vpFREE2 Forums

$5 Vp Bankroll

#1

Dick Kalagher wrote:
This discussion seems to assume there is some bankroll that guarantees you
will not lose. If we assume a bankroll corresponding to a 5% risk of ruin,
1 our of 20 people who try will lose all their money. And if you start off
unlucky and lose a significant portion of your bankroll, your risk of ruin
goes up. Even a positive game is still gambling and may result in a loss of
your bankroll.

Well, theoretically, there's no such thing as zero Risk of Ruin, but theory assumes playing forever or until your bankroll is lost. It is possible, however, to have such a large bankroll that it's impossible to lose it all at the game you're playing.

For example, should Bill Gates for some strange reason decide to play video poker, he could play a $100 machine (the biggest I've ever seen or heard of) at 800 hands per (actually an impossible rate due to the time it takes to feed tokens or $100 bills), eight hours a day, 365 days a year, and never hit a single payoff, yet his Risk of Ruin would still be zero because he couldn't lose his entire current bankroll if he continued playing at that rate past the age of 100.

Dan

···

--

Dan Paymar, author of the book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor and Publisher of "Video Poker Times" newsletter
Web site at www.vegasplayer.com/vp

#2

Well, theoretically, there's no such thing as zero Risk of Ruin, but
theory assumes playing forever or until your bankroll is lost. It is
possible, however, to have such a large bankroll that it's impossible
to lose it all at the game you're playing.

If your bankroll is this large, you probably would not be too interested in
playing for profit.

···

From: "Dan" <vptimes@lvcm.com>

#3

Well, theoretically, there's no such thing as zero Risk of Ruin,

but

theory assumes playing forever or until your bankroll is lost. It

is

possible, however, to have such a large bankroll that it's

impossible

to lose it all at the game you're playing.

According to my understanding of risk of ruin, (by the way my math
skills sucketh), theory states there is a zero risk of ruin. How is
this possible: Don't play!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Dan <vptimes@l...> wrote:

#4

Well, theoretically, there's no such thing as zero Risk of Ruin, but
theory assumes playing forever or until your bankroll is lost. It is
possible, however, to have such a large bankroll that it's impossible
to lose it all at the game you're playing.

If your bankroll is this large, you probably would not be too interested

in

playing for profit.

  Profit? No.
      Winning? Yes.

  It turns out that they are measured identically, but the
motivation for each is quite different.

  Even the hopeless players are there to win, they just don't
know that they are big underdogs (or they don't care).

  Several years ago, Bill Gates was seen playing in a 3-6 holdem
game. Personally, if I were in his situation, that is probably where
I would play too. The games are easier and the atmosphere is much
more relaxed. Sure, he could play 100-200 and blow off a couple racks
and not even care, but those games are not nearly as fun. Of course,
if he gets to the point where he enjoys the idea of competing against
the best, then stepping up makes sense.

  QZ

···

From: "Dan" <vptimes@lvcm.com>

#5

<<<
According to my understanding of risk of ruin, (by the way my math
skills sucketh), theory states there is a zero risk of ruin. How is
this possible: Don't play!

  No. The risk of ruin idea assumes infinite play.

  Risk of ruin basically is a measure of the liklihood
of ever dropping a given amount below your current bankroll.
Once you fall that far, you have achieved that particular
ruin. Of course, you hopefully have more BR and will
recover. ROR does not concern itself with that. It only
gives the probability of falling that far from a starting
point. Of course, most of the times you do reach the given
low point, it will happen quickly. This is because you
will very often start out winning. Once that happens, your
ROR to that place changes, since you now have a bigger
cushion.

  So, if you have a $10,000 BR and play FPDW with 0.5%
cashback, there is a 5% chance that you will, at some point,
fall to a bankroll of $10,000 - $3,222 = $6,778.

  It is important to note that doubling the bankroll
will square the risk of ruin. In this example, you
have 0.05 * 0.05 = .0025 -> 0.25% chance of falling
to a bankroll of 10,000 - ( 2 * 3222 ) = 3,556.

  This exponential idea applies to all mutiples of
you bankroll. Since 10K is approximately 3,222 tripled,
we have a risk of ruin of 5% cubed. This is 0.0125%, just
over 1 in 10,000.

  This effect is why it is realistic to refer to
these things as virtual certainties when one has a
sufficient bankroll.

  Here is one way to look at it. You are more
likely to get killed by a natural disaster than to
lose a $30,000 bankroll playing FPDW with 0.5% CB.
(Assuming few errors and an honest game).

  QZ

#6

"fordscks " wrote:

>
> Well, theoretically, there's no such thing as zero Risk of Ruin,
but
> theory assumes playing forever or until your bankroll is lost. It
is
> possible, however, to have such a large bankroll that it's
impossible
> to lose it all at the game you're playing.

According to my understanding of risk of ruin, (by the way my math
skills sucketh), theory states there is a zero risk of ruin. How is
this possible: Don't play!

A corollary from Robert Heinlein (as Lazarus Long): "Sure, the game is
rigged. But if you don't play, you can't win."

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Dan <vptimes@l...> wrote:

--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

#7

Then Quadzilla gave a long-winded response. If the game or
opportunity has negative ev - then under the risk of ruin theory, an
advantage player doesn't play.

End of discussion. I'm very sorry to have bought this issue up.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Quad Zilla" <quadzilla666@e...> wrote:

  No. The risk of ruin idea assumes infinite play.

#8

Since no one responded to this, I just had to ask. Bill, some time ago when
you, as an experienced gambler in Tunica, asked what a line pass was, I was
a little surprised. Around the same time you, an admitted owner of Masque
Video Poker software for years, asked what EV stood for. I admit I was
somewhat amazed. Now you are asking who Bill Gates is. Now I know you are
familiar with the smile face emoticon as you have used them in other posts.
I am assuming that you know that a bracketed g indicates a grin. You did not
use either of those symbols in this post. Since the computer you are using
to post with more than likely has software loaded into it that employees of
Mr. Gates had a hand in manufacturing, are you seriously asking who he is?
My inquiring mind just has to know. Thanks.
                                                             Nudge

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Velek" <billvelek@alliancecable.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: $5 Vp Bankroll

Who is Bill Gates? Is he a professional gambler? Is he related to Bob
Dancer?
Cheers.
Bill Velek