The psychological ups and downs of playing BJ...

[ZeeBabar]

I wonder if you care to share. I know the pros here keep an even keel but I still feel this way after my 2nd year playing regular part time BJ (I average about 8 hours of BJ a week).

i win a few sessions in a row, feel like I can never lose, the casino is my ATM. I get cocky. If. I win a few sessions in a row, maybe including a good win (most of my win sessions range from $200-$800, an ocassional one approaches $2k) and I think of trading my car for a fancier one, that I can pay the lease or whatever.

i lose 2 sessions in a row and think I should quit or take a break, get depressed. I lose 4-5 sessions in a row and I walk in to play, lose the first hand and start thinking "here is loss number 5 coming" sure I am going to lose before the second round is dealt.

its a roller coaster ride!!!

[Bigdaddy]

I know the feeling. We have similar profiles - I've been a BJ player all my life but just graduated into the AP endeavors a couple years ago. I'll put in about 3 sessions a week at my local store (maybe 6 hours total) and then maybe 4 trips to LV each year. My big bet is in the $300 range, so I'm seeing swings in the - $2k - $3k range. I've got to the point where I'm confident that I'm playing with an advantage and pretty good with sticking to my game plan, but "nerve" is my biggest weakness right now. Bankroll is not an issue, but I need to sear the part of my conscience that flares up when I hit those losing patches.

Check out a good article that was posted by orangechip (in the card-imaging thread) regarding how casino management should view the card counter. It basically says that the semi-pro is not worth chasing away because they either lack the bankroll or the nerve to become a long-term threat to the casino. Looks like I'm that category right now. I have no interest in going pro, but I do want ditch the fear of the losing streak so I can be the best I can be.

[ZenKinG]

I used to have that feeling but only because I didnt have a proper bankroll or money coming in. Now that im properly funded each trip, I dont even blink at downswings during the trip. It also helps that Ive won almost every trip for the past 30 lol. But during those trips there are highs and lows and sometimes im a loser for the whole day until the very last couple of shoes where I destroy the table and turn a profit for the day. I think the majority of depression and psychological problems occur when you dont have a proper bankroll because then if you lose you cant play for a while and it really damages your psyche. Whereas if you are properly bankrolled, you wont even blink because you can just keep hammering away until you turn a profit.

Ive always said that about my play that once I get a bigger roll, I wont even blink at the losing streaks and I was right. When im losing they're nothing but plastic in front of me, I have no emotional connection to them; if the count says bet a certain amount of plastic, I do it and If I lost I keep hammering away until I turn a profit.

Good luck

[Masterhoudini]

I really think this is often the most overlooked aspect of the game- dealing with the psychological and mental aspects of the long term and short term swings. In my opinion, it's also the most important aspect. Anyone can memorize bs, anyone can count, anyone can memorize a crapload of indexes, and anyone can run sims all day long. Real casino play and generating your own experiences- learning from your mistakes, dealing with your own swings, getting into your own comfort zone, it's a dynamic process and you'll see a lot of evolution, maturity and growth along the way, only by clocking the hours.

I've had a bit of success in the business stacking pretty big numbers and I've been fortunate, even humbled by my experiences. At times, I've felt unstoppable winning over 120k in a month where I rarely missed. At other times, I've been in the dumps and questioning my skill level and the system losing for over 300 hours. One thing that resonates with me is a wise pro who told me when I was starting out "there's always tmw, and always the next shoe." In the moment, you don't actually believe it, you're only thinking how could I get smoked so relentlessly losing x max bets hand after hand and the true count was double digits!! It's totally disgusting and the game is rigged. This is just the beauty of variance, you gotta just learn to live harmoniously with it.

My take is your psychological game is only developed with table time- that's what defines whether most people can make it or not- dealing with those extreme downswings beyond several sd. Another thing, is that it's challenging cause it has to be developed within, often times without any meaningful support since regular people don't really understand the swings. Eventually most of what you see becomes within a normal range you can tolerate and deal with easily since the range grows larger. Of course, we're all human- I can't say I'm jumping for joy every time I lose 10-20k in one hand- it still sucks, but it doesn't rattle me nearly as much anymore. You develop mental toughness and a tenacity to persevere along the way and a true belief that it works- you'll get your EV since the math never lies. I think a part of you eventually gets hardened and desensitized, so much so that it becomes scary at times (something I'm dealing with). It's an evolutionary process- just like natural selection, only the strongest survive and rest just go to the wayside due to attrition.

As as for getting nice things, why not? Live a little, it's easy $$ or hard earned however you wanna look at it. Get your flashy car and I'll race ya! Don't spend recklessly though- I didn't even buy my first bmw until I had 200k bankroll and finally made it to half kelly. That is maybe a bit conservative, but I've seen lots of horror stories of good APs who lacked discipline busting out 6 figure bankrolls from fancy vacations and cars. Life is short though, go out there and live a little!!

[DSchles]

Have to chuckle. You think these swings are bad? Try having a decent percentage of your net worth invested in the stock market these days! :-)

Don

[Masterhoudini]

Also to the dude who won like 30 trips, a measly 8k or whatever. LOL. It's ridiculous when beginners light it up a little in the beginning and think they're the total sh!t. Having that attitude is bad- it hampers your self improvements and ability to deal with soul crushing downswings, you ain't seen nothin yet bud.

As for a challenge, why stop at 100k for the year? Make 500k for the year and we'll talk. *shrug I've trained a few beginners shooting up from 5k to 200k+ first year, who cares, no big deal?

[ZenKinG]

Also to the dude who won like 30 trips, a measly 8k or whatever. LOL. It's ridiculous when beginners light it up a little in the beginning and think they're the total sh!t. Having that attitude is bad- it hampers your self improvements and ability to deal with soul crushing downswings, you ain't seen nothin yet bud.

As for a challenge, why stop at 100k for the year? Make 500k for the year and we'll talk. *shrug I've trained a few beginners shooting up from 5k to 200k+ first year, who cares, no big deal?

Ive dealt with the swings, but you're missing the big picture, if i had a big bankroll and was able to bet BIG, do you realize how much I would be up? To me it's all about if the trip was a winning trip and how im playing, its not about the monetary win at the end, that all has to do with your spread and bankroll. The fact all you talk about is the numbers, shows how oblivious you are to the big picture. How much you win and lose has to with your bet size. The fact someone is winning trip after trip shows he knows what he's doing and it's not just plain luck. Of course any newb can win possibly 10 trips in a row, but not at the recent ratio im going at, which signifies something bigger and thats what matters to me at this point, knowing im capable of destroying this game once my bankroll grows bigger and bigger.

My attitude is what it is, I know I can deal with the swings already, I've had my share of swings, probably not a big monetary loss like you experienced, again it's all relative. 2k loss to me is like 20k loss to you, 10k loss to me is like 100k loss to you, both are the same equivalent of depression for the respective player, due to their bankroll sizes. Talking in monetary numbers like it has such a big difference is idiotic and naive. It's all about the loss in RELATIVE to the person's bankroll.

[Jabberwocky]

Have to chuckle. You think these swings are bad? Try having a decent percentage of your net worth invested in the stock market these days! :-)

Don

The market is rigged. Of course you know that.

[ZenKinG]

The market is rigged. Of course you know that.

Uneducated people tend to rely on the word 'rigged'.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

ZeeBabar, et al,

If you aren't emotionally divorced from money, you will suffer pain periodically.

I had a great week and won more than I have won in any one day in years.

$12,500 ~ and that is greater than my mean result by an order of magnitude.*

That negates the ONE very bad day that I had had earlier this year.

Had I been "emotionally attached" to money I would have dwelled upon

"getting even", but only in retrospect was I even remotely cognizant of it.

But, my spread sheet awaited the results, so ...

Enough about me.


Your overall edge is somewhere between 0.5% and 1.0%,

depending on all of the standard table condition factors.

BJ is a game of often extreme variance.

I propose that a fine name for our game would be "volatility21"

The following I did "back of the envelope" style so I have not used

a computer sim', etc. etc. for these figures.

In a typical year, your results may TEND to look like this:

Won 68 sessions averaging + $500

Lost 32 sessions averaging - $400

Net = (+$32,000) + (-$12,800) = $19,200 ($192 per session)

The above is for low stakes players.

Winning 68% of your sessions is actually a bit optimistic.

Ignore posters who say that they win 90% of the time, etc.

*Orders of magnitude are written in powers of 10. e.g. the order of magnitude of 1500 is 3, since 1500 may be written as 1.5 × 10³.Differences in order of magnitude can be measured on the logarithmic scale in "decades" (i.e., factors of ten).

[Stealth]

The psychological ups and downs of playing BJ...

First I apologize for the length of the post but this one got my hot button. Perhaps, the poster's have simply omitted the information.

