1,000 hands or 100 million hands

[hardin county boy]

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

Tthree, how does this statement reconcile with mofungoo's statement (post #13) that more than a million hands are needed to be certain of being within 10% of EV? though i am struggling some with these apples and oranges terms, the concept of mofungoo's post suggests a very long time to not be "GAMBLING" and the concept you articulate suggests a year of solid recreational play will demonstrate it never was gambling, since being very solidly in the positive should happen in a year?

i have probably mangled the apples and oranges so set me straight.

[stopgambling]

You mainly play SD, Most members here play Multi-decks. 4 x NO is not bad and 9 x NO is good , Bj is an investment ,Of course there are risk involve.It's a relatively low risk at 9 x NO with good games.Don't like the risk ? Then play in a team ,maybe a huge successful team ,with a monster bank.

[Three]

Tthree, how does this statement reconcile with mofungoo's statement (post #13) that more than a million hands are needed to be certain of being within 10% of EV?

4 times N0 is the 2 standard deviation ahead mark in terms of EV. The term certain is somewhat subject. I would assume 1 (68%) or 2 SD (96%) is right for this. For 10% of EV = 1 SD, that is when EV = 10*SD. For 2 SD you get 20*SD.

1 SD will be 68% of the time, 2 SD as the answer as that is about 96% of the time within 10% of EV;
EV = 1 SD at N0
EV = 2 SD at 4*N0
EV = 3 SD at 9*N0
EV = 4 SD at 16*N0


EV = 10 SD at 100*N0 =1,000,000; N0 = 10,000
EV = 20 SD at 400*N0 =1,000,000; N0 = 2,500

I was using a N0 of about 10,000 because that is an upper limit of what you should be doing if you aren't playing all. So as you can see if certain meant 10% of EV = 1 SD then the two statements are totally in sync. If certain meant 2 SD either his N0 is 2,500 or using my N0 there should be 2,500,000 hands.

[mofungoo]

I got my 1,000,000+ number from simulation so I did not need to consider N0. That number was for 2D, for 6D that number would be greater (N0 will also be greater for 6D).

[Norm]

A 1,000,000 hand simulation is useless.

[RS]

Shoot, I'm just happy with a hobby that produces $200 a day 4 days a week.

That's $41,000 a year. Not bad...not bad at all.

[Rainmaker]

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......

You've lost me.

[Rainmaker]

A 1,000,000 hand simulation is useless.

Useless in what sense? Like after I play a 1,000,000 hands in real life, luck (variance) is a more significant factor than probability? If that is true, I wonder what the point is, for a ploppy, where it matters what hands they play wrong...not surrendering wouldn't matter in the short-term.

[MidniteToker]

you can just make money hand over fist.

Hahaha.

Truly, I'm glad it comes that easy. But why spend time writing books? Why not increase your play time to 800 or 1600 hours?

You have a "winning" system, don't you? So why are you wasting time here? Why not increase your play time and go make bank?

If you have reasons, why is it so hard to believe other people have reasons too?

[RS]

I don't know of many hobbyists that can devote 600-800 hours a year to their hobby. 800 hours is a little more than 2/day.....about 15/week.

I *believe when Norm says a 1m simulation is "useless", he isn't referring to actual hands played in real life, but a computer simulation of BJ. You run a sim to gather data about your game. Let's say the N0 for your game is 12,000 rounds. How is a 1,000,000 round simulation going to accurately tell you what your N0 is?

It'd be kind of like being a waiter on your first day of the job -- you make $45 in tips and made $90 from your hourly wage. From that tiny sample size, can you accurately figure out how much $$$ you'll make at the end of the year? Maybe a better idea is to figure out what the average tip has been for the last 10 years as well as hourly wage (let's just say there isn't inflation) for all waiters at your restaurant -- then with that data, you'll be much more accurate in predicting how much you'll make a month or a year.

[Three]

That number was for 2D, for 6D that number would be greater (N0 will also be greater for 6D).

I used 6D so yes the number is more than double than DD.

[mofungoo]

I don't know of many hobbyists that can devote 600-800 hours a year to their hobby. 800 hours is a little more than 2/day.....about 15/week.

I *believe when Norm says a 1m simulation is "useless", he isn't referring to actual hands played in real life, but a computer simulation of BJ. You run a sim to gather data about your game. Let's say the N0 for your game is 12,000 rounds. How is a 1,000,000 round simulation going to accurately tell you what your N0 is?

Running a million hand sim is done to simulate what is likely to happen in a lifetime of blackjack for most of us. Due to mistakes in live play one's true results will not be as good as the results reported by simulation. As far as N0 is concerned it is a tool useful for optimizing betting ramps and playing strategies, it is not tracked in players' records of live play. I track time spent and dollar results and I believe most who keep records do the same.

[Three]

As far as N0 is concerned it is a tool useful for optimizing betting ramps and playing strategies, it is not tracked in players' records of live play.

Depends on the players record keeping but I don't track N0 either. If you are trouble shooting after really bad spout of variance being able to engineer at least a good approximation of N0 into the study can be quite useful. Most of the time I did that I just found likely places to make mistakes and rearranged the math to get the same answer while reducing the chance of error.