sagefr0g said:
"Average Bet - Average initial bet. This is the bet
before double downs, splits, surrender or insurance."
http://www.qfit.com/downloads.htm
like i think you can download the demo, then see the help section, maybe.
that might answer more of these questions.
probably then still have questions though, i know i'm learning by your questions.
As always, thank you Wise One.
So, how would you interpret that definition when either back-counting or spreading to multiple hands per round or "hand"?
If just back-counting, without spreading say, does it mean an avg initial bet per round or "hand"? Not that it would matter since "round " and "hand" would be the same.
If just back-counting, without spreading, does it mean avg initial bet per physical round played or some watered-down avg bet taking into account the 80 hands "seen/hr" just as the avg win per hand of $0.29 is some watered-down avg of $win /hd based on 80/hds/hr in this case.
If back-counting and spreading, does it represent the avg initial $bet including both "hands" (1 round) and/or is it an avg bet per physical "round" (or "hand") played?
From past experience it always seemed to me the avg bet, when back-counting, was a physical avg bet. But, you know, I could have been wrong about that too all this time lol.
All I know most of the time, even in this case too, I get the same avg initial $bet and I get the same win rate % too.
What I would personally want to know is what the heck to expect after having played 500 physical rounds according to this sim and I don't give a darn how many hours it may have took me lol.
It's bad enough, to me, N0 is always seemingly expressed as number of hands required in "hours" doing whatever, back-counting or not, when the reality is N0 is achieved in many fewer physical rounds when not playing all hands "seen". I accept that as some kind of software standard I guess. There's no way in he** the N0 hands indicated in the sim are "physical" hands. Or rounds. In case, you or anyone may have actually assumed that is what it meant.
But "Stan Dev" per hand always seems to be per physical hand played. Or per "round" I assume in this case.
But $win/hd always seems to be some watered-down avg per hand based on hands "seen" rather than hands "physically played". Maybe that win% is also watered-down and I've never realized it.
Maybe I never noticed stuff like this because almost all posted sim-pics I've seen are based on 100/hds/hr rather than 80. I don't know.
So, my question to you as a user of this software, if all you knew using this sim was you played 500 physical "rounds" (ie against 500 dealer upcards), what would you think your $EV is? OK even if you knew it took as it happened to take you 10 hours or 15 hours to do it? Or maybe didn't even to bother to recording the time played at all?
I fear that some may just look at the sim results and think their $EV is $0.29/hd or rd, * 500 rounds physically played when nothing could be farther from the truth it seems to me.
Would it be apparent to you that your $win-rate/rd is $0.29/.526=$0.55 per physical round, as I think QFIT said?
And let's not get into figuring out SD if all one know is "hours" played, as is often seemingly to be the standard people often quote, and the kind of error it could easily introduce over time.
Why is $SD/hd per physical hand played but $EV/hd isn't? If I understand it right.
Not realy asking you lol.
All I've ever known is expectation and SD per physical hand played and, I guess just me, while I understand "hourly" stuff may indicate best use of your money for an hour, I've never really cared that much about the best use of my money for an hour. I'd rather know how many physical rounds I've played first and what to expect from that many rounds physically played and worry about how long it may have took me to play that many rounds later.
Even a flat-betting -EV BS playing all-hands guy like me would rather know in a -0.005 game would rather know when i have played 200 rounds and have expected to lose 1 unit than know I have played 2 hours at 100/hds/hr or 3.33 hrs at 60 hds/hr.
Not to mention why not just specify in a seaprate coulmn the co-variance at each TC when spreading to multiple hands rather than "invisibly to the user" taking it into account? OK, that would probably be a major software change lol. But, I never know, when CVCX is spreading, the amount of error that is introduced when I just always assume a co-variance of 0.48 at every TC.
I suspect not much but, sometimes, if I'm off, I wonder whether it may be that or something else. I pretty much assume it's something else lmao.