It's pretty simple if you think about what n0 is. It is expressed in rounds. Playing one hand will require more rounds to play through the bad situations than playing 2 spots per round. So the number of rounds required to play those bad situations is less making the number of rounds to reach your n0 less. If it were equal or fewer rounds to n0 playing one hand that would mean you would need to play fewer advantage rounds to reach the same n0 and far fewer to reach a smaller n0 since you would have to play more disadvantage rounds to play through whatever disadvantage situations you choose to play through.
I hope that was sufficient to explain this. Often I try to explain what is obvious to me and most seem to find the explanation insufficient.
This definition says it is expressed in hands played. Okay what is it rounds or hands.
The number of hands (sometimes expressed in hours of playing time) theoretically required to be played with a certain set of rules and strategy (count, spread etc.) before the player reaches his goal to be ahead by at least one standard deviation. It has been supported as a main measure of every situation's (rules & strategy) assessment mostly by Brett Harris. It is expressed as N0 = Var / EV^2.
http://www.dictionaryofgambling.com/...s/blackjack/n/
Revealing a rather good strong A.P. Play here:
Picture the following: S17 DD game high stakes.
There are three of us and we play to a joint bankroll.
We move along 25-45 minutes per casino.
We appear from different directions and seemingly
discover an empty table. We take every other seat
and employ body language that says that "we would
rather not be joined by anyone; but when possible we
have female companions or non-playing (but drinking)
friends occupying the non-playing spots.
One of us is the strong player at this NMSE table.
We rotate this (big player) position as we move to
different pits and different casinos / shifts.
When the count is strong the minor betters find a reason to
leave the table or take a phone call. The Big Player of the
moment now is able to "spread vertically" ['heads-up' play.]
After 1 or 2 obvious moves of this sort we move on to the next
venue. Rinse and Repeat.
Please explain what you mean with math. If you're playing at an advantage against the house (certainly possible heads up), it should be rather "you can't lose in the long run playing heads up" (if, of course, you are playing a positive EV game). Only way I could understand what you mean would be if you are not playing with an advantage (so, yeah, obviously) OR perhaps you are skeptical that someone can keep a low enough profile to continue to be welcome in casinos in the long run (though even then, you should in general show a profit before being cut off, if you are playing a positive EV game).
Thanks in advance for clarifying!
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Bookmarks