Mad about Matts math

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#1
I was drawing inspiration from Matts spreadsheet with his results from 400 hours of play. Before I begin this math adventure I am curious what others think about gleaning valuable information from his data.

Spreadsheets are pretty easy to make I was thinking of adding columns to see how far Matt was from one SD over the period of his study. Would it be safe to assume Matts EV was about $17 per hour as that is his final cumulative hourly return? I was going to make a column for 75 hands per hour and one for 85 hands per hour. I would take the hours times 75 or 85 and get the square root of that times 1.1 to arrive at one SD. I would think over the course of the several hundred entries we would see about 68% of the time he was within on SD of his expected value.

I also found it encouraging, but not for you Matt, that he had some very bad sets of sessions falling much more than my recent losses but still averages about 1.5 units per hour over the fairly long run.

Could any information be found in this manner or would I just be spinning my numbers.

Nice spreadsheet Matt I admire your detail. I thought you were giving this up? Good to see you still in action. Great info I like your style.
 

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#2
Edit above

Thinking about this I should say it would be the average bet times the hands played. Too late to edit the post. I want this to make some kind of sense.
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#3
Anyone who plays this game seriously keeps fairly detailed records, and Matt is no exception as he keeps very detailed records. There is a lot to learn from documenting your experiences. Many books describe the wild bankroll fluctuation that will occur over time but experiencing it is a quite different than reading about it. In this case we can experience that rollercoaster somewhat through Matt records, as his units won fairly quickly jumped to 663 units, then plummeting to 224 units, before rebounding to a high of 732. That is some pretty good swings! Seeing his actual results may better prepare us for these swings.

As for Matt giving it up, well I shouldn't speak for him, but....that was just never going to happen. He was at the time experiencing one of those dreaded frustrating periods that we all go though (myself this past summer), when we just grow frustrated and begin to question everything. You will note that later in the thread he was back going stronger than ever and last I heard from him, he still was. Matt is too dedicated and has invested to much time and accumulated too much knowledge to give it up. It's in his blood. He's an AP'er for life. Right matt? :laugh:
 

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#4
I dont know if it was 2 hours or 4 right now but toward the end I think he took a fall of about 2 grand if I remember the spreadsheet right.

What a hit.
 

SleightOfHand

Well-Known Member
#5
Dopple said:
I dont know if it was 2 hours or 4 right now but toward the end I think he took a fall of about 2 grand if I remember the spreadsheet right.

What a hit.
2k or 20k? 2k is really not a big hit even for a $10 min bettor. I was also thinking about putting up the spreadsheet that I use on this website that Cancellor helped me perfect. Maybe in the next few days.
 

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#6
Dopple said:
I dont know if it was 2 hours or 4 right now but toward the end I think he took a fall of about 2 grand if I remember the spreadsheet right.

What a hit.
I didn't look at the spreadsheet but the dollar value of the swing is not revelant, it's the number of units. We play using units which other then the dollar value we assign to a "unit", everything we do is based on our unit.

A green chipper can see a 2k swing in a couple of hours, hopefully it's always swinging up.

BJC

Dopple, you should invest in cvcx at the very least if you don't already have it. The calculators may help you out immensely.
 

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#7
Thanks BJ I am sure it will pay off. I cant lose playing with the numbers at home. That is half the fun for me anyway.
 

SleightOfHand

Well-Known Member
#9
bjcount said:
I didn't look at the spreadsheet but the dollar value of the swing is not revelant, it's the number of units. We play using units which other then the dollar value we assign to a "unit", everything we do is based on our unit.

A green chipper can see a 2k swing in a couple of hours, hopefully it's always swinging up.

BJC

Dopple, you should invest in cvcx at the very least if you don't already have it. The calculators may help you out immensely.
Ah ok. The comment said "2 grand," which I assumed to be in terms of $, as grand is usually cosidered in terms of $, not units.
 

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#10
Stranger in a strange land

Not to get my nose bent out of shape but it sounds like one talking about dollars instead of units is kind of a stranger in a strange land.

I suppose the reason is more that units can be used across all levels of play kind of like base ten counting system as opposed to binary.

