help me how you would analyze the following voo-doo results achieved by only the use of the liklihood of a betting system achieving a goal in a certain number of hands with a bankroll of a certain number of units.
All hands were played with a negative EV that I'm going to guess as, to be conservative, on a weighted average, 0.2% or so.
A guy plays 189,371 hands varying his bet from $1 to $200 anytime he feels like it with the following results. In his mind his unit is his minimum bet of $1.
Splits were counted as 2 hands - maybe not exactly correct but so be it.
8,602 (4.54%) winning BJs
74,397 (39.29%) wins without a BJ
90,209 losses (47.68%)
16,082 ties (8.49%)
Of those 189,371 hands, 16,353 were doubles (8.64%)
of the doubles
9,192 are wins (56.21%)
5,989 are losses (36.62%)
1,172 are ties (7.17%)
As can be determined from the above, he finished 213 flat-units ahead. In other words, if he had flat-bet $1/hand he would have wagered $205,724 and won $213, as luck would have it. Basically somewhere around 1 SD ahead depending on the HA.
In fact, he actually wagered $1,122,155 for an average bet of $5.93.
So, if you want to use that as a flat-bet unit, he would have won 213*$5.93 or $1263.
He actually won $11,978.
Has he now "made-up" 11,765 $1 units allowing him to likely play for 2,000,000 more hands before he reaches EV if, from this point on, he chooses to only bet $1/hand?
Is he only 1808 average-bet units ahead and can only play for a few hundred thousand more hands flat-betting $5.93/hand before likely realizing EV?
Has he reached N0 at this point in a neg EV game?
The results are a blend of many different games with many different rules over many "sessions" with a goal to finish even or a little ahead for each "session". A goal I think many share. Such goal was accomplished 226 times out of 267 (85%). The 41 "losing" sessions vary from a partial loss to a complete loss of starting bankroll.
Just thought it might be interesting to see what anybody thinks of such results - lucky? Not that surprising?
All hands were played with a negative EV that I'm going to guess as, to be conservative, on a weighted average, 0.2% or so.
A guy plays 189,371 hands varying his bet from $1 to $200 anytime he feels like it with the following results. In his mind his unit is his minimum bet of $1.
Splits were counted as 2 hands - maybe not exactly correct but so be it.
8,602 (4.54%) winning BJs
74,397 (39.29%) wins without a BJ
90,209 losses (47.68%)
16,082 ties (8.49%)
Of those 189,371 hands, 16,353 were doubles (8.64%)
of the doubles
9,192 are wins (56.21%)
5,989 are losses (36.62%)
1,172 are ties (7.17%)
As can be determined from the above, he finished 213 flat-units ahead. In other words, if he had flat-bet $1/hand he would have wagered $205,724 and won $213, as luck would have it. Basically somewhere around 1 SD ahead depending on the HA.
In fact, he actually wagered $1,122,155 for an average bet of $5.93.
So, if you want to use that as a flat-bet unit, he would have won 213*$5.93 or $1263.
He actually won $11,978.
Has he now "made-up" 11,765 $1 units allowing him to likely play for 2,000,000 more hands before he reaches EV if, from this point on, he chooses to only bet $1/hand?
Is he only 1808 average-bet units ahead and can only play for a few hundred thousand more hands flat-betting $5.93/hand before likely realizing EV?
Has he reached N0 at this point in a neg EV game?
The results are a blend of many different games with many different rules over many "sessions" with a goal to finish even or a little ahead for each "session". A goal I think many share. Such goal was accomplished 226 times out of 267 (85%). The 41 "losing" sessions vary from a partial loss to a complete loss of starting bankroll.
Just thought it might be interesting to see what anybody thinks of such results - lucky? Not that surprising?