Variance by itself is a poor indicator of what results to expect, whether short or long term. While the variance of 10/7 DB is not much greater than FPDW, the player advantage is only 1/5 as great (0.15% vs. 0.75%).
A better indicator for both recreational and serious non-pro players is the Attractiveness Quotient (AQ), calculated as player advantage times 1000 and divided by the Standard Deviation. The SD is the square root of the Variance.
The AQ for FPDW is 150, while the AQ for FPDB is only 32. Adding a 0.25% slow club cash rebate, the AQ for FPDW becomes 199 while the AQ for FPDB rises only to 79.
As far as I'm concerned DB is a good game only for gamblers or for very serious $1 players with a good size bankroll.
Dan
ยทยทยท
"testpro" <testpro@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Both games have close to the same variance. However, keep in mind
that these are single point numbers describing the overall paytables
and long-term game experience.I'm not getting it. If variance tells me the size of the swing in my
bankroll, they are pretty similar I would guess that after 3000 hands
I am not more likely to be up (or down) on one game more than the
other. If however one of the games had twice the variance of the
other, it would appear to me to be more likely to have a more extreme
result after 3000 hands. Do simplistically I was thinking the more
similar the variance, the more similarity in the way each game would
treat my bankroll.
--
Dan Paymar, author of the book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor and Publisher of "Video Poker Times" newsletter
Web site at http://www.OptimumPlay.com
"Chance favors the prepared mind."
-- Louis Pasteur