If a $2.00 jacks or better 9/6 game was played at 800 hands per hour
with perfect play, what would this play be worth per hour with a .60
cashback? Would a $35,000.00 bankroll be enough?
$2.00 jacks or better
I get $11.20/hour not counting taxes, tips, etc.
"Enough" depends on what you're willing to accept as your risk of
losing it all but the answer is likely "no".
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "hartbarger11" <mhart@...> wrote:
If a $2.00 jacks or better 9/6 game was played at 800 hands per hour
with perfect play, what would this play be worth per hour with a .60
cashback? Would a $35,000.00 bankroll be enough?
Using the Risk of Ruin feature in "Video Poker for Winners," it says
there is a 58.668% chance of ruin with these parameters. If you use
Dunbar's Risk Analyzer you'll get a very similar --- not identical ---
number as the two programs round differently. This Risk of Ruin assumes
you'll be playing FOREVER --- i.e. 200 hours a week for the next
century. If you're "only" going to be playing this situation for a
million hands or less, your chance of going broke will be less than
this. But an "over 50% chance" of losing your entire nut should
definitely give you pause.
Also I challenge your "perfect play" assumption over time. A lot of us
KNOW this game perfectly. That's a whole lot different from PLAYING it
perfectly consistently. As hard as I try to play perfectly all of the
time, I certainly make inadvertant mistakes while playing (or writing,
for that matter) periodically. Since this game returns "only" 100.144%,
your edge is very small and mistakes can reduce this significantly.
Another way to phrase this is let's assume you make 0.02% in errors ---
for whatever reason. On this game, it's about 7% of your overall edge.
Had you been playing FPDW with a 0.35% slot club (as is available at the
Palms --- with a progressive --- through Sunday --- good luck at getting
a seat), this level of error would reduce your overall edge by less than
2%. Big difference.
The lower your overall edge is, the more important perfect play is.
Bob Dancer
For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "hartbarger11" <mhart@...> wrote:
If a $2.00 jacks or better 9/6 game was played at 800 hands per hour
with perfect play, what would this play be worth per hour with a .60
cashback? Would a $35,000.00 bankroll be enough?
EV=(-0.5)+(0.6)=0.1 percent (based on "perfect" JOB play, returning
99.5 percent)
coin-in= 800 hands/hr X $10/hand = $8000/hr
Expected return= EV x coin-in
Expected return= 0.1 x 8000= $8/hr
You could do just as well playing FPDW for quarters, and earn McWages
that way. I'll leave it up to others to give you the precise variance
figures and the risk of ruin for your proposed bankroll, but let me
just note that I personally consider "five royals" to be a MINIMAL
long-term bankroll for ANY game. So I would consider $35K to be barely
adequate.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "hartbarger11" <mhart@...> wrote:
If a $2.00 jacks or better 9/6 game was played at 800 hands per hour
with perfect play, what would this play be worth per hour with a .60
cashback? Would a $35,000.00 bankroll be enough?
>
> If a $2.00 jacks or better 9/6 game was played at 800 hands per
hour
> with perfect play, what would this play be worth per hour with
a .60
> cashback? Would a $35,000.00 bankroll be enough?
>Using the Risk of Ruin feature in "Video Poker for Winners," it
says
there is a 58.668% chance of ruin with these parameters. If you use
Dunbar's Risk Analyzer you'll get a very similar --- not
identical ---
number as the two programs round differently. This Risk of Ruin
assumes
you'll be playing FOREVER --- i.e. 200 hours a week for the next
century. If you're "only" going to be playing this situation for a
million hands or less, your chance of going broke will be less than
this. But an "over 50% chance" of losing your entire nut should
definitely give you pause.Also I challenge your "perfect play" assumption over time. A lot
of us
KNOW this game perfectly. That's a whole lot different from
PLAYING it
perfectly consistently. As hard as I try to play perfectly all of
the
time, I certainly make inadvertant mistakes while playing (or
writing,
for that matter) periodically. Since this game returns "only"
100.144%,
your edge is very small and mistakes can reduce this significantly.
Another way to phrase this is let's assume you make 0.02% in
errors ---
for whatever reason. On this game, it's about 7% of your overall
edge.
Had you been playing FPDW with a 0.35% slot club (as is available
at the
Palms --- with a progressive --- through Sunday --- good luck at
getting
a seat), this level of error would reduce your overall edge by
less than
2%. Big difference.
The lower your overall edge is, the more important perfect play is.
Bob Dancer
As Bob mentioned, the RoR is dependent upon how long you envision
your proposed $35,000 bankroll lasting. If you want to play
forever, your RoR under the conditions you specified is 58.7%. If
you want to play "just" a million hands, your RoR would be 32%. If
you want to play 100,000 hands (125 hrs at your proposed 800
hands/hr), your chance of going broke would be very close to 0%.
I also agree with Bob that it's very important to take errors into
account. Players routinely overestimate their EV and underestimate
their risk by ignoring the inevitability of play errors. If you
make one error every 1000 hands, and that error costs you 1/4 of a
bet, then that's $1.25/hr in errors for your $2 JOB game. (a rather
optimistic figure, IMO) Putting that error rate into Dunbar's Risk
Analyzer, the longterm RoR rises to 62.3% (from 58.7%). Add in a
$40 tip on your $8000 royal flush, and DRA-VP says the RoR rises to
64.4%.
Under those conditions ($1.25/hr error and $40 tip for RF), here are
some longterm bankroll requirements for the $2 JOB with 0.6%
cashback:
% RoR, Bankroll
25%, 110,400
20%, 128,150
15%, 151,050
10%, 183,300
5%, 238,500
2%, 311,450
1%, 366,600
0.5%, 421,800
0.1%, 549,900
Good luck!
--Dunbar
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bdancer@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "hartbarger11" <mhart@> wrote:
Find another play. This one sux. $1600 an hour in wager times .0014
equals $2.24 an hour. Don't put your bankroll on the line for this
kind of chump change.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "hartbarger11" <mhart@...> wrote:
If a $2.00 jacks or better 9/6 game was played at 800 hands per hour
with perfect play, what would this play be worth per hour with a .60
cashback? Would a $35,000.00 bankroll be enough?
While I completely agree with your conclusion, mickey, the hourly is
$8000/hr in wagers (assuming the $2 game is 5-coin). So the theo win
is about $11/hr. BEFORE errors and tips.
--Dunbar
>
> If a $2.00 jacks or better 9/6 game was played at 800 hands per
hour
> with perfect play, what would this play be worth per hour with
a .60
> cashback? Would a $35,000.00 bankroll be enough?
>
Find another play. This one sux. $1600 an hour in wager
times .0014
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "hartbarger11" <mhart@> wrote:
equals $2.24 an hour. Don't put your bankroll on the line for this
kind of chump change.
I go tit mixed up. You're betting $10 a hand not $2. Still it's a
crappy play. An $8000 wager per hour with a theortical of $11 is
pretty bad. If it's a vacation thing or other benefits are involved,
fine. But just as a straight up play it's no good. Find a better
invetment.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "hartbarger11" <mhart@...> wrote:
If a $2.00 jacks or better 9/6 game was played at 800 hands per hour
with perfect play, what would this play be worth per hour with a .60
cashback? Would a $35,000.00 bankroll be enough?
You're right. My alzheimer's has been kicking in today. I assumed a
$2 bet.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dunbar_dra" <h_dunbar@...> wrote:
While I completely agree with your conclusion, mickey, the hourly is
$8000/hr in wagers (assuming the $2 game is 5-coin). So the theo win
is about $11/hr. BEFORE errors and tips.--Dunbar
>
> While I completely agree with your conclusion, mickey, the
hourly is
> $8000/hr in wagers (assuming the $2 game is 5-coin). So the
theo win
> is about $11/hr. BEFORE errors and tips.
>
> --Dunbar
>
>
You're right. My alzheimer's has been kicking in today. I
assumed a
$2 bet.
I've been gobbling blueberries to keep my Alzheimer's at bay!
--Dunbar
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dunbar_dra" <h_dunbar@> wrote:
Using the NO table, there is an 84% chance of being ahead after
3,425,000 games of 9/6JB (with .6% CB, and ignoring errors and the RF
tip). The RoR would be less than o.1% per the above. Too bad you
can't play FPDW since it takes only 140,000 games to have the same 84%
chance of being ahead.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dunbar_dra" <h_dunbar@...> wrote:
Under those conditions ($1.25/hr error and $40 tip for RF), here are
some longterm bankroll requirements for the $2 JOB with 0.6%
cashback:% RoR, Bankroll
25%, 110,400
20%, 128,150
15%, 151,050
10%, 183,300
5%, 238,500
2%, 311,450
1%, 366,600
0.5%, 421,800
0.1%, 549,900Good luck!
--Dunbar
> Under those conditions ($1.25/hr error and $40 tip for RF), here
are
> some longterm bankroll requirements for the $2 JOB with 0.6%
> cashback:
>
> % RoR, Bankroll
> 25%, 110,400
> 20%, 128,150
> 15%, 151,050
> 10%, 183,300
> 5%, 238,500
> 2%, 311,450
> 1%, 366,600
> 0.5%, 421,800
> 0.1%, 549,900
>
> Good luck!
>
> --Dunbar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Using the NO table, there is an 84% chance of being ahead after
3,425,000 games of 9/6JB (with .6% CB, and ignoring errors and the
RF
tip). The RoR would be less than o.1% per the above. Too bad you
can't play FPDW since it takes only 140,000 games to have the same
84%
chance of being ahead.
Great point, but it's even worse than you said. I think you made a
typo--NO for 9/6 JOB with 0.6% CB is 9,425,000. At 800 hands/hr you
would still have a 1/6 chance of being behind after 11,700 hours of
play! With errors and/or tipping, it would be even more grim.
--Dunbar
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dunbar_dra" <h_dunbar@> wrote:
Thanks for the correction ... that first digit was a 9, not a 3. I
find it hard to read some of the NO numbers on my monitor. Anyway,
the NO table is another useful way to evaluate this play, especially
in terms of alternative games.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dunbar_dra" <h_dunbar@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dunbar_dra" <h_dunbar@> wrote:
> > Under those conditions ($1.25/hr error and $40 tip for RF), here
are
> > some longterm bankroll requirements for the $2 JOB with 0.6%
> > cashback:
> >
> > % RoR, Bankroll
> > 25%, 110,400
> > 20%, 128,150
> > 15%, 151,050
> > 10%, 183,300
> > 5%, 238,500
> > 2%, 311,450
> > 1%, 366,600
> > 0.5%, 421,800
> > 0.1%, 549,900
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> > --Dunbar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Using the NO table, there is an 84% chance of being ahead after
> 3,425,000 games of 9/6JB (with .6% CB, and ignoring errors and the
RF
> tip). The RoR would be less than o.1% per the above. Too bad you
> can't play FPDW since it takes only 140,000 games to have the same
84%
> chance of being ahead.Great point, but it's even worse than you said. I think you made a
typo--NO for 9/6 JOB with 0.6% CB is 9,425,000. At 800 hands/hr you
would still have a 1/6 chance of being behind after 11,700 hours of
play! With errors and/or tipping, it would be even more grim.--Dunbar