Mentor Count Investigations

[creonix]

I've completed reading BBII recently and decided to learn Mentor Count. As I have inquisitive mind I've made some investigations. I'm not a mathematician but I think I guessed the Multiplier Formula for Mentor Count.

Multiplier = 4/(RD*2)

Consequently we have accurate TC

TC = RC*4/(RD*2)

Using this formula we're easy getting multiplier. For instance. 7 remain decks in a shoe. We calculate Multiplier = 4/(7*2) = 2/7 (but not 0.3 as we see in BBII p.201). I like and trust accuracy. According to my formula If RC=12 we have 3.42, rounding down till 3. But according to BBII we have 3.6 rounding up till 4. Which one to trust? Maybe for somebody else this is not so important. OK, next. I'm pretty sure I need to have multiplier for 2 1/3 decks left. How do I get it? BBII doesn't have this kind of multiplier. Using my formula we're getting

Multiplier = 4/(7/3*2) = 6/7. For instance, if RC=20, we have TC=17,1 rounding down till 17.

I think only Fred Renzy can tell whether I'm right or wrong in my calculations

 

[Renzey]

I've completed reading BBII recently and decided to learn Mentor Count. I think I guessed the Multiplier Formula for Mentor Count.
Using my formula we're easy getting multiplier.
For instance. 7 remain decks in a shoe. We calculate Multiplier = 4/(7*2) = 2/7 (but not 0.3 as we see in BBII p.201). I like and trust accuracy. According to my formula If RC=12 we have 3.42, rounding down till 3. But according to BBII we have 3.6 rounding up till 4. Which one to trust?
OK, next. I'm pretty sure I need to have multiplier for 2 1/3 decks left. How do I get it? BBII doesn't have this kind of multiplier. Using my formula we're getting
Multiplier = 4/(7/3*2) = 6/7. For instance, if RC=20, we have TC=17,1 rounding down till 17.

The Mentor TC formula is simply: RC/number-of-remaining-double-decks. That was then converted to the "multiplier" method using decimal reciprocals. So in your first example, .286 is indeed the dead nuts accurate multiplier, although the book specifies .3 for practical purposes.

In your second example (RC of +12 w/7 remaining decks), 3.42 would indeed be the correct TC rather than 3.6, but I do not advocate rounding up (see the "Caution" paragraph on page 202).

If you need a multiplier for 2 1/3 remaining decks, perhaps because that's where they shuffle, your number is indeed .85, or 6/7ths of the RC.

 

[zengrifter]

I really like the Mentor 2DTC approach. zg

 

[creonix]

The Mentor TC formula is simply: RC/number-of-remaining-double-decks. That was then converted to the "multiplier" method using decimal reciprocals. So in your first example, .286 is indeed the dead nuts accurate multiplier, although the book specifies .3 for practical purposes.

In your second example (RC of +12 w/7 remaining decks), 3.42 would indeed be the correct TC rather than 3.6, but I do not advocate rounding up (see the "Caution" paragraph on page 202).

If you need a multiplier for 2 1/3 remaining decks, perhaps because that's where they shuffle, your number is indeed .85, or 6/7ths of the RC.

Hello, Fred! Thank you for your response. For me this is the big honor to have conversation with the creator of the serious card counting system. I very much appreciate it! I have some questions and requests:

1. I indeed don’t get your idea with the formula TC = RC/number-of-remaining-double-decks. Perhaps you meant TC = RC/number-of-remaining-half-decks? In my example RC of +12 w/7 remaining decks TC = 12/3.5 = 3.42 as we’re expecting to obtain!!! Or perhaps the point is in these mysterious decimal reciprocals? Can you, please, explain in some details?

2. I’ve memorized all the indices of Mentor count (79). This wasn’t so difficult for me at all. But I’d like to know is this everything or you have more? I’m looking forward to learning some extra indices because, as you know, the more indices we have memorized the better flexibility we use to withstand negative count fluctuations. For instance, Zen and Uston APC contain much more indices!

3. I’m pretty sure the indices that we see in the charts initially are not accurate numbers. Rather, these are either decimals or fractions rounded up or down. For instance, 12 vs 3 might not be equal 7 exactly. Perhaps it’s 7 1/3 or so. I have the courage to request Fred to give me the initial charts with more accurate figures because, as for me, I trust only entirely precise numbers. I believe if you adhere strictly to accuracy you have more chance to win and reduce probability of errors. Further, after receiving these charts I will able to correct and fill in my True Count Chart with new accurate figures which currently contains nearly 1000 numbers. My purpose is to become proficient at Mentor count. I’m confident there will be no another counting system in my life!!!

4. In BBII p.203 in the bottom you advocate to walk away from the count -8 or worse. But after that we’re losing a great number of indices with negatives. What’s the point? Of course, I’m not a blackjack pro, but I think not walking away and withstanding negative counts we still could win and moreover this is the best camouflage along with idiot’s play (for instance, the nifty 15). You will eliminate any heat on you for a long time. This is much better than table-hopping which is sometimes very inconvenient and no guarantee any winnings!

P.S. Please, try to make comments according to each paragraph using respective number.

