Or are you meaning the amount of hands needed to have your hands result to be reliable to +/- 0.1% to your expected accuracy? If that's the case, it's a lot more than 2000 hands.

I think 2k hands is a good start generally speaking though. I get bored fast myself and rarely practice more than 400 hands at a time.

4Quote:bigfoot66Go ahead and throw out a guess..

+- z * sqrt{ p (1-p) / n }

where z is based on the level of confidence you want. So let's say you want to 95% confident you have your score (use z=1.96) and your best play score is 99%. Then we solve the following for n:

0.001 = 1.96 * sqrt { .99 * 0.01 / n }

I get 38032 hands. Note that this formula depends on your best play score. So if you make the best play 99.5% of the time, and want to confirm that to within 0.1%, with 95% confidence, you need only 19111 hands.

Another way to look at is is suppose you had a deck with 1000 cards, where most are Red but (say a friend) has put 5 Black cards in the deck. Your aim is to determine how many Black cards your friend put in.

You shuffle the cards and pick one to see whether it is Red or Black. Repeat this many times to get an idea - how many times do you need to do it to get an accurate estimate.

If you do it 2000 times then you can see your estimate isn't that close and 90% it's between 2.5 and 7.5.

Total Black | Your Est | Pr | |
---|---|---|---|

0 | 0.0 | .000 044 | |

1 | 0.5 | .000 445 | |

2 | 1.0 | .002 235 | |

3 | 1.5 | .007 480 | |

4 | 2.0 | .018 765 | |

5 | 2.5 | .037 644 | < |

6 | 3.0 | .062 897 | < |

7 | 3.5 | .090 034 | < |

8 | 4.0 | .112 712 | < |

9 | 4.5 | .125 361 | < |

10 | 5.0 | .125 424 | < |

11 | 5.5 | .114 022 | < |

12 | 6.0 | .094 970 | < |

13 | 6.5 | .072 981 | < |

14 | 7.0 | .052 051 | < |

15 | 7.5 | .034 631 | < |

16 | 8.0 | .021 590 | |

17 | 8.5 | .012 662 | |

18 | 9.0 | .007 009 | |

19 | 9.5 | .003 674 | |

20 | 10.0 | .001 829 |

whereas with 20000, you can be 90% confident of being between 4.2 and 5.8...

Total Black | Your Est | Pr |
---|---|---|

84 | 4.20 | .011 176 |

85 | 4.25 | .013 159 |

86 | 4.30 | .015 313 |

87 | 4.35 | .017 613 |

88 | 4.40 | .020 028 |

89 | 4.45 | .022 517 |

90 | 4.50 | .025 033 |

91 | 4.55 | .027 522 |

92 | 4.60 | .029 929 |

93 | 4.65 | .032 194 |

94 | 4.70 | .034 261 |

95 | 4.75 | .036 076 |

96 | 4.80 | .037 588 |

97 | 4.85 | .038 758 |

98 | 4.90 | .039 555 |

99 | 4.95 | .039 959 |

100 | 5.00 | .039 961 |

101 | 5.05 | .039 565 |

102 | 5.10 | .038 788 |

103 | 5.15 | .037 654 |

104 | 5.20 | .036 200 |

105 | 5.25 | .034 470 |

106 | 5.30 | .032 510 |

107 | 5.35 | .030 374 |

108 | 5.40 | .028 115 |

109 | 5.45 | .025 783 |

110 | 5.50 | .023 428 |

111 | 5.55 | .021 096 |

112 | 5.60 | .018 825 |

113 | 5.65 | .016 649 |

114 | 5.70 | .014 595 |

115 | 5.75 | .012 683 |

116 | 5.80 | .010 925 |

Quote:bigfoot66What number of hands do you think I need to play to get a good idea of my accuracy? My gut says I would be there in about 2000 hands, what say you? To be specific, I am looking for the "% of Best Play" number to be reasonably accurate, say within a tenth of a percent.

If you play the majority of hands right, errors are rare events (say at rate p). You need to play long (1/p) to catch an error, and then you need even longer to estimate their frequency.

So you play 1/p hands for each error you want to catch. This is Poisson statistics. The Variance of errors will be the number of errors you expect to do. Hence in order to get any reasonable error rate, you need your standard deviation to be your expected error rate (or better, way smaller).

With variance = stddev^2 I would guess you need to play 1/p^2 hands to get any reasonable result.

If your aim is 99.9% accuracy, p=0.001. You would need to play a *million* hands.

i say it first depends on the game playedQuote:bigfoot66Programs like the Wizard's VP application or WinPoker will keep running statistical information about how accurately you play hands. What number of hands do you think I need to play to get a good idea of my accuracy?

JOB vs TDB should have different error rates i would thinks so

and then on how difficult the hand is to play

if every hand was a dealt Royal for example - no errors

this is from Video Poker for Winners

"The Hands tab tells you how many hands you've played, breaking them down into Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced.

These are somewhat arbitrary designations

based on

how big the difference is between the best play and the second-best play. It also gives your overall score in a percentage."

ok

maybe not so good a metric

there is more

"The Return tab is the most valuable information presented in the Overall Play window.

It compares the expected value in coins from your actual plays,

designated by Your Return,

to the expected value of the perfect play, designated by Best Return.

The difference between the two is shown in the Cost In Coins field. Return % indicates your overall accuracy of play."

that sounds much better to me

the number of hands to play?

more is better?

IS more better?

play with a strategy card for the game and the number of hands to play should be meaningless

so I would think

Sally

The sample spaced is small enough (134459 unique starting hands, modulo suit permutations) that "more is better" runs into the practical limitation of exhausting the cycle.Quote:mustangsally

more is better?

IS more better?

Quote:champ724i hope you don't rack your brain trying to play perfect video poker. it is a machine and it does have a payout setting in it. if you are playin deuces wild and throw away a deuce you won't get 4 deuces. play the machine with some intelligence and if its ready to hit a rf or 4 deuces it'll give it to ya if its not ready your not gettin it no matter how well you play.

So this only applies to those Class II(?) machines. Real video poker doesn't work this way.