
BJinNJ: Minimum Playable SCORE?
Is there a minumum, threshold SCORE that one
can use to determine if a game is playable?
I know that a higher SCORE is better.
BJinNJ

Don Schlesinger: Re: Minimum Playable SCORE?
> Is there a minumum, threshold SCORE that one
> can use to determine if a game is playable?
> I know that a higher SCORE is better.
In the book, I suggested 50, but, truth be told, I've often played lower than that.
Don

BJinNJ: Re: Minimum Playable SCORE?
Thanks. It seems that most of the AC games are
lower than 50, if I remember my CVCX results.
8D games are less than 30. Some of the 6D, S17
games were just above 30, at 75% pen w/ backcounting
and 110 spread. Yikes!
Still, just to get in some practical experience
I'll have to grind 'em out in AC or CT, for a while.
Then some trips to NV are in order.
BJinNJ

BJinNJ: Ah! Play 2 hands...
giving a larger spread, and that pops it up much closer to 50.
Thanks again.
BJinNJ

Aruuba: Re: Minimum Playable SCORE?
> In the book, I suggested 50, but, truth be told, I've
> often played lower than that. Don
I hope I can express myself OK becasue I won't even be sure what I'm saying. So I'm glad this is in Beginners.
I think I understand your purest definition of SCORE ie always 100/hds/hr, always optimal fixed Kelly bets with ultimately the same ROR. I guess always a $10K roll although I think I thought the number of units in roll was really was what it was all about.
Anyway, here's where I get confused. Basically, it's all that 100/hds/hr "seen or played" stuff. Like if I just wanted to know all that stuff like SD in units per hand physically played, EV in units per physical hd actually played, avg bet units/hd physically played, N0 per physical hand, etc would I have to make alot of adjustments to all your numbers in CH 10?
Since I can't think theoretically with x's and y's very well take Table 10.59 4.5/6 DAS H17 on page 244 line 8 12 practical and I plug in 1 unit at TC2&3, 1.5 units at TC4 and 2 units at TC>=+5. So I do all that multiplying stuff from the first 3 columns and get 1.248 avg unit bet, 1.681% avg EV. For some reason I end up with $586.52 $ SD/hr vs your $599.70 and a DI of 5.75 vs your 5.61 and an ROR of 14.06% vs your 15.4%, an N0 of 302.69 hrs vs your 318.56 hrs. So maybe I'm not actually multiplying all the right things after all.
But, anyway, assuming maybe that the differences are neither here nor there (rounding? or, more likely, I'm doing something wrong somewhere), basically, since I'm only playing 16.07 hands of every 100, are all those numbers diluted by the 100 hands assumption? Like what if I chose to only keep track of the fact that I played 160 physical hands some night in this fashion without having to worry about hours played?
Would I have to make a whole lot of adjustments to all that stuff?
Is it like the $33.62 "W/100 $" actually is based on 16 physical hands at $2.10/hd and avg bet of $124 per physical hand but N0 of 31856 "hands" is based on 100hds/hr but really only represents say ~4864 physical hands (in my multiplying anyway)? Would you double bank in 296.6 hrs but only 4785 physical hands?
Maybe I just take the title of the N0 column too literally and assume "hands" are physical hands?
I know it's probably dumb but I just like to estimate hands physically played and work from there and worry about hourly stuff later if I feel like it.
Like maybe there are 6 other players at the table sometimes, maybe 2, maybe just me. I just write down every once in a while how many hands I think I've played but have a little trouble measuring the results later based on that.
If you don't understand it's OK because I'm not even sure what I'm asking!

