How good is revere point count?

I mean is it really better than hi-lo and can you use the 4deck indices in the book and apply it to a six deck shoe or no? Thanks a million

Revere Point Count is an excellent for shoe games. It used to be more popular in the past. Now people go for simpler systems Hi-Lo or KO mostly

I use RPC and the indices are different than those in the book. If you do a search you may find an attachment in one of my posts with the 6d indices I generated using CVData.

If your just starting out, go with Zen, you'll find more people use it and its just a fraction of a percentage stronger. There are various versions so ask away for the best one to use.

BJC

Its a good count you need never change.
Great for 1-8D, and YES you can use the 4D#s in the book for any #decks (to start).
Or, stick with HiLo and add more indices, or do as BJcount says and go with ZEN...
...or buy BJ Bluebook and learn Mentor. zg

RPC is better than HILO but is fairly weak for a level 2 count. If you are shopping for a new system you can do much better. Any ace neutral level 2 count adjusted for an ace side count would be much much more effective.

Don't advise him to use a game approach that Uston denounced in the mid-80s. zg

Yes; the RPC is slightly better than Hi-Lo. If you plan on being a card counter for the rest of your life, you SHOULD learn the strongest multi-level system that you can handle, whether it be the RPC or any other. The tiny gain you'll get over Hi-Lo will come in handy.

If you plan on eventually learning some of the more advanced blackjack techniques, and eventually some of the super-advanced techniques; stick with the SIMPLEST system you can find (namely Hi-Lo). Years from now you will either thank me for this advice, or you will curse yourself for not taking it.

Imagine yourself trying to memorize 30 or more cards in a row while simultaneously trying to keep a multi-level count (And this is only ONE of the many things that lie in store for the seriously committed student of the game). It gets even MORE difficult.

(Dead link: http://smiles2k.net/admin_moder_smiles/index.html) _ _

It's good, and I have a relatively simple way to apply it for you:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/Ben-Franklin-Count.pdf

QFIT has an even simpler way:

http://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage85.htm

It seems like the MonkeyBen RPC would lose its edge over HiLo due to the excessive rounding? zg

Rounding is quite costly but flooring not so much. I guess in terms of generating indices it would be rounding up not flooring. The direction of your errors is very important. It is the difference between giving away advantage you had with basic strategy and increasing your advantage by a smaller amount over basic strategy.

Zenfighter

Very good post by Zenfighter (Ken Smith- Zenfighter it,s my friend, please not delete my post)) )-

http://www.bjmath.com/bin-cgi/count.pl?noframes;read=1489 (Archive copy)

Has something changed re: Zen (or for that matter, Mentor) through the years? I haven't run sims on CVData (but I will if there's a raging debate), but I thought I remembered that even Hi-Lo crushed both Zen and Mentor in 6d shoe games (>5% EV difference).

I know Zen is an excellent L-2 for D/D pitch (can't remember where Mentor shines). My apologies if this is incorrect - my memory isn't what it used to be, nor was it probably ever as good as I thought it was in the past

Best ~ L.I.A.

No. You are mistaken. zg

X2 .... Lovinitall, you need to run sims

BJC

Thanks. I stand corrected. Quite some time ago, I thought I'd read a very detailed post on another forum that analyzed various systems in different games and reached my aforementioned conclusion. I tried to find it before I posted this response, but I'll have to keep looking - maybe it was so wrong that it has since been deleted (or maybe my memory sucks...a distinct possibility). I just ran a sim - here are the results:

Play all, 1-15 ($10), 200 Hnds/hr. - 6d,S17,DAS,RA,LS,Pen = 1.5,full indices - 250m rounds:

(N0=~26k for all)
(Periods for formatting)

.......................Win/Hr($).. SD-$/Hr. SCORE
Complete Hi-Lo:..$53.59......$610.56....38.53
Complete Zen:....$75.92......$864.33....38.58
Mentor:.............$82.27......$934.46....38.75

Best ~ L.I.A.

No, because only the indices are rounded and all the power comes from the betting correlation. Also most of the important indices are very close to 0,5,10 anyway, the only important one that's kind of stuck in the middle is 12 vs. 3. Didn't George C. do the same thing with Zen?

Not true. In fact, QFIT's Modern Blackjack shows that rounded FELT (uses the RPC tags, but count per whole deck instead of count per half deck) beats RPC with exact indices simply because it uses true count per whole deck.

GeoC's ZEN has 20 indices rounded to increments of 5: -5 -0- +5 +10.
Now we need a Mentor version Ben Franklin.
With Mentor's preferred 2DTC, using the same 5s gradient it would be more accurate than the MonkeyRPC or the GeoC-ZEN. zg

Okay, I found the table I was searching for on another site. After reviewing it, my memory served me well and the table in the post indicates my initial position - Hi-Lo crushes Zen/Mentor in the game described.

I've already run and posted the sims and know that the tables on the other site aren't accurate. The things is that the post and related results tables come from a very respected site by a respected poster, and no members disputed the results of the sims the poster ran to get his data. The post itself requires membership to view, and I don't think reporting the results of the post here would be appropriate. I think there are members of that site here, so searching POM on that site will likely yield the information in question.

I'm going to run CVData sims for all of the games and conditions described in the post I'm referencing. I think that the info will prove useful to many that ask the OP's original question.

Best ~ L.I.A.

Note: The spread is noted in the table I've referenced, but the ramp isn't. Still, the results are vastly different than the CVData sim I ran, so I don't think it's a ramping issue.