Sorry, but that's not a very good approximation. For example, let's compare two popular games that are over 100% payback, full pay Deuces Wild, and full pay All American. I'll assume we start with a bankroll of 10,000 unit bets and play perfect strategy on both games.
DW 100.762% variance = 25.9 RoR = 0.1487%
AA 100.722% variance = 26.8 RoR = 0.2765%
Thus, even though the variance for All American is only slightly greater than for Deuces Wild, and the payback is very close, the Risk of Ruin is more nearly twice as great. For Joker Wild (kings) the RoR is more than three times that of Deuces Wild even though the variance is less than for All American at 26.2.
As far as I know, the Sorokin formula is the only way to get a reasonable handle on Risk of Ruin.
Dan
ยทยทยท
Brian (bjaygold@aol.com) wrote:
I believe that the variance number can be used "directly" when calculating ROR (risk of ruin) bankrolls. That is, ROR bankroll is directly proportional to
variance. Is this not so? If it is so, that seems to be a pretty useful way
to use the variance number--I have used it that way for many years.
--
Dan Paymar
Author of best selling book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor/Publisher of VP newsletter "Video Poker Times"
Developer of VP analysis/trainer software "Optimum Video Poker"
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com
"Chance favors the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur