There are three areas of discussion in this chapter: Analyzing player results for shared-bankroll teams, a few simple big-player sims, and practice for gorilla-style team play.
When operating a “shared bankroll” team, there exists an obvious problem in trusting team members to play as they should and accurately report results. It is one thing to evaluate a person’s skills in a test, and another to expect that person to play according to team rules in a casino. However, it is not always practical to follow team members around and observe their play.
|
Trial |
Payoff |
|
1 |
4.56 |
|
2 |
-25.52 |
|
3 |
39.45 |
|
4 |
-15.49 |
|
5 |
-23.31 |
|
6 |
24.99 |
|
7 |
4.43 |
|
8 |
42.84 |
|
9 |
-10.29 |
|
10 |
66.41 |
|
11 |
24.22 |
|
12 |
-13.67 |
|
13 |
37.89 |
|
14 |
-17.19 |
|
15 |
-1.04 |
|
X_avg |
9.22 |
|
X_sd |
28.33 |
|
Table 12.2 |
|
Dr. Richard Reid is a retired mathematics professor who created the excellent site www.bjmath.com. He also wrote an eBook titled Dynamic Blackjack that is unfortunately no longer in print. (Is an eBook ever in print?) Dynamic Blackjack included a fascinating chapter on examining team-member results and looking for signals that pointed to problems. As the article is unique, and no longer available, with Richard’s gracious permission I have included an 11-page excerpt here. After the excerpt, I will also discuss free software that I put together that uses the discussed procedures.
The table that you see at the right is from an earlier page in his book and is a sample set of results from 15 sims using SBA, a simulator. Each sim included 48 rounds per shoe over an 8- shoe cycle and will be used to illustrate the math.
As we know, there is always substantial variation in results. The point of the procedure explained in the excerpt is to determine if there are abnormal variations that may signal problems. If so, we then attempt to find a reason.
© 2009 Norman Wattenberger
