matt21 said:
how did you calculate N0? i understand that it's the number of hands where EV=1SD, but how did you calculate it given there is no fixed number of hands associated with the sample of 120 hours of play?
now my next questionfor you kasi is this:
over the 56 sessions, in only 3 of these sessions was the actual result more than one standard deviation away from the session EV. I had thought that about 32% of sessions (say about 16) should be more than one standard deviation from the session EV. Does this throw doubt onto the accuracy of the calculated SD figures. (the 32% is calculated by the area under the normal curve that lies outside +/- 1SD from the mean = 100%-68%)
does it surprise that so few sessions exhibit significant deviation from the EV?
Hi Matt
As far as N0 goes, not sure what you mean by saying there were no fixed number of hands associated with the 120 hrs of play. It seems you assumed 23,359 hands were associated with that overall play? In any case I assumed that number of hands lol. So "=(SQRT(435371/23359)/(413.9/23359))^2"= 59364 hds for N0. Basically, avg SD/hd/ divided by avg EV/hd squared, same as always. I guess you could also express it in shoes, hrs whatever. Basically an N0 treating the 120 hrs as if they were one game, even though the 120 hrs represent many different games, each of which has its own N0, all blended into one.
So, while you say you never do things per "hd", in fact, you do by inference.
As far as your number of sessions that fall outside 1 SD, I didn't really address that because I am clueless lol. But, yes, it seems a little unusual to me. You might be over-stating "hds played" for example. I still have a bad feeling on this spreading stuff although I don't know why lol. QFIT's stuff does not do things by shoe so I don't know why bother converting everything to shoes in the first place lol. Also, when spreading, when QFIT's stuff says "SD/hr" does he mean using "SD/rd" or "SD/hd"? When he says "EV" is it per "hd" or "rd"? (Not that I know lol).
Over time, being inaccurate about physical rds played or mis-interpreting what a sim may be telling you can certainly effect where one's actual results apparently fall on the curve.
Even in the simplest case, no spreading, alot of sims express stuff "hrly", assuming 100 "hds/hr", but the player may only keep track of hours for his records yet play from full tables to heads-up and make no adjustment. 300 "hrs" later God alone knows how many "hds" he has played.
What if you were to re-do these 118.5 hrs on a "round" basis assuming Qfit's stuff, when spreading, may be expressed on a "round" basis rather than a hand basis?
Also, I'd hate combining promo stuff into the play of my counting system. Just as I'd hate counting some $1000 bet I happened to have won into my overall results when such a bet was never called for by my "system". Maybe set such results on the side but don't confuse them with "system" results, maybe lol.
So, maybe, yes, lol, when results are maybe way outside of expected, as your winning sessions seem to be, perhaps, somewhere, somehow, there is something rotten in Denmark.
I'd probably at the very least re-examine everything from the ground up with an open mind to re-assure yourself all is kosher.
All this "sometimes 1 hand, sometimes 2", in the same shoe apparently, is so confusing and makes it so potentially difficult to measure results later.
Is it so impossible to ask of a counter to at least play a whole shoe consistently to make one's "measuring" later so much easier simply because such shoe and betting scheme relates to a sim? Or, at least, if not, have the confidence to know what he is doing before he does it?
What with this being theory and all, maybe, since this spreading stuff is what's bugging me, maybe post a sim, or sims, for some theoretical shoe you spread in or for a shoe you both spread and don't in.
Nothing on you Matt - you're doing it and I ain't lol.
Hats off to you.