Don Schlesinger: Re: Minimum Playable SCORE?
> I hope I can express myself OK because I won't even be
> sure what I'm saying. So I'm glad this is in
> Beginners.
You did just fine. :)
> I think I understand your purest definition of SCORE
> i.e., always 100/hds/hr, always optimal fixed Kelly bets
> with ultimately the same ROR.
Right.
> I guess always a $10K
> roll
Yes, that, too.
> although I think I thought the number of units in
> roll was really was what it was all about.
Doesn't matter.
> Anyway, here's where I get confused. Basically, it's
> all that 100/hds/hr "seen or played" stuff.
One for playall, one for backcounting.
> Like if I just wanted to know all that stuff like SD
> in units per hand physically played, EV in units per
> physical hd actually played, avg bet units/hd
> physically played, N0 per physical hand, etc would I
> have to make a lot of adjustments to all your numbers
> in CH 10?
None at all. When you backcount, you may SEE 100 hands per hour, but you may only physically play 16, or 25, or whatever. The numbers you read for backcounting, therefore, can pertain only to hands that you actually play, no? You can't get e.v. or s.d. from doing nothing! :)
> Since I can't think theoretically with x's and y's
> very well take Table 10.59 4.5/6 DAS H17 on page 244
> line 8 12 practical
OK.
> and I plug in 1 unit at TC2&3,
> 1.5 units at TC4 and 2 units at TC>=+5. So I do all
> that multiplying stuff from the first 3 columns and
> get 1.248 avg unit bet,
Looks good; very close.
> 1.681% avg EV.
Perfect!
> For some reason
> I end up with $586.52 $SD/hr vs your $599.70 and a DI
> of 5.75 vs your 5.61 and an ROR of 14.06% vs your
> 15.4%, an N0 of 302.69 hrs vs your 318.56 hrs. So
> maybe I'm not actually multiplying all the right
> things after all.
Not sure. Did you go linebyline, multiplying frequency by variance (NOT s.d.!: you have to square the s.d.), by bet size squared; then sum vertically, divide by frequency of all hands(16.07%, I think), then take the square root of the whole thing? Should work out.
> But, anyway, assuming maybe that the differences are
> neither here nor there (rounding? or, more likely, I'm
> doing something wrong somewhere),
Right.
> basically, since I'm
> only playing 16.07 hands of every 100, are all those
> numbers diluted by the 100 hands assumption?
No. It's what you win and what the s.d. is for those 16 hands that you play. The rest of the time, you're watching, which contributes no e.v. and no s.d.
> Like what
> if I chose to only keep track of the fact that I
> played 160 physical hands some night in this fashion
> without having to worry about hours played?
Not sure what you're driving at. If you played at the rate assumed in the charts (100 hands seen per hour), then those 160 hands would have taken you 160/16 = 10 hours to play, and your e.v. would be 10 times that of the charts, while your s.d. would be 10^.5 x the hourly s.d. in the charts.
> Would I have to make a whole lot of adjustments to all
> that stuff?
See above.
> Is it like the $33.62 "W/100 $" actually is
> based on 16 physical hands at $2.10/hd
Yes.
> and avg bet of
> $124 per physical hand
Yes.
> but N0 of 31856
> "hands" is based on 100hds/hr but really
> only represents say ~4864 physical hands (in my
> multiplying anyway)?
Yes.
> Would you double bank in 296.6
> hrs but only 4785 physical hands?
Yes.
> Maybe I just take the title of the N0 column too
> literally and assume "hands" are physical
> hands?
Right. It's hands seen.
> I know it's probably dumb but I just like to estimate
> hands physically played and work from there and worry
> about hourly stuff later if I feel like it.
Fine; you understand.
> Like maybe there are 6 other players at the table
> sometimes, maybe 2, maybe just me. I just write down
> every once in a while how many hands I think I've
> played but have a little trouble measuring the results
> later based on that.
Hope this helps.
> If you don't understand it's OK because I'm not even
> sure what I'm asking!
You did perfectly fine, and your questions are clear and understandable.
Don

Aruuba: Re: Minimum Playable SCORE?
> Hope this helps.
> Don
Thank you Don. I appreciate your response very much and believe it or not, it helped a great deal as now I realize I sometimes would carelessly divide the hourly $SD by 10 in BC games, as if it was playall, and assume that was also a per physical hand number and then just used that for how many hands I may have played.
Like, in this case, I would quickly assume and use a perhand $SD of $60 instead of the $149.70 I now get.
And, not that it matters, but I had SD numbers from I don't where when I posted the above so now I'm getting the same ROR, $SD/100, and N0 and DI and feel much better about not having to just dismiss "close" results as possible rounding but still have a lingering doubt of whether I was multiply all the right stuff.
Anyway, thanks again for your time.
Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads
 You may not post replies
 You may not post attachments
 You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules
Bookmarks