I will try to get with the program. Thanks.
 

matt21

Well-Known Member
#11
Hey dopple, glad to hear that the topic might be becoming of interest to you. Those 400 hours was good record keeping but not as detailed as 2009. For 2009 YTD i kept record of actual shoes played, and calculated my EV and SD for each session. It would not be difficult for me to calculate a cumulative SD for the 2009 figures as it plotted along.

I have actually kept a detailed graph that shows actual winnings versus expected winnings which looks quite cool. On that graph we could then also plot the 1, 2 and 3 standard deviations above and below the EV.

I kept all the data necessary to calculate this with a good degree of accuracy. The only presumptions is that I got the pen levels right LOL - for a while i was also trying to remember how many shoes i played until i figured out an approach for that too.

The 2009 data is for about 350 hours of play - about 60,000 hands of play. Since everyone's talking about units I will convert the $ into units.

I will see what i can put together.
 

matt21

Well-Known Member
#12
dopple here we go...

See attached: A chart for some 700 hours of play (all of 2008 and 2009 - about 100,000 hands of play). although its only a chart of actual versus EV - the SD stuff would be too much work for me now - i realise i didnt actually calcuate the SD for about 200 hours of play - and i dont have time for this now.

I have to say that the graph looks I have tried to fit the line to my actual results, becasue except for the beginning there is not much variation from the estimated line. Following session 364 I played a further 39.5 hours in which I won just approx 290-300 units - but unfortunately I have lost the actual results due to a computer hardware issue! The EV for that stretch was 126 units. So at least that would have produced a further 250 unit variance but according to my analysis I am a whole whopping 28 units from my EV after 700+ hours :laugh:

From session 228 onwards i kept very detailed results to calculate the EV for each session. For the earlier stretches I estimated either 1.0/hr or 1.5/hr depending on the playing conditions of the various phases of my play.

Where the EV line got steeper, I improved my playing conditions via heads-up play.

I was surprised at how rare I encountered 2SD or 3SD results in my session - much rarer than i had expected - that's why i had posed a lot of questions on the 'my final conclusion' thread. i think that's one of the things dopple was asking about at the start of this thread.
 

Attachments

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#13
Thanks again

Very interesting Matt and I will be looking more at this after putting up Xmas lights. You and I think in the same way I believe.

One thought that I find encouraging is that given I can play roughly as well as you in similar conditions, thats a big given but:

I could put myself at any point on the xy graph with equal probability and expect to go through the next series of outcomes. I would guess given the above, relative equality, my chart and yours should be fairly congruent.

I suppose I sounds nuts but thanks for the info, you have saved me alot of research.
 

matt21

Well-Known Member
#14
Dopple said:
One thought that I find encouraging is that given I can play roughly as well as you in similar conditions, thats a big given but:

I could put myself at any point on the xy graph with equal probability and expect to go through the next series of outcomes. I would guess given the above, relative equality, my chart and yours should be fairly congruent.
Yes you are correct, my chart is a "random walk down Vegas Strip" (with a positive edge built in) so yours could be along the same lines. Provided you have the same conditions.

But dont let the chart stop you from learning about all the theory.
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#15
matt21 said:
Yes you are correct, my chart is a "random walk down Vegas Strip" (with a positive edge built in) so yours could be along the same lines. Provided you have the same conditions.

But dont let the chart stop you from learning about all the theory.
Tried to send ya a private message Matt, but your mailbox is too full. Maybe you should think about making some room. :)
 

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#16
Would not the graph be more accurate in a visual way if the units across the x-axis were in hours vs. sessions since the session times varied?
 

matt21

Well-Known Member
#17
Dopple said:
Would not the graph be more accurate in a visual way if the units across the x-axis were in hours vs. sessions since the session times varied?
Yes you are right. Do you want to ahve a go and changing it on the attached file and then re-posting it? That would be grand!! :)
 

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#18
Make me do all the work

You have all the fun playing the cards and I get to work on your spread sheet while I recover from a serious negative variance.

Sorry Matt.
 

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#20
I actually should have made some contribution to your work but I have been a little busy. You have been alot of help and if you dont mind I may actually adopt your spread sheet when I get back on the tables if you dont mind.

I think I could even just write over it and resave it on my computer.

Good variance to all and to all a good night.
 
Top