MJ: CVData

[MJ]

On the Summary page, does Avg Bet = Action / % rounds played?

It would seem as though CVData determines $/Hr based upon TBA, while CVCX determines it based upon IBA. Why not use the same process for both?

Under the True Count Won/Lost page, the Action/Hr = $14,169, WR/Hr = $95.12, TBA = 0.671%, Win/Lose = $38,047,960.

If 1 Billion rounds were simulated over 10 Million hours, then that would mean the total action over 10 million hours would equal $14,169/Hr x 10^7 Hrs. Shouldn't the Win/Lose for 1 billion rounds equal $14,169/Hr x 10^7 Hrs x 0.671% = $950,739,900? How does the CVData arrive at 38 million?

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

> On the Summary page, does Avg Bet = Action / % rounds
> played?

Avg Bet is not on the summary page. It's on the TC Percentages Page and both TBA and IBA are given.

> It would seem as though CVData determines $/Hr based
> upon TBA, while CVCX determines it based upon IBA. Why
> not use the same process for both?

Action is total action. CVCX does not provide Action. (Not really a useful stat -- just of interest to some people.) CVCX displays IBA numbers as they are the most useful. CVData shows both TBA and IBA figures in keeping with the CVData philosophy of displaying everything I could think of.

> Under the True Count Won/Lost page, the Action/Hr =
> $14,169, WR/Hr = $95.12, TBA = 0.671%, Win/Lose =
> $38,047,960.

Win/Lose has no $ sign. It's in units. Stats without currency symbols are in units.

> If 1 Billion rounds were simulated over 10 Million
> hours, then that would mean the total action over 10
> million hours would equal $14,169/Hr x 10^7 Hrs.
> Shouldn't the Win/Lose for 1 billion rounds equal
> $14,169/Hr x 10^7 Hrs x 0.671% = $950,739,900? How
> does the CVData arrive at 38 million?

Divide by the unit size -- $25 in this case.

[MJ]

> Avg Bet is not on the summary page. It's on the TC
> Percentages Page and both TBA and IBA are given.

Sorry, I didn't phrase my question properly. What I meant to ask is whether or not Total Avg Bet is determined using the equation-- Action / Rounds Played/Hr. I tested the equation and it seems to produce the same answer as that given on the TC Percentages Page for TAB. In my case I had to divide the answer by 2 because I play 2 hands/round, whereas the software determines IAB and TAB based upon a single hand, not round.

I think with CVCX, it just provides IAB based upon round, not hand. Why is it when you decrease the # rounds, IAB does not change? You are putting less $ into action per hr, so shouldn't this figure be less?

> Action is total action. CVCX does not provide Action.
> (Not really a useful stat -- just of interest to some
> people.) CVCX displays IBA numbers as they are the
> most useful. CVData shows both TBA and IBA figures in
> keeping with the CVData philosophy of displaying
> everything I could think of.

Ok, but why should one program use IBA for computation of $/Hr, and the other TBA? At the end of the day, the total action is what determines how much you win. So wouldn't TBA be a better assessment of $/Hr?

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Sorry, I didn't phrase my question properly. What I
> meant to ask is whether or not Total Avg Bet is
> determined using the equation-- Action / Rounds
> Played/Hr. I tested the equation and it seems to
> produce the same answer as that given on the TC
> Percentages Page for TAB. In my case I had to divide
> the answer by 2 because I play 2 hands/round, whereas
> the software determines IAB and TAB based upon a
> single hand, not round.

I don't know if you are talking about CVCX or CVData and if CVData which page. But, test the number and you will see exactly what it is.

> I think with CVCX, it just provides IAB based upon
> round, not hand. Why is it when you decrease the #
> rounds, IAB does not change? You are putting less $
> into action per hr, so shouldn't this figure be less?

Number of rounds is irrelevant to average bet.

> Ok, but why should one program use IBA for computation
> of $/Hr, and the other TBA? At the end of the day, the
> total action is what determines how much you win. So
> wouldn't TBA be a better assessment of $/Hr?

CVData does both, not one.

[MJ]

> I don't know if you are talking about CVCX or CVData
> and if CVData which page. But, test the number and you
> will see exactly what it is.