These post that present individual reactions to their play at blackjack seem to be inappropriately called psychological. We all, based on the belief and strength of the math, choose to pursue the "game" at some level suitable to our interest. Then these post our "feelings" without the corresponding information on our performance.

Is the reason for your comments that you are not keeping the records or performing the ongoing analysis of your performance to insure you understand the measure of your performance against the expectation.

I keep session records that include the following per session:

Date
Amount won or lost
Game played (I have data base of games I play with: decks, rules, penetration, freq dist by TC, Win/Loss by TC, and Std Deviation by TC)
Casino
Rounds played (not time, nor hands)
Bet ramp (keep data base of bet ramps and assign the correct one to the session)
Unit bet (ramp defines number of units bet per true count and unit defines value)

With this information I can calculate how my actual results corresponds to my expected results including where it fits in standard deviation. While the length of a session is generally not enough provide actionable guidance, it can show me things. For example, if I won $8,000 (pick an amount) in a session and the results are OUTSIDE of 3 SD, then I should review the relationship of errors, my bet ramp, inaccurate reporting of results, etc. Point is, a "red" flag is presented (not a feeling) and I am committed to review to determine the causes of "abnormal variance".

By keeping this in a ongoing file I develop my cumulative actual performance against my cumulative expected performance. Results outside of SD ranges in these instances are even more deserving of review and increase in importance as I near N0 (Actually, I rely on N0 for 2 SD to mark the "long term" as N0 for 1 SD leaves too big a gap). In fact, I develop and keep a myriad of "stats" that I use to keep an ongoing monitor on my game.

Would you really fly a plane without the instrumentation to tell you if you where you are relative to your planned course? Would you fly into a mountain because you felt good, or bad, about the flight?

I actually take my analysis further by utilizing Dr. Robert Reid's guidance on determining "abnormal variance" in a series of outcomes. After all, we all must live in "normal variance", it is when we are outside normal variance that we are dysfunctional in some manner.

The end of my tirade would be to encourage you to develop your record keeping and analysis to give you better measures of your performance. Using standard deviation (variance) to cover up your abnormal deviation, if you are, means you are fooling yourself. Not knowing which it is and then whining about it is just foolish.

We already use the math to tell us how to play, now let's get back to using the math that got us here to measure how we are doing!

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I concur completely with Stealth.

However, let us obey the "law of large numbers"*

We are dealing with small samples, playing a few hundred hours per year.

Here is a link about Z-Scores that will convert one's results into something

a lot more specific than a Standard Deviation:

*'Law Of Large Numbers' :
A principle of probability and statistics which states that as a sample size grows,
its mean will get closer and closer to the average of the whole population.

************************************************** **********************

Z tables are typically composed as follows:

• The label for rows contains the integer part and the first decimal place of Z.
• The label for columns contains the second decimal place of Z.
• The values within the table are the probabilities corresponding to the table type. These probabilities are calculations of the area under the normal curve from the starting point (0 for cumulative from mean, negative infinity for cumulative and positive infinity for complementary cumulative) to Z.

Example: To find 0.69, one would look down the rows to find 0.6 and then across the columns to 0.09 which would yield a probability of 0.25490 for a cumulative from mean table or 0.75490 from a cumulative table.
Because the normal distribution curve is symmetrical, probabilities for only positive values of Z are typically given. The user has to use a complementary operation on the absolute value of Z, as in the example below.
Types of tables
Z tables use at least three different conventions:

Cumulative from meangives a probability that a statistic is between 0 (mean) and Z. Example: Prob(0 ? Z ? 0.69) = 0.2549Cumulativegives a probability that a statistic is less than Z. This equates to the area of the distribution below Z. Example: Prob(Z ? 0.69) = 0.7549.Complementary cumulativegives a probability that a statistic is greater than Z. This equates to the area of the distribution above Z.Example: Find Prob(Z ? 0.69). Since this is the portion of the area above Z, the proportion that is greater than Z is found by subtracting Z from 1. That is Prob(Z ? 0.69) = 1 - Prob(Z ? 0.69) or Prob(Z ? 0.69) = 1 - 0.7549 = 0.2451.Table examples[edit]

Cumulative from mean (0 to Z)[edit]

The values correspond to the shaded area for given Z

This table gives a probability that a statistic is between 0 (the mean) and Z.

z	+0.00	+0.01	+0.02	+0.03	+0.04		+0.05	+0.06	+0.07	+0.08	+0.09
0.0	0.00000	0.00399	0.00798	0.01197	0.01595	0.01994	0.02392	0.02790	0.03188	0.03586
0.1	0.03980	0.04380	0.04776	0.05172	0.05567	0.05966	0.06360	0.06749	0.07142	0.07535
0.2	0.07930	0.08317	0.08706	0.09095	0.09483	0.09871	0.10257	0.10642	0.11026	0.11409
0.3	0.11791	0.12172	0.12552	0.12930	0.13307	0.13683	0.14058	0.14431	0.14803	0.15173
0.4	0.15542	0.15910	0.16276	0.16640	0.17003	0.17364	0.17724	0.18082	0.18439	0.18793
0.5	0.19146	0.19497	0.19847	0.20194	0.20540	0.20884	0.21226	0.21566	0.21904	0.22240
0.6	0.22575	0.22907	0.23237	0.23565	0.23891	0.24215	0.24537	0.24857	0.25175	0.25490
0.7	0.25804	0.26115	0.26424	0.26730	0.27035	0.27337	0.27637	0.27935	0.28230	0.28524
0.8	0.28814	0.29103	0.29389	0.29673	0.29955	0.30234	0.30511	0.30785	0.31057	0.31327
0.9	0.31594	0.31859	0.32121	0.32381	0.32639	0.32894	0.33147	0.33398	0.33646	0.33891
1.0	0.34134	0.34375	0.34614	0.34849	0.35083	0.35314	0.35543	0.35769	0.35993	0.36214
1.1	0.36433	0.36650	0.36864	0.37076	0.37286	0.37493	0.37698	0.37900	0.38100	0.38298
1.2	0.38493	0.38686	0.38877	0.39065	0.39251	0.39435	0.39617	0.39796	0.39973	0.40147
1.3	0.40320	0.40490	0.40658	0.40824	0.40988	0.41149	0.41308	0.41466	0.41621	0.41774
1.4	0.41924	0.42073	0.42220	0.42364	0.42507	0.42647	0.42785	0.42922	0.43056	0.43189
1.5	0.43319	0.43448	0.43574	0.43699	0.43822	0.43943	0.44062	0.44179	0.44295	0.44408
1.6	0.44520	0.44630	0.44738	0.44845	0.44950	0.45053	0.45154	0.45254	0.45352	0.45449
1.7	0.45543	0.45637	0.45728	0.45818	0.45907	0.45994	0.46080	0.46164	0.46246	0.46327
1.8	0.46407	0.46485	0.46562	0.46638	0.46712	0.46784	0.46856	0.46926	0.46995	0.47062
1.9	0.47128	0.47193	0.47257	0.47320	0.47381	0.47441	0.47500	0.47558	0.47615	0.47670
2.0	0.47725	0.47778	0.47831	0.47882	0.47932	0.47982	0.48030	0.48077	0.48124	0.48169
2.1	0.48214	0.48257	0.48300	0.48341	0.48382	0.48422	0.48461	0.48500	0.48537	0.48574
2.2	0.48610	0.48645	0.48679	0.48713	0.48745	0.48778	0.48809	0.48840	0.48870	0.48899
2.3	0.48928	0.48956	0.48983	0.49010	0.49036	0.49061	0.49086	0.49111	0.49134	0.49158
2.4	0.49180	0.49202	0.49224	0.49245	0.49266	0.49286	0.49305	0.49324	0.49343	0.49361
2.5	0.49379	0.49396	0.49413	0.49430	0.49446	0.49461	0.49477	0.49492	0.49506	0.49520
2.6	0.49534	0.49547	0.49560	0.49573	0.49585	0.49598	0.49609	0.49621	0.49632	0.49643
2.7	0.49653	0.49664	0.49674	0.49683	0.49693	0.49702	0.49711	0.49720	0.49728	0.49736
2.8	0.49744	0.49752	0.49760	0.49767	0.49774	0.49781	0.49788	0.49795	0.49801	0.49807
2.9	0.49813	0.49819	0.49825	0.49831	0.49836	0.49841	0.49846	0.49851	0.49856	0.49861
3.0	0.49865	0.49869	0.49874	0.49878	0.49882	0.49886	0.49889	0.49893	0.49896	0.49900

^[2]
Cumulative[edit]

This table gives a probability that a statistic is less than Z (i.e. between negative infinity and Z).

z	+0.00	+0.01	+0.02	+0.03	+0.04		+0.05	+0.06	+0.07	+0.08	+0.09
0.0	0.50000	0.50399	0.50798	0.51197	0.51595	0.51994	0.52392	0.52790	0.53188	0.53586
0.1	0.53980	0.54380	0.54776	0.55172	0.55567	0.55966	0.56360	0.56749	0.57142	0.57535
0.2	0.57930	0.58317	0.58706	0.59095	0.59483	0.59871	0.60257	0.60642	0.61026	0.61409
0.3	0.61791	0.62172	0.62552	0.62930	0.63307	0.63683	0.64058	0.64431	0.64803	0.65173
0.4	0.65542	0.65910	0.66276	0.66640	0.67003	0.67364	0.67724	0.68082	0.68439	0.68793
0.5	0.69146	0.69497	0.69847	0.70194	0.70540	0.70884	0.71226	0.71566	0.71904	0.72240
0.6	0.72575	0.72907	0.73237	0.73565	0.73891	0.74215	0.74537	0.74857	0.75175	0.75490
0.7	0.75804	0.76115	0.76424	0.76730	0.77035	0.77337	0.77637	0.77935	0.78230	0.78524
0.8	0.78814	0.79103	0.79389	0.79673	0.79955	0.80234	0.80511	0.80785	0.81057	0.81327
0.9	0.81594	0.81859	0.82121	0.82381	0.82639	0.82894	0.83147	0.83398	0.83646	0.83891
1.0	0.84134	0.84375	0.84614	0.84849	0.85083	0.85314	0.85543	0.85769	0.85993	0.86214
1.1	0.86433	0.86650	0.86864	0.87076	0.87286	0.87493	0.87698	0.87900	0.88100	0.88298
1.2	0.88493	0.88686	0.88877	0.89065	0.89251	0.89435	0.89617	0.89796	0.89973	0.90147
1.3	0.90320	0.90490	0.90658	0.90824	0.90988	0.91149	0.91308	0.91466	0.91621	0.91774
1.4	0.91924	0.92073	0.92220	0.92364	0.92507	0.92647	0.92785	0.92922	0.93056	0.93189
1.5	0.93319	0.93448	0.93574	0.93699	0.93822	0.93943	0.94062	0.94179	0.94295	0.94408
1.6	0.94520	0.94630	0.94738	0.94845	0.94950	0.95053	0.95154	0.95254	0.95352	0.95449
1.7	0.95543	0.95637	0.95728	0.95818	0.95907	0.95994	0.96080	0.96164	0.96246	0.96327
1.8	0.96407	0.96485	0.96562	0.96638	0.96712	0.96784	0.96856	0.96926	0.96995	0.97062
1.9	0.97128	0.97193	0.97257	0.97320	0.97381	0.97441	0.97500	0.97558	0.97615	0.97670
2.0	0.97725	0.97778	0.97831	0.97882	0.97932	0.97982	0.98030	0.98077	0.98124	0.98169
2.1	0.98214	0.98257	0.98300	0.98341	0.98382	0.98422	0.98461	0.98500	0.98537	0.98574
2.2	0.98610	0.98645	0.98679	0.98713	0.98745	0.98778	0.98809	0.98840	0.98870	0.98899
2.3	0.98928	0.98956	0.98983	0.99010	0.99036	0.99061	0.99086	0.99111	0.99134	0.99158
2.4	0.99180	0.99202	0.99224	0.99245	0.99266	0.99286	0.99305	0.99324	0.99343	0.99361
2.5	0.99379	0.99396	0.99413	0.99430	0.99446	0.99461	0.99477	0.99492	0.99506	0.99520
2.6	0.99534	0.99547	0.99560	0.99573	0.99585	0.99598	0.99609	0.99621	0.99632	0.99643
2.7	0.99653	0.99664	0.99674	0.99683	0.99693	0.99702	0.99711	0.99720	0.99728	0.99736
2.8	0.99744	0.99752	0.99760	0.99767	0.99774	0.99781	0.99788	0.99795	0.99801	0.99807
2.9	0.99813	0.99819	0.99825	0.99831	0.99836	0.99841	0.99846	0.99851	0.99856	0.99861
3.0	0.99865	0.99869	0.99874	0.99878	0.99882	0.99886	0.99889	0.99893	0.99896	0.99900

^[3]
Complementary cumulative[edit]

This table gives a probability that a statistic is greater than Z.

z	+0.00	+0.01	+0.02	+0.03	+0.04		+0.05	+0.06	+0.07	+0.08	+0.09
0.0	0.50000	0.49601	0.49202	0.48803	0.48405	0.48006	0.47608	0.47210	0.46812	0.46414
0.1	0.46020	0.45620	0.45224	0.44828	0.44433	0.44034	0.43640	0.43251	0.42858	0.42465
0.2	0.42070	0.41683	0.41294	0.40905	0.40517	0.40129	0.39743	0.39358	0.38974	0.38591
0.3	0.38209	0.37828	0.37448	0.37070	0.36693	0.36317	0.35942	0.35569	0.35197	0.34827
0.4	0.34458	0.34090	0.33724	0.33360	0.32997	0.32636	0.32276	0.31918	0.31561	0.31207
0.5	0.30854	0.30503	0.30153	0.29806	0.29460	0.29116	0.28774	0.28434	0.28096	0.27760
0.6	0.27425	0.27093	0.26763	0.26435	0.26109	0.25785	0.25463	0.25143	0.24825	0.24510
0.7	0.24196	0.23885	0.23576	0.23270	0.22965	0.22663	0.22363	0.22065	0.21770	0.21476
0.8	0.21186	0.20897	0.20611	0.20327	0.20045	0.19766	0.19489	0.19215	0.18943	0.18673
0.9	0.18406	0.18141	0.17879	0.17619	0.17361	0.17106	0.16853	0.16602	0.16354	0.16109
1.0	0.15866	0.15625	0.15386	0.15151	0.14917	0.14686	0.14457	0.14231	0.14007	0.13786
1.1	0.13567	0.13350	0.13136	0.12924	0.12714	0.12507	0.12302	0.12100	0.11900	0.11702
1.2	0.11507	0.11314	0.11123	0.10935	0.10749	0.10565	0.10383	0.10204	0.10027	0.09853
1.3	0.09680	0.09510	0.09342	0.09176	0.09012	0.08851	0.08692	0.08534	0.08379	0.08226
1.4	0.08076	0.07927	0.07780	0.07636	0.07493	0.07353	0.07215	0.07078	0.06944	0.06811
1.5	0.06681	0.06552	0.06426	0.06301	0.06178	0.06057	0.05938	0.05821	0.05705	0.05592
1.6	0.05480	0.05370	0.05262	0.05155	0.05050	0.04947	0.04846	0.04746	0.04648	0.04551
1.7	0.04457	0.04363	0.04272	0.04182	0.04093	0.04006	0.03920	0.03836	0.03754	0.03673
1.8	0.03593	0.03515	0.03438	0.03362	0.03288	0.03216	0.03144	0.03074	0.03005	0.02938
1.9	0.02872	0.02807	0.02743	0.02680	0.02619	0.02559	0.02500	0.02442	0.02385	0.02330
2.0	0.02275	0.02222	0.02169	0.02118	0.02068	0.02018	0.01970	0.01923	0.01876	0.01831
2.1	0.01786	0.01743	0.01700	0.01659	0.01618	0.01578	0.01539	0.01500	0.01463	0.01426
2.2	0.01390	0.01355	0.01321	0.01287	0.01255	0.01222	0.01191	0.01160	0.01130	0.01101
2.3	0.01072	0.01044	0.01017	0.00990	0.00964	0.00939	0.00914	0.00889	0.00866	0.00842
2.4	0.00820	0.00798	0.00776	0.00755	0.00734	0.00714	0.00695	0.00676	0.00657	0.00639
2.5	0.00621	0.00604	0.00587	0.00570	0.00554	0.00539	0.00523	0.00508	0.00494	0.00480
2.6	0.00466	0.00453	0.00440	0.00427	0.00415	0.00402	0.00391	0.00379	0.00368	0.00357
2.7	0.00347	0.00336	0.00326	0.00317	0.00307	0.00298	0.00289	0.00280	0.00272	0.00264
2.8	0.00256	0.00248	0.00240	0.00233	0.00226	0.00219	0.00212	0.00205	0.00199	0.00193
2.9	0.00187	0.00181	0.00175	0.00169	0.00164	0.00159	0.00154	0.00149	0.00144	0.00139
3.0	0.00135	0.00131	0.00126	0.00122	0.00118	0.00114	0.00111	0.00107	0.00104	0.00100

[Stealth]

ZF,

Thanks, I agree and will look at incorporating Z-scores in my analysis. As an aside, my interest in understanding "how am I doing" came soon after I entered the AP world and increased immensely when I became a team manger.

I have an ongoing interest to find ways to further refine the analysis.

Stealth