1,000 hands or 100 million hands

[DSchles]

Brings back a memory. In the late '70s, early '80s, I used to absolutely destroy the Riviera's very good DD game. They tolerated my play for a very long time, and I used to beat them unmercifully. After a while, it got so that, as I was entering the casino, I used to think to myself, "Why don't they just give me a check and save me the trouble of playing?"!

Ah, the good ol' days, when Las Vegas was Las Vegas!

Don

[hardin county boy]

To guarantee results within 10% of EV will take over 1,000,000 hands, the exact number of hands depends on the rules and quality of the game you play.

mo,

if this is accurate (and i bet you got it right) then the idea of a million hands to achieve +/- 10% of EV merits several considerations: first is, the +/-10% is a reasonable, common sense target to make a credible case of not being just another degenerate GAMBLER. if you are going to be further from EV than that, the wisdom of the enterprise looks risky = that's WHAT they call GAMBLING.

1) if one wongs in and out, choosing only good enough games, the amount of time to play ONE THOUSAND hands is not small. 2) one could be forgiven for wondering if the enterprise for MOST is GAMBLING! such that MOST such players should call the gambling help hotline? (EXCEPT for a chosen few) 3) only full time pros and the very busiest, dedicated and talented hobbyists are going to log enough table-time to get out of the "degenerate gambling" category (this is true even of those who aren't pros/busy hobbyists but simply enjoy early, positive variance that makes them successful--they, also, first embarked on a degenerate-gambler's proposition to start.)

so, who are the chosen few? first, they must have enough savings to live several years to play the million hands AND, for the most part, enough bankroll to start green-chip. ( 1% advantage, 50$ average bet = half a million winnings in the several years needed--this is a reasonable dollar amount to feed a family as an ongoing enterprise while permanently waiting for your passage on the good-ship, variance, and to immunize you against accusations of degenerate status.) not very many folks have that much savings/ bankroll and if so, why blackjack for a living? so, wealthy pros or those who can and just want to can count and need not call the hotline. i have left out guys who live off beans and in dives to red-chip their way to greatness as, cmon, with the WILD swings of variance, this shoestring approach IS, mostly, crazy, so call the hotline-- though i would not disagree with some of the crazy, young studs who wanna give it a go.

now, us weekend warriors or those who play even a bit more: given the bet spreads involved and bankroll size, for us to engage in an enterprise that needs a million hands we are not going to EVER? play (certainly not any time soon) before we have good expectation of being within 10% of EV? why, THAT kind of "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead-since the count is good i am gonna bet big no matter how much i am losing" mentality quacks like degenerate GAMBLING far more than casino players of other approaches with more modest bravado and bankroll draw-downs.

idle curiosity: can someone report on their personal experience, wonging, playing only good games and how many hands they played in a year? in reporting a BIG number give us just your common-sense assessment of whether you feel, under such a vigorous number of hands, just how "good" was your game--ie was your play pretty close to your best game?

recognize these characterizations of, in many cases, nothing more than degenerate gambling are logical and NOT negated by a great anecdote that, in hindsight, really only amounts to "LUCKY" early variance---if you dont meet something like the above criteris, you just got your start as a participant in a degenerate proposition, whether you knew it, or not. no doubt, there are some EXCEPTIONS to what i say but we all know it is the worst degenerates are the first to explain how THEY are the exception......

[RS]

Simulations are great. But in essence, you are betting on yourself or against the dealer. The key is you own tendancies. For instance, in basic strategy it says to always stand on 13 against 2. Suppose if you've seen 5 10s and 2 9's just come out of the deck. Does it still makes sense to stand because a simulation of 100m hands suggests its the best play? You might start by practicing 1,000 hands and logging your own personal results in certain situations. By the time you've played 100,000 hands chances two things will have happened. 1.) you will know you own style of play 2.) it may become evident you have some flaws in your game needed for correction.

That is the point of counting cards (well, one of the points). Basic Strategy is a "no information" strategy, meaning the player has NO information on which cards have been played or which are remaining. Moot point.

