Hello all,
I am aware of the importance of utilizing sufficient sample sizes when touting the effectiveness of a BJ strategy or, dare I say, 'system.'
However, upon a cursory search in Blackjack texts or websites, I find limited information regarding the Central Limit Theorem. For example, when discussing her/his experiences with an online Blackjack gambling website, someone may explain the meaning of 2 standard deviations uder the Bell Curve with their sample of 200 or so hands. But, isn't such a small sample size inappropriate to utilize when discussing dispersion? I thought one of the assumptions, which are important, that must be met before applying the Central Limit Theorem was adequate (i.e., very large) sample size.
Thus, is it not inaccurate for me to give credence to a strategy using, say, 125 hands, that yields a win rate represented by a standard deviation of, say, 2.7? As such, are such results, for example, totally meaningless, or 'just' mostly meaningless until replication with a much larger sample size and perhaps independent review?
Or, is there enough validity 'built in' to the "n" component of the standard deviation formula (i.e., the square root of "n" hands) to account for small sample sizes?
Thank you in advance for your attention to this post!
