If it takes 2 billion hands to get a trustworthy results on cvx, how can a blackjack player have hope of playing enough hands to guarantee any type of income. Here's the math.
100 hands an hour.
2000 hours a year (a really hardcore blackjack player)
100 x 2000 = 200,000 hands a year.
Is a million hands enough to guarantee a respectable hourly income over the long run? Or could standard deviation cause a player to barely realize a small profit? Thanks.
Ali Baba
> how can a blackjack player have hope
> of playing enough hands to guarantee any type of
> income.
He can't.
If you are looking for a 'guarantee' ... buy certificates of deposit at your local bank.
> 100 hands an hour.
> 2000 hours a year (a really hardcore blackjack player)
> 100 x 2000 = 200,000 hands a year.
First of all, if you are serious, I don't think you can actually play 2,000 hours per year. That's 40 hours a week. I think most full time pros average about 1,000 to 1,200 hours actual playing time. (I'd love to know if this is in the ball park.)
But to answer the question you posed, if you are BR'ed sufficently to make $100 an hour .. that's $200,000 a year in your example .. not bad is it?
The '2 billion hands' are required to get accurate reads on numbers like mean and standard deviation. it's all statistics, you could do a lot fewer sims and only decrease the likelihood your numbers are wrong slightly.
The way I play, if I play roughly 200hrs my entire 95th percent range is positive - meaning if i played 100 200hr sessions only 2.5 should I finish having lost money. You dont need to play 200,000hrs to realize a profit.
I posted an excel formula in the past if you want to do your own info.
> If it takes 2 billion hands to get a trustworthy
> results on cvx, how can a blackjack player have hope
> of playing enough hands to guarantee any type of
> income. Here's the math.
> 100 hands an hour.
> 2000 hours a year (a really hardcore blackjack player)
> 100 x 2000 = 200,000 hands a year.
> Is a million hands enough to guarantee a respectable
> hourly income over the long run? Or could standard
> deviation cause a player to barely realize a small
> profit? Thanks.
> Ali Baba
> If it takes 2 billion hands to get a trustworthy
> results on cvx, how can a blackjack player have hope
> of playing enough hands to guarantee any type of
> income.
I think you're a bit confused here. Just because it takes a computer around 2 billion hands to get accurate results doesn?t mean that you have to play that long to realize a profit. The reason we run 2 billion hand simulations is because we need extreme accuracy. Since we are comparing different systems we want to know, to at least one decimal place, how well these systems perform. In reality, I don?t care if I win at a rate of 1.32% or 1.39% as long as I have a reasonable chance of winning.
To get a better idea of what most players consider the ?long run? look into Brett Harris? N0 formula. I think you will find that you have a high probability of realizing your expectation in significantly fewer hours (maybe around 500-1000 hours depending on how fast you can play). You can also fool around with the Outcome Calculator, Goal Probability Calculator, Time To Win Calculator, and the Blackjack Counting Results Calculator on Norm?s site (www.qfit.com). It is easily possible to play around on that websire for weeks at a time and not get bored!
-Sonny-
You should not be as concerned with reaching your precise expectation as much as reaching AT LEAST your expectation. Remember, variance swings both ways. You may play fewer hours and have a much higher win rate than you expect. That wouldn?t upset me at all! As long as you have a high enough probability of obtaining a reasonable ?wage? in a reasonable amount of time there is no reason to be worried about reaching your precise EV.
-Sonny-
> The reason we run 2
> billion hand simulations is because we need extreme
> accuracy.
The reason we run 2 billion hand simulations is . . .
Because we can.
Thanks, Norm.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks