1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
N0 is the number of hands required at a given EV level to overcome one negative standard deviation.

I consider the "long term" to be N0 at 2 standard deviations, a much more onerous task.

All that other stuff is noise.

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Thanks for the feedback and yes I know very well what N0 is, thank you. I dont think I stated my hypothesis is a clear manner perhaps. The computer for example is a data collection tool that can predict what your real play outcome should be by "playing" billions of hands using the input you feed it, i.e. indices, rules, spread, min/max etc. All I am saying is that if you are using your casino results to get enough data to say yes I am a winning player within x certainty as I have played y number of hands and amassed one, or if you wish two, standard deviations of profit and that gives me some certainty I play a winning game as my profit is greater than the deviation, then simple play at home with all factors being equal provides results that are in no way different from the casino provided your playing decisions are identical and all other factors are the same.

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
You are right if money has absolutely no importance

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Playing at home doesn't help you because you are also the casino. Otherwise I agree with everyone else....What?

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I have 1 question. Are you winning any real \$ when you actually WONG into a shoe and win?

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by cuts you up
Thanks for the feedback and yes I know very well what N0 is, thank you. I dont think I stated my hypothesis is a clear manner perhaps. The computer for example is a data collection tool that can predict what your real play outcome should be by "playing" billions of hands using the input you feed it, i.e. indices, rules, spread, min/max etc. All I am saying is that if you are using your casino results to get enough data to say yes I am a winning player within x certainty as I have played y number of hands and amassed one, or if you wish two, standard deviations of profit and that gives me some certainty I play a winning game as my profit is greater than the deviation, then simple play at home with all factors being equal provides results that are in no way different from the casino provided your playing decisions are identical and all other factors are the same.
No, you didn't explain in a clear manner, because you asked if playing at home would HELP YOU REACH N0 that much faster than just doing it in the casino. You never stated that you were simply trying to verify if you were playing a winning game and/or playing correctly, which, clearly, is not the same thing.

Don

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by cuts you up
Thanks for the feedback and yes I know very well what N0 is, thank you. I dont think I stated my hypothesis is a clear manner perhaps. The computer for example is a data collection tool that can predict what your real play outcome should be by "playing" billions of hands using the input you feed it, i.e. indices, rules, spread, min/max etc. All I am saying is that if you are using your casino results to get enough data to say yes I am a winning player within x certainty as I have played y number of hands and amassed one, or if you wish two, standard deviations of profit and that gives me some certainty I play a winning game as my profit is greater than the deviation, then simple play at home with all factors being equal provides results that are in no way different from the casino provided your playing decisions are identical and all other factors are the same.
Trying to understand this is kind of tilting, so instead of reading it again, I'll ask if the following is what you mean: You're pretty much saying, "If I play on a computer at home and reach X profit over Y rounds, does that prove I'm a winning player?" Note: "prove" meaning "a high likelihood of being" and not "with 100% certainty".

I think you're *kind of* right in that, however, I'll suggest a way that I think is better and more accurate....Don & others can obviously correct me if/where I'm wrong. But I would do this, assuming it's possible:

Track the rounds you've played and the size of wagers for each bet. You are going to track your results based on the assumption you're a basic strategy (losing) player. So track your negative EV (say, -0.46%) along with the +/- 1, 2, 3 SD's. Do the same thing, but do it with the assumption you're a winning player and playing properly, according to your spread/ramp/etc. On both graphs, you're going to also want to include your actual results.
Note that you do NOT want to change your spread or unit size during this "testing" period, as it can/will throw off your results.

I guess you technically don't need a graph, but I think it's easier to look at something visually and you can follow along the random walk as opposed to just seeing a few numbers that probably don't mean much to you.

After all, you want to make sure you're not a losing player. Knowing that you're within the range of possible results for a winning player isn't all that helpful, especially since until you've played a huge number of rounds, that range (for winning & losing players) is going to have a lot of overlap.

Page 2 of 2 First 12

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•