I totally agree with all SiMi said, but I also think we should try to gauge as precisely as possible every aspect of the game PRECISELY because we are always estimating. All these estimations add up... A LOT.

Say you estimate you played 4 shoes when you actually played 3. So you overestimated your rounds played by more than 30%. Then you estimate that the average number of people on the table was 3, when in fact the average would be 4, so again you overestimated your rounds played by around 25%. Then you estimate that you had a 1.5 cut-off when in fact you only had a 1.8 cut-off, so you overestimated your rounds played by around 7%. So, now, to calculate how many rounds you actually played you make the following multiplication:

(52*nDecks*cutoff / 2.7*nPeople) * shoes per hour

So, in this extreme case, you are going to be overestimating your rounds per hour by more than 40% (sorry if the math is wrong, I did this really quickly).

I believe record-keeping is one of THE most important aspects of our strategy toward the game. I learned that in practice in my recent trip to Vegas. I took too long to realize that, but eventually I saw that doing as ohbehave suggested is very important, you need to know how many shoes you played IN ADDITION to how long you played. Also you need to try to gauge table fullness and, of course, session elapsed time. But I don't think it is necessary to simplify things and assume an average penetration because this is probably the most important factor when you are scouting games, so you ought to have a very decent estimate of penetration, although its actual effect in number of rounds played is not that large.

Below is an excerpt of a post I made in the subscribed area about this subject, regarding my trip to Vegas.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


I played 43 sessions for a total of 39.5 hours (of actual play including time when I wonged out, but left the chips on the table and came back, but excluding any other time between sitting down at a table). Based on the few times I actually recorded time elapsed, number of shoes played and number of players, I was able to come up with a very rough empirical model to predict hands per hour based on dealer speed and table fullness.

My final estimate is 4,516 hands, which is around 14% a greater estimate than using the "default" of 100 hands per hour. Since this is just the result of VERY FEW hands if we consider the long-term, the model may well converge to 100 hands per hour in the future, but, nevertheless, I think it is a good idea to try to have a better model to gauge your short-term trip results. As I get to play more, I intend to feed and adjust the model with more data so as to make it more accurate.

Below is the image of this very simple linear model I created based on my experience. I classified dealer speed subjectively (but parameterized by the few data points I had) into 5 classes, being 5 the fastest one; and I classified table fullness also into five classes, being 5 corresponding to heads-up play. I tried to make notes of table fullness by writing, for instance, 1-3-5-3, which corresponded roughly to the "come-and-go" pattern of players while I played and, in this case, ended up being associated with a class 3 table fullness.

Just to give you some insight about the model, the extreme values are 40 hph for a full table with a slow dealer and 268 hph for heads-up play with a fast dealer; my mean value was 118 hph and the median 102. All this is also probably somehow dependent on shift, table min and location, which would give a much more precise model. Just for the sake of it, I give my numbers regarding theses variables:

- Shift:
* 21% day;
* 51% shift;
* 28% grave.

- Table min:
* 16% $5;
* 53% $10;
* 23% $15;
* 7% $25.

- Location:
* 81% Strip;
* 19% Downtown.



I hope it contributes to discussions.

Best!
Skull.