I was referring to CVData. Unlike CVCX, it provides avg bet on a per hand basis, not per round basis. The reason I make the distinction is because I play 2 hands per round so I must divide the avg bet by 2 to come up with the same answer as CVData on the TC Percentages page. I think CVCX just takes the avg bet for 2 hands per round and calls that figure the avg bet without dividing it by 2 to avoid giving avg bet per hand (when 2 hands are played).

> Number of rounds is irrelevant to average bet.

I guess it depends on how you calculate avg bet. CVCX takes the TC frequencies for each bin and multiplies them by the bet for each TC. But doesn't this methodology assume 100 rounds/hr? If not, how can the avg bet for 10 rounds be equivalent to the avg bet for 60 rounds? The former puts substantially less money into action than the latter.

As I understand it, CVData uses a different approach for avg bet calculation than CVCX. CVData uses the equation TAB = (Total Action for sim / # rounds for sim) / Unit. If two hands are played per round, then divide the answer by 2.

> CVData does both, not one.

CVData certainly provides both IBA and TBA, but when it comes to calculating WR/Hr, it uses the equation WR/Hr = Action/Hr x TBA. Note: It does NOT use WR = Action x IBA.

With CVCX, WR/Hr = IAB x IBA x # Rounds/Hr.

The 2 pieces of software use slightly different approaches for some calculations. Aren't figures based upon Total avg bet and TBA more accurate then those using Initial avg bet and IBA?

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

Initial bet is the basis behind all risk calculations since risk is applied as soon as you make the initial bet. CVCX use initial bet for this reason. CVData uses both initial and total for completeness.

[MJ]

Where on CVData do I pull up the $/Hr based upon IBA? From what I can tell, this figure is based upon TBA. If IBA is more important than TBA, why doesn't CVData base earnings on IBA?

[MJ]

Katarina once said the backcounting frequency resembles a normal distribution.

Do you know any tricks for calculating the standard deviation for the % Rounds played on CVData or CVCX?

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

I really don't know what you are looking for or why. $ of what per hour? Only a couple of stats are related to TBA or IBA. They are given in both cases. Initial Bet Advantage (IBA) is provided on the summary page and is a percentage. It is not a $ or hourly amount.

> Where on CVData do I pull up the $/Hr based upon IBA?
> From what I can tell, this figure is based upon TBA.
> If IBA is more important than TBA, why doesn't CVData
> base earnings on IBA?

[MJ]

> I really don't know what you are looking for or why. $
> of what per hour? Only a couple of stats are related
> to TBA or IBA. They are given in both cases. Initial
> Bet Advantage (IBA) is provided on the summary page
> and is a percentage. It is not a $ or hourly amount.

If you look at the screen, you will see that WR = $95.12, Action = $14,169, and TBA = 0.671%. So, WR = TBA x Action.

Your comments lead me to believe that IBA is more important than TBA. If that is the case, why isn't WR = IBA x Action?

Screen shot

[Norm Wattenberger]

Because WR isn't IBA x Action. IBA is more important for risk calculations and is given. This has nothing to do with WinRate which is the amount won per hour.

> If you look at the screen, you will see that WR =
> $95.12, Action = $14,169, and TBA = 0.671%. So, WR =
> TBA x Action.

> Your comments lead me to believe that IBA is more
> important than TBA. If that is the case, why isn't WR
> = IBA x Action?

[MJ]

> Because WR isn't IBA x Action. IBA is more important
> for risk calculations and is given. This has nothing
> to do with WinRate which is the amount won per hour.

You are saying IBA has nothing to do with WR. If that is the case, then why does CVCX use the equation WR/Hr = IBA x Initial Avg Bet x #Rounds/Hr ???

CVData uses the equation WR/Hr = TBA x Total Avg Bet x # Rounds/Hr.

If you compare the aforementioned equations it becomes apparent that CVData and CVCX incorporate slightly different approaches to determine WR/Hr.

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

No, win rate per hour is exactly the same in CVCX and CVData. There are numerous stats in CVData that can be derived in different manners from other stats. But, the solution is always the same.