SCORE, NO & Speed of Play
- Thread starter blackjack avenger
- Start date
If I understand it correctly, SCORE means a WinRate with a 13.5% RoR with $10k. So they both have exactly the same RoR. The doubled speed of game 1 means that they now both have exactly the same WinRate. RoR and WinRate are usually the two things I look at most. So I'd say they were equal.
For the second question, don't you mean the second game was twice as fast? Obviously the first game, the way you worded it...
When we look at N0, we have to realize that it all comes down to total playing time. You still have an 85% chance of being ahead after 200 hours with an N0 of 20,000 @ 100 hands/hour, as an N0 of 40,000 @ 200 hands / hour.
For the second question, don't you mean the second game was twice as fast? Obviously the first game, the way you worded it...
When we look at N0, we have to realize that it all comes down to total playing time. You still have an 85% chance of being ahead after 200 hours with an N0 of 20,000 @ 100 hands/hour, as an N0 of 40,000 @ 200 hands / hour.
Two things:
First N0 is determined in terms of rounds and not hands because it is possible you are playing multiple-hands, which begs the second the issue: how are you doubling the speed of the game, is it by playing doubling the number of hands per round, or doubling the number of rounds per hour, the answer will be different for each case.
First N0 is determined in terms of rounds and not hands because it is possible you are playing multiple-hands, which begs the second the issue: how are you doubling the speed of the game, is it by playing doubling the number of hands per round, or doubling the number of rounds per hour, the answer will be different for each case.
The correct answer involves which casino is most tolerant of your play. Theoretically the opportunity presented by these two games are equal. It will take you just as long to get into the long run playing either and your win rate for an optimal betting scheme by the definition you've given is going to be the same for either game.
Essentially playing two hours at a game with a SCORE of $20 is exactly the same as playing one hour at a game with a SCORE of $40 if game speeds are both equal. If the $20 SCORE game is 2x faster than the $40 SCORE game then for each hour played the two games essentially are equal and other non-theoretical game quality factors become more important.
I'll add, a game with an N0 of 20,000 rounds has to have a SCORE of 50.00 and a DI of 7.07 by definition. I realize that the numbers you're thrown out are for illustrative purposes only. (N0 of 40,000 rounds has a SCORE of $25 and a DI of 5.00
Essentially playing two hours at a game with a SCORE of $20 is exactly the same as playing one hour at a game with a SCORE of $40 if game speeds are both equal. If the $20 SCORE game is 2x faster than the $40 SCORE game then for each hour played the two games essentially are equal and other non-theoretical game quality factors become more important.
I'll add, a game with an N0 of 20,000 rounds has to have a SCORE of 50.00 and a DI of 7.07 by definition. I realize that the numbers you're thrown out are for illustrative purposes only. (N0 of 40,000 rounds has a SCORE of $25 and a DI of 5.00
Very Interesting Input
Do you think the DI changes the answer? That the 2 games are now not the same, given NO and hands played per hour? I am thinking the games are still very comparable. DI is just a measure similar to NO. NO also being a measure of desirability.
However, I was thinking about this:
The game where you play more hands per hour would allow you to resize bank more frequently. Also, one does not have to resize constantly to get the bulk of the benefit of resizing. Resizing every session may be enough for the game with the more hands played per hour to come out ahead. Thinking compound interest, its half the interest but compounded more frequently.
I also agree with you that playability of the game/casino can easily be the most important factor.
good cards
Do you think the DI changes the answer? That the 2 games are now not the same, given NO and hands played per hour? I am thinking the games are still very comparable. DI is just a measure similar to NO. NO also being a measure of desirability.
However, I was thinking about this:
The game where you play more hands per hour would allow you to resize bank more frequently. Also, one does not have to resize constantly to get the bulk of the benefit of resizing. Resizing every session may be enough for the game with the more hands played per hour to come out ahead. Thinking compound interest, its half the interest but compounded more frequently.
I also agree with you that playability of the game/casino can easily be the most important factor.
good cards
The games, as you describe the two options, are the same, DI is not linear it is the SQRT of SCORE (i.e, DI of 10 is actually 4x better than a DI of 5).
Why would you want to resize your bank unless you are playing to a very high level of risk...if so you are probably spinning your wheels as these games you've described are not the types of games you want to be playing in an effort to grow your bankroll. Eventually the flux involved in these sorts of games will crush you if you aren't playing to a very very low risk of ruin. (such that you almost never need to worry about resizing). The more limited your bankroll is the more selective you need with your choices of games. When you're taking a full-kelly shot with a limited bankroll you want to find games with a SCORE of 100.00 not 20 or 40. You want to play during promotion hours with cash drawings or at casinos with substantial mailed coupons and match plays. When your bank is strong enough that you don't need to constantly resize then you can think about adding some of these low SCORE games to the mix, especially if the casino with the poor games lets you just sit there hour after hour banging away without any interference.
Why would you want to resize your bank unless you are playing to a very high level of risk...if so you are probably spinning your wheels as these games you've described are not the types of games you want to be playing in an effort to grow your bankroll. Eventually the flux involved in these sorts of games will crush you if you aren't playing to a very very low risk of ruin. (such that you almost never need to worry about resizing). The more limited your bankroll is the more selective you need with your choices of games. When you're taking a full-kelly shot with a limited bankroll you want to find games with a SCORE of 100.00 not 20 or 40. You want to play during promotion hours with cash drawings or at casinos with substantial mailed coupons and match plays. When your bank is strong enough that you don't need to constantly resize then you can think about adding some of these low SCORE games to the mix, especially if the casino with the poor games lets you just sit there hour after hour banging away without any interference.
Think Near Alike
We are on the same page.
The games picked were to just illustrate how speed of play can help a poor game. As a general statement one should always try to play good games, but that is not always an option. If a game meets your WR and CE requirements and is the only one availabe, then one plays. As I point out, sometimes the good game is not readily apparent.
Comps:
Are they worth it in your casino? Do you want the record of play? Do you want to lose anonymity? These are subjective questions. I don't think it's just a matter of getting rooms, food etc.
Resizing your bank is how one moves up in stakes or avoids ruin, resizing down on losses is very important to small banks, unless table minimums interfere.
I think we are in general agreement.
good cards:joker::whip:
We are on the same page.
The games picked were to just illustrate how speed of play can help a poor game. As a general statement one should always try to play good games, but that is not always an option. If a game meets your WR and CE requirements and is the only one availabe, then one plays. As I point out, sometimes the good game is not readily apparent.
Comps:
Are they worth it in your casino? Do you want the record of play? Do you want to lose anonymity? These are subjective questions. I don't think it's just a matter of getting rooms, food etc.
Resizing your bank is how one moves up in stakes or avoids ruin, resizing down on losses is very important to small banks, unless table minimums interfere.
I think we are in general agreement.
good cards:joker::whip: