Sphboc2003, what are you trying to prove or
disprove with your calculation of the adjusted
return statistic, "the percentage return which
would have been obtained had zero low-frequency
hands been received"? Are you just curious or
looking for something else?
Primary intent is to develop a realistic evaluation of quality of
play, over a "fairly low" number of hands.
Ex: Playing 1000 hands of DB 10/7, we "should" receive .02 Royals,
and 2.33 Fours/Straight Flushes. If we play perfectly, but receive
NONE of these, we should expect only an 83% return of coin-in; a loss
of 850 coins.
If we play another 1000 hands, and DO receive one Royal (but no
Fours/Straight flushes), we should expect to win 3150 coins. The
difference in results is due almost entirely to "chance".
Subtraction of the Royal, from results of the latter session, yields
an "adjusted return" of around 83%; similar to that of the first
session.
This implicitly assumes that, over some 1000 hands, we will most
likely receive the "expected" number of FH/lesser paying hands.
Assuming perfect play, our "efficiency", over hands which we are not
specifically tracking, should be very close to 100%. Undisputed that
it's a "judgment call" whether or not to track Full Houses, and
that "some sort of case" could be made for tracking Flushes and
Straights.
In any event, "efficiency"--assuming perfect play--should be very
close to 100%.
Just received Jean Scott and Marissa Chien's "Tax
Help for the Frugal Gambler" today. As Jean said
it contains a sample of a basic gambling log,
first one created by hand and then the same
information transferred to a computer
spreadsheet. I haven't started to read the book
yet, but it seems very well done.
I've ordered (but not yet received) this. In view of Jean's prior
publications, I expect that it will be well worth reading . .
ยทยทยท
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, H Rumpole <h_rumpole_ii@y...> wrote: