funny you should mention that

[blackjack avenger]

Reach N0 with a fixed spread and one has an 84% chance of being ahead.
4 N0 = 97.7%? 2Sd
9 N0 = 99.8%? 3Sd

I take it to mean as stated:
The number of hands needed to overcome one SD of bad luck.

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by blackjack avenger

Reach N0 with a fixed spread and one has an 84% chance of being ahead.

I take it to mean as stated:
The number of hands needed to overcome one SD of bad luck.

k...., damm i might learn something here, hopefully won't forget it soon as i learn it, lol.......

84% chance of being ahead, that's interesting, errrhhh i mean interesting to me, cause like i posted, i'd of thought it would of been a circa 68% chance of being ahead. what the heck am i missing here?
where's that extra 16% chances coming from? lol
hmmm, maybe he really does mean overcoming 1SD (like you say) of bad luck instead of 1lowSD, cause after all, 1SD of bad luck > 1lowSD of bad luck, errhh at least i think it is .

[blackjack avenger]

At 1 SD of N0 you have only a 16% chance of results falling below the 68% 1 SD range and the 16% above the range or 84% chance of winning.

100% of total results - 16% of losing results = 84% chance of winning.

Errr umm
I think

I also edited my previous post to include 4n0 & 9n0.

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by blackjack avenger

At 1 SD of N0 you have only a 16% chance of results falling below the 68% 1 SD range and the 16% above the range or 84% chance of winning.

100% of total results - 16% of losing results = 84% chance of winning.

Errr umm
I think

I also edited my previous post to include 4n0 & 9n0.

lmao, well that was easy, but at least i learned something.

[sagefr0g]

in this post : http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/show...6&postcount=15
i was alluding to something, that i'm not even sure what the heck i'm alluding to, lol.
errhhh, i think in a nutshell, what i'm trying to ask is:
essentially is it possible to have some positive EV for some play and concurrent to that is it possible to have concurrently some 'standard deviation', such that the worst negative standard deviation one might expect to possibly happen, can never really happen because of the fact that the worst case scenario is so much less of a disaster than the standard deviation (derived from data) would lead one to expect?
if so, i'd think the bell curve would look sort of warped, errhh kind of skinny on the 'evil' side of the curve and fatter on the 'blessed' side of the curve. no?
possible?
edit: one thing that is happening data-wise is that relatively high variance has been happening of the 'good luck' nature, data-wise this drives up the standard deviation, but the thing is, i know the worst case scenario for a given play, and it can't even come close to the 'good luck' stuff that does happen.
so to me, it's as if the standard deviation derived from my data can't properly reflect the 'evil' side of the bell curve, sorta thing.