Zee, Haven't Heard Much From You Lately

[21forme]

I assume you mean N0 equals 15000. However, I get a much lower N0 than that assuming pen taken from CBJN.

I used ro6, i.e., 5 rounds for 1 player, rather than a specific number of cards cut off. I also neglected to include RSA, which lowers N0 to just under 14000.

[Stealth]

Moral of the story remains the same - short term results are meaningless.

While I would agree that short term results are not an answer for where you should be, they are not useless. In fact, there are many "gems" that can be found in a methodical tracking and analysis of your results and you don't have to wait to N0 for them to be meaningful. While this type of information depreciates in value as the player becomes more experienced, it is very valuable to the new and journeyman players.

Do not underestimate the value of this data and stop looking at just actual versus EV as the only information provided. Often, the "short" term data will "infer" an issue that is well worth investigating but may, or may not, be true. The analysis is worth the effort. I can and have provided many examples of such and I can only counsel those who are ignoring the data to expand their perspective, if they aspire for professional level play.

[21forme]

Stealth, please explain how you can use short term results.

I've been doing this a long time. Earlier this year, I had a several month stretch where I lost almost every day I played (~30h/wk). While it was disheartening, it didn't concern me. Conversely, late last year, I had a 2 month stretch where I won just about every time I played. That didn't make me think I must have improved my game somehow.

[Stealth]

Stealth, please explain how you can use short term results.

I've been doing this a long time. Earlier this year, I had a several month stretch where I lost almost every day I played (~30h/wk). While it was disheartening, it didn't concern me. Conversely, late last year, I had a 2 month stretch where I won just about every time I played. That didn't make me think I must have improved my game somehow.

First, one must become a student of the game at a sufficient level to be able to calculate such things as RoR, c-Score, EV with a reasonable level of detail accuracy, standard deviation and Zscore. By utlizing the results of these item and seeing them in both math form and in graph form where appropriate, one begins to collect a set of data that can be looked at for "abnormal variance". The presence of which will prompt a question while not providing an answer. For example, for example, if you are on a team and have a session (less than hour) whose results were outside of 2 standard deviations then one might expect the team manager to ask how did that occur. If the players explanation does not include the expected doubles, splits, splits and doubles along with high counts then some suspicion may occur. If this player develops a history of repeating such then you may have a problem.

In another example, by graphing certain session zscores and viewing them over time (say 200 sessions) I was able to determine that a player was underbetting, chasing loses and pulling up before max out wins. When the data was disussed with the player, he confirmed the analysis to be correct. Now is the analysis foolproof, no, care must be given to both wht conclusion you think you might draw and certainly influenced by the longer term experience with the player.

Now, I hope this helps. Many amatuer or lone wolf AP's have told me that the record keeping is overkill and for those I say good variance. For those involved with team money or shared banks or such, then I suggest the presence of this type of analysis and checks and balances are both necessary to protect team integrity and to identify weak areas to focus on improving.

These comments are an over simplification of both the data and the analysis but is indicative of the concept. If you interested in going deeper, then PM me.