Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
No, it makes no sense at all. First, your personal individual results are totally meaningless in determining EV and variance,. I have stated this over and over again ad nauseam. You CANNOT determine how good or bad a game is by actually playing and looking at your results.
I agree completely but that is not what I'm asking. I'm not suggesting to look at personal results to determine EV and variance. That is why we have simulations! Personal results are statistically insignificant and indeed meaningless.

What I'm saying is that I record how many hands I play per round, penetration, # players, and whether it was play all or Wong out, for each shoe that I play. I do NOT record the win/loss from each shoe. So, suppose I play 24 shoes in an 8-hour session. I win $800. Now I would like to know where this result falls on the bell curve. So, I look back at my records for the session and run a simulation for each type of shoe that I played to determine theoretical EV and variance for each shoe. I then use the sim output and calculate aggregate EV and variance for the 24 shoes. I then use that info to calculate where my result falls on the bell curve.

I would do the same thing for subsequent sessions and determine cumulative EV and variance (via simulation) over however many sessions I play and see where my results fall on the bell curve. So, after 20 sessions, I might play through 480 shoes and using my system, I would know precisely what the cumulative EV and variance is through simulation.

Now does what I'm saying sound reasonable? I would like an accurate method to determine my EV and variance over the course of several hundred shoes. I believe you estimate rounds per hour to be 100. I suppose you also use a single number for # players and penetration. I'm not comfortable with this 'one size fits all' approach. There has got to be a better way.

Thanks,
MJ