Just a little tweak on what I said. You quoted me correctly. Yes, my win/loss ratio is good....in terms of sessions. Lol But my losing sessions tend to be 5 times worse my winning sessions (I'm just eyeballing it). Lol I'm a little out in front, but could have done better (maybe a lot better) with more disciplined play. Lol
idiots anonymous
- Thread starter sagefr0g
- Start date
Okay gang, I decided to keep a chart of my EV vs. my actual results. Now, to calculate my EV I could:
A) Multiply my total amount bet by my theoretical advantage (from the sim).
or
B) Multiply my number of hands played by my theoretical win per hand (from the sim).
If my actual average bet was equal to the average bet from the sim it wouldn’t matter which method I used. But until that happens, which method should I use? I flipped a mental coin, and went with Plan B.
A) Multiply my total amount bet by my theoretical advantage (from the sim).
or
B) Multiply my number of hands played by my theoretical win per hand (from the sim).
If my actual average bet was equal to the average bet from the sim it wouldn’t matter which method I used. But until that happens, which method should I use? I flipped a mental coin, and went with Plan B.
ahh got it. i think. Kasi will be interested in that one.
i dunno..... wonder what doing both A & B and then averaging that would mean?
lol
but yeah i guess B is a good choice for now.
now you got me wondering what would A give you? duh?
i couldn't remmember the math from one day to the next lol.
Kasi's spread sheet figures your EV at some hands played equals
#hands times avg bet per hand times win/loss%
so maybe you need the avg bet from the sim in there for your B calculation?
i dunno..... wonder what doing both A & B and then averaging that would mean?
lolbut yeah i guess B is a good choice for now.
now you got me wondering what would A give you? duh?
i couldn't remmember the math from one day to the next lol.
Kasi's spread sheet figures your EV at some hands played equals
#hands times avg bet per hand times win/loss%
so maybe you need the avg bet from the sim in there for your B calculation?
Second Report
After 325 hands, I stand $425 ahead.
My average bet was $47.
Highest point was $875.
Lowest point was $525.
Assuming I had $25,000 in my pocket (My personal criteria is that bankroll should be 100 times maximum bet), it seems like a lot of work for a small gain, which the next 325 hands may sweep away. Of course, I guess recording each hand on my computer contributed to the feeling of "work." Lol
PS--I wouldn't really carry $25,000 in my pocket. Lol
How's everyone else doing?
After 325 hands, I stand $425 ahead.
My average bet was $47.
Highest point was $875.
Lowest point was $525.
Assuming I had $25,000 in my pocket (My personal criteria is that bankroll should be 100 times maximum bet), it seems like a lot of work for a small gain, which the next 325 hands may sweep away. Of course, I guess recording each hand on my computer contributed to the feeling of "work." Lol
PS--I wouldn't really carry $25,000 in my pocket. Lol
How's everyone else doing?
Canceler said:
My understanding of The Plan (such as it is) is that we post our results in the "Weekend Warriors" thread, and discuss what's going on in this thread.
Anyway, that's where most of our results are.
Anyway, that's where most of our results are.
just curious i saw your last graph and roller coaster ride lol. up up and away.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=83858&postcount=60
but was just curious do you think your getting the EV at some hands played correct? you know like we was discussing in the post:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=83329&postcount=64
i'm just wondering if it should be #hands times avg bet per hand times win/loss% . 1.377% was the win/loss% my ko sim had (seems a bit high?). but i think you ran a power sim or what ever it's called. if so i'm just curious how that win/loss% number compares.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=82241&postcount=11
how about average bet? see your getting 99.27 now. last one was 98.06 .
my sim had average bet of 3.40 units = $85 not to far off from yours.
i think the hi/lo average bet is $108.89. haven't checked how my results are comparing yet.
just shooting the breeze here. i think Kasi can make more sense of it all lol.
More breeze shot...
Here are some numbers from PowerSim using the KO bet ramp you provided (which is what I’ve been using):
Average win per hand: $1.172
Average bet: $86.37
Win rate: 1.357%
My actual numbers after 70 shoes:
Hands played: 3,326
Total amount bet: 330,175
Amount won: 6,486
Average bet: 99.27
What I would have been expected to win could be:
1.172 X 3326 = 3898 (which is the method I chose)
or
330175 X .01357 = 4480 (The method you suggested gives the same answer: 3326 X 99.27 X .01357 = 4480)
Also notice that if I had actually had the average bet from the sim, the different methods would give the same answer: 3326 X 86.37 X .01357 = 3898
I suppose your way is probably the standard way to do it. Leave it to me to guess wrong. I think I’ll change my chart to use that method, even though I’ll have to fudge a couple of numbers for my previous results.
I don’t mind that my average bet is higher than it “should be”; that means I’ve been getting better counts than expected.
Here are some numbers from PowerSim using the KO bet ramp you provided (which is what I’ve been using):
Average win per hand: $1.172
Average bet: $86.37
Win rate: 1.357%
My actual numbers after 70 shoes:
Hands played: 3,326
Total amount bet: 330,175
Amount won: 6,486
Average bet: 99.27
What I would have been expected to win could be:
1.172 X 3326 = 3898 (which is the method I chose)
or
330175 X .01357 = 4480 (The method you suggested gives the same answer: 3326 X 99.27 X .01357 = 4480)
Also notice that if I had actually had the average bet from the sim, the different methods would give the same answer: 3326 X 86.37 X .01357 = 3898
I suppose your way is probably the standard way to do it. Leave it to me to guess wrong. I think I’ll change my chart to use that method, even though I’ll have to fudge a couple of numbers for my previous results.
I don’t mind that my average bet is higher than it “should be”; that means I’ve been getting better counts than expected.
You guys are all doing great - I know I owe a couple of you some stuff.
Anyway, 3898 is the right way Canceller. It's the same becasue win rate*avg bet = $1.17/hand lol.
I think avg bet means avg initial bet and does not count $'s wagered on doubles and splits. So total dollars wagered could be 10% or more above that.
Just like HA is based on initial hand wager and not total $'s wagered.
Anyway, by the Grace of God or not lol, it seems as if our results are not unexpected?
Bear with me lol.
dag gone jj
lol that must have made the ghost rider dizzy or maybe giddy.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=84037&postcount=65
lol that must have made the ghost rider dizzy or maybe giddy.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=84037&postcount=65
Not sure how I missed this before! But it is just what I wanted. I think lol.
Is there any chance that the picture you show has frequencies, etc at counts less than -4? I assume it is for a play-all game? Your picture only shows counts that have a +EV - I assume Canceller/Aslan are playing all hands?
Does CVCX show freq's well below -20 RC? Was -20 the IRC you used for this?
I never liked the Psim results that me and Canceller got (btw Canceller - mine were just about the same as yours) - at least they didn't make much sense to me because they didn't include a large enough range of RC's.
Feel free to either post the pic(s) here or just send them.
Is there any chance that the picture you show has frequencies, etc at counts less than -4? I assume it is for a play-all game? Your picture only shows counts that have a +EV - I assume Canceller/Aslan are playing all hands?
Does CVCX show freq's well below -20 RC? Was -20 the IRC you used for this?
I never liked the Psim results that me and Canceller got (btw Canceller - mine were just about the same as yours) - at least they didn't make much sense to me because they didn't include a large enough range of RC's.
Feel free to either post the pic(s) here or just send them.