 

[burneyj5]

I use the Mentor Count and I think you are doing extra work when you don't need to. You could do like I do...On your example of RC=12 with 7 decks. Instead of using your formula if you don't want to use the multipliers per BBII, just divide 12 by 3.5 or you can double 12 and divide by 7(24/7). That is what I do sometimes when I don't want to multiply by the factors listed in the book.

 

[creonix]

I use the Mentor Count and I think you are doing extra work when you don't need to. You could do like I do...On your example of RC=12 with 7 decks. Instead of using your formula if you don't want to use the multipliers per BBII, just divide 12 by 3.5 or you can double 12 and divide by 7(24/7). That is what I do sometimes when I don't want to multiply by the factors listed in the book.

Hello, thank you to join us!
I'd like to know how long have you been practising the Mentor Count? Have you succeeded in it? Or you find it complicated and would prefer to switch to another counting system?

 

[burneyj5]

I have been using it for about 5 months. I have been playing about once a week with pretty good results. Would I have had better or worse results with a simpler count? Who knows? I just like knowing that I'm using a better count and I can use it with no problems.

 

[creonix]

I have been using it for about 5 months. I have been playing about once a week with pretty good results. Would I have had better or worse results with a simpler count? Who knows? I just like knowing that I'm using a better count and I can use it with no problems.

Very very good. It proves that my choice of the Mentor is going to the right direction. Have you learned all the indices by heart or just using some more frequent? How did you withstand negatives? Leaving the table or keep playing?

 

[burneyj5]

Very nice. It proves that my choice of the Mentor is going to the right direction. Have you learned all the indices by heart or just using some more frequent? How did you withstand negatives? Leaving the table or keep playing?

I have learned all of the indices except for the really negative ones. I very rarely play below a TC of -8 so I haven't bothered with any below that. If I played double deck I would learn them but I play 6 deck so I am usually "taking a break" when the count tanks.

As far as withstanding the negative swings, I just trust the math behind all of it and know that variance can be a bitch when she decides to slap you around. I get pissed, don't get me wrong, but I don't let it get to me to where I am overbetting my bankroll.

Leaving or keep playing? If the count is high I keep playing until it tanks or my money is gone no matter how bad it has been for that session.

 

[Billy C1]

Why do I feel simple is good!

BillyC1

 

[creonix]

I have learned all of the indices except for the really negative ones. I very rarely play below a TC of -8 so I haven't bothered with any below that. If I played double deck I would learn them but I play 6 deck so I am usually "taking a break" when the count tanks.

As far as withstanding the negative swings, I just trust the math behind all of it and know that variance can be a bitch when she decides to slap you around. I get pissed, don't get me wrong, but I don't let it get to me to where I am overbetting my bankroll.

Leaving or keep playing? If the count is high I keep playing until it tanks or my money is gone no matter how bad it has been for that session.

How did you prepared? Did you use any software? Do you know soft The Casino Vérité Blackjack from http://www.qfit.com/? Is it good for practicing and worth to spend money?

 

[burneyj5]

I haven't used CVBJ so I can't speak about it. I have CVData and CVCX and would recommend those. I actually use an iPhone app to practice most of the time believe it or not.

 

[Renzey]

Hello, I have some questions and requests:

1. I indeed don’t get your idea with the formula TC = RC/number-of-remaining-double-decks. Perhaps you meant TC = RC/number-of-remaining-half-decks? In my example RC of +12 w/7 remaining decks TC = 12/3.5 = 3.42.

2. I’ve memorized all the indices of Mentor count (79). This wasn’t so difficult for me at all. But I’d like to know is this everything or you have more?

3. I’m pretty sure the indices that we see in the charts initially are not accurate numbers. Rather, these are either decimals or fractions rounded up or down. For instance, 12 vs 3 might not be equal 7 exactly. Perhaps it’s 7 1/3 or so.

4. In BBII p.203 in the bottom you advocate to walk away from the count -8 or worse. But after that we’re losing a great number of indices with negatives. What’s the point?

1) Mentor TC is indeed RC/number-of-remaining-double-decks. Your example shows +12 RC/3.5 remaining double decks, which is correct. Straightforward!

2) 79 Indices are more than you'll ever use for a shoe game, and is also plenty for double deck. Beyond that, your yield gets severely flattened out by the law of diminishing returns. These are all I've taken the trouble to generate.

3) The Mentor TC system already has about 4 times the "granularity" of the standard Hi/Lo Count. This is due to most cards being worth 2 points rather than 1, and the TC being based off of 2 decks rather than 1. Thus, your 12 vs. 3 example @ +7 TC is comparable to +1.75 TC for Hi/Lo. Remember, you'll be "estimating" the number of cards in the discard tray and then converting to TC in your head. Much more error will be there than in any index number tolerance.

4) Make no mistake. Playing negative counts loses money no matter how expertly you play. Playing a slew of negative indices merely "saves" some of your losses thru negative counts. It's much like splitting 7/7 vs. 3 -- the thriftiest alternative of damage control for that hand. But -- you'd rather have never been dealt 7/7 vs. 3 in the first place.

It sounds like you're starting out very ambitious and technical-minded. But the game is actually played in brick-and-mortar casinos with pasteboard cards. Only so much technical accuracy is feasible. Don't worry, you've got plenty of precision within your grasp now. The tough part is going to be implementing what you already have as effectively as possible.

 

[Billy C1]

Well said, Master. You never fail to impress me!

BillyC1