I posted this elsewhere, but never found a response. I am curious if anyone knows how many total hours of play were logged by Layton? I love the film, but I think this was a key aspect that was left out.
HJ
I am puzzled how Layton's personal playing experience would have any effect, much less be a "key aspect"? It appears to be in the movie for purposes of indicating his familiarity with AP and perhaps to add some color.
Because his results are meaningless unless you know how many hours he played. (You math guys may say that a player's lifetime results are meaningless as well, since that is too small a sample.) He played for 10 days. Did that amount to 3 hours a day or 8, or somewhere in between? Total, did he play 30 hours or 80? It would be nice to know what his hourly rate was, that's all.
Curiosity is fine, and I see nothng wrong with feeling that it would be nice to know, but the results of 10 days of play, regardless of where, when or by whom, is still going to be no indication of anything except variance. David knew this and perhaps that is the explanation for why he did not mention it. You could always send him an email.
Clearly.
However I believe he should have simply made a statement "... that equates to $8.00 an hour. However my strategy in the long run would yield a $25 an hour rate".
The amount of money he made is less significant than the hourly rate. He only stated that he was up, yada yada.
When I play, I am primarily concerned with total hours of quality games. I have little concern with the session or trip win/loss. I know that if I log as many hours as possible of quality action, I will eventually achieve my goal. What was David's goal? (Besides having money left for the soundtrack)
as he, meaning himself, wasn't even an option [as a player] when he started. He didn't get into it, but I'm guessing he didn't have any takers, so he decided to play "for real", using his own money to lend credibiity. I believe he achieved his goal in that regard.
cheers
bfb
This is what I was getting at.
The money won matters less than his hourly rate (which I realize does not matter during such a short trial either). I think it would have been a logical addition to mention how long he actually stayed at the tables. If the hours do not matter, then most assuredly the amount won doesn't either.
I love the DVD, but it would have been nice to know how many total hours he was out hunting for a game, and how many total hours he actually played.
HJ
It would have been good for the average player (who's first exposure to card counting is this DVD) to realize that he was "working" for eight hours a day in order to log three hours of table time. That sort of thing just puts card counting into perspective.
Hi,
I have a blackjack simulator on the net that I am currently seeking beta testers for. Currently I am having problems, probably with explorer so the simulator is hanging. See previous messages on blackjack simulator. However I can tell you this from my linux server runs. You need to play at least 50,000-100,000 hands to get a good idea of your winning rates I belive, so winning and losing is mostly luck.
-Sterling
You need to play at least 50,000-100,000 hands to get a good idea of your winning rates I belive, so winning and losing is mostly luck.
Norm Wattenberger (author of the Casino Verite product line) advocates at least 40 million hands for a simulation. I usually run 1 billion hands (takes a couple of hours). After 100,000 hands it's not unusual for a sim to show you at a disadvantage with a winning system.
If a professional is still in the red after 3000 hours of play (that's about 4 years) he is most probably doing something wrong. He would be off his normal result by at least 3 SD!
I agree that many more hours are needed to get a meaningful figure for the win rate.
Francis Salmon