On top of that, what are you even suggesting? Are you suggesting that someone shouldn't follow basic strategy just because it isn't always the best way to play the hand, but instead, the player should alter his "basic" strategy, record how his strategy worked out, then use whichever strategy worked the best? Because that's what it sounds like.

[Nyne]

Hcb, that is why you can't go pro when you expect your EV to cover your living expenses. You need to either have living expenses set aside separate from your bankroll to cover you during downswings long enough to recover, or you need your EV to be quite a bit bigger than your expenses so that being well under EV for a year is no big deal, or both. If I came in at half of my EV for a year, it would be annoying, but not devastating. The ratio of EV/expenses has a major influence on a pro's chances of success because it plays a big part in how much of your winnings get added to your bankroll to sustain you during downswings.

[hardin county boy]

If I came in at half of my EV for a year, it would be annoying, but not devastating.

good post, Nyne.

sounds like you have put in the time. what do you estimate was the most hands you played in a year while wonging, choosing only decent games and doing a good, even if not perfect, job of counting, altering basic strategy-play and bet-sizing?

[seriousplayer]

I hate variance. It would be easier if they just mailed me a check.

Sometime the variance could help you as well because it might result in you winning beyond the expected amount predicted from you statistic and EV but other time variance is your enemy. I had experience both side of the outcome.

[Stealth]

If you play a thousand hands, people would say the sample size is far too small to mean anything. But no one is going to play a trillion hands. So at what point can I look at my results and say "I'm playing with an advantage, this is more than just luck". Is the answer never? If so, what's the point?

So, this is a question that sent me to reading book after book and on forum after forum. So some thoughts.

In my opinion, the most simple indication that you are in the long term is when the gme you are playing has accumulated enough EV to overcome two standard deviations. The formula for N0 is to overcome one standard deviation and at that point I believe you are just gambling. 4 x N0 is required to overcome two standard deviations. While I can not recall the source I am quoting, it was one of the principle MIT guys who said "If you are at N0 you are still just gambling!".

In addition, tracking my play results toward this goal it has made me much more attentive to the value of the game I play and the results do provide an insight in my progress. One should understand that the "Long Term" is not just about the number of hands but the quality of the games played and the quality of the play. Example: if you are playing with an error rate in play decisions or over betting kelly then your actual results are going to vary from EV for those reasons.

It is a complex question that has many influences, so draw conclusions thoughtfully.

Wishing You Good Variance,
Stealth

[hardin county boy]

It is a complex question that has many influences, so draw conclusions thoughtfully.

stealth,

does your post suggest that only those who are counting and playing well, with a lifetime prospect of playing enough hands to achieve 4 x N0 could reasonably claim they are not "just gambling"?---i am trying to draw conclusions thoughtfully.

thanks

[Nyne]

good post, Nyne.

sounds like you have put in the time. what do you estimate was the most hands you played in a year while wonging, choosing only decent games and doing a good, even if not perfect, job of counting, altering basic strategy-play and bet-sizing?

1) I've never spent a year wonging, so I don't have an estimate for that.
2) Don't forget that with wonging, it is hands seen that matters for reaching n0, not hands played.

[Three]

Even a serious recreational player playing a strong game should hit 4 times N0 in a years time.

[Nyne]

That's debatable. Obviously it depends on the quality of the game, but even for a 100 SCORE game that's 400 hours of play. Few part timers are playing that much, and if the game is worse, that timeframe goes up.

[Three]

I was figuring about 400 hours a year if you play a strong game. Maybe closer to 600 hours as the 100 hand/hour standard is usually not met in the casino when recreational AP's play. At the 400 hours that's less than 8 hours per week on average. If you are a once a month long weekend warrior that is 33 hours in a long weekend. I can easily play that much. I am not sure about recreational types.

[hardin county boy]

Don't forget that with wonging, it is hands seen that matters for reaching n0, not hands played.

great point-did not realize that.