 value indices.

FWIW

There is no substitute for practice, practice, practice.

Update on my progress. BS perfect-. Deck countdown
nearing 30 sec, at times. First casino foray soon.

BJinNJ

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by BJinNJ

but like a 1D TC, like Hi/Lo. Mr. Renzey posted that it
is OK to use a 1D TC, if one uses precisely 1/2
values of his published indices. So, I'm learning Mentor
with 1D TC and the I18, using 1/2 value indices.

FWIW

There is no substitute for practice, practice, practice.

Update on my progress. BS perfect-. Deck countdown
nearing 30 sec, at times. First casino foray soon.

BJinNJ

The 2D TC is slightly superior to the 1D TC. I would learn it out-of-the-box in 2DTC mode. zg

[SuperTrump]

Is the general consensus still that a 2D TC is superior than a 1D TC and if so why? Is it purely because the TC conversion is 'easier' to compute towards the end of the deck with a 2D conversion or is there an additional benefit?

Also, Am I right in saying that it is much of a muchness between Zen count and Mentor although Mentor seems to ever so slightly push ahead in pitch games?

Are the complete Mentor indices in Renzy's Bluebook II RA indices??

[Renzey]

Originally Posted by SuperTrump

Are the complete Mentor indices in Renzy's Bluebook II RA indices??

No. The Mentor indices in Bluebook II are not risk averse.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by SuperTrump

Is the general consensus still that a 2D TC is superior than a 1D TC and if so why? Is it purely because the TC conversion is 'easier' to compute towards the end of the deck with a 2D conversion or is there an additional benefit?

Granularity of count-betting.
I will differ to Fred and Norm and others for more detailed response. zg

[rukus]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Granularity of count-betting.
I will differ to Fred and Norm and others for more detailed response. zg

Supertrump can search these boards for my thoughts on the benefit of 2D TC (which i dont use myself to be fair). search terms like "resolution" or "2D TC" will probably yield my posts.