MJ: CVCX Question: N0

[MJ]

If N0 is 15,000 hands for backcounting, and the percentage of hands played is 20%, does that mean I observe 15,000 hands but only play 3,000 hands to overcome 1 SD?

Similarly, if N0 is 12,000 hands for wonging and playing 2 hands/round, does that mean I will ultimately play 20% x 12,000 hands = 2400 hands or 1200 rounds to overcome 1 SD?

Thanks.
MJ

[Don Schlesinger]

> If N0 is 15,000 hands for backcounting, and the
> percentage of hands played is 20%, does that mean I
> observe 15,000 hands but only play 3,000 hands to
> overcome 1 SD?

Yes.

> Similarly, if N0 is 12,000 hands for wonging and
> playing 2 hands/round,

It's not 12,000 hands; it's 12,000 rounds of two hands each.

> does that mean I will
> ultimately play 20% x 12,000 hands = 2400 hands or
> 1200 rounds to overcome 1 SD?

if you meant to write "12,000," at the end, where you wrote "1200," instead, then, yes, it means 12,000 rounds.

Don

[MJ]

> It's not 12,000 hands; it's 12,000 rounds of two
> hands each.

I see.

> if you meant to write "12,000," at the end,
> where you wrote "1200," instead, then, yes,
> it means 12,000 rounds.

I meant to write 1200 which is what I wrote. If N0 = 12,000 rounds of two hands/round when wonging, then it would require 20% x 12,000 rounds = 2400 ROUNDS of actual playing or 2400 rounds x 2 hands/round = 4800 HANDS actually played.

So, out of 12,000 rounds, 9600 rounds we sat out and 2400 rounds we actually played, yielding a total of 12,000 rounds.

MJ

[MJ]

[Norm Wattenberger]

There are some places that rounds would be more accurate. There are some places 2x12,000 is displayed, so 'hands' is better. N0 is just labeled N0.

[MJ]

> There are some places that rounds would be more
> accurate. There are some places 2x12,000 is displayed,
> so 'hands' is better. N0 is just labeled N0.

But do you agree with my calculation above that it would require 2400 rounds which yields 4800 hands at 2 hands/round?

MJ