vpFREE2 Forums

Bankroll question

#1

Yesterday I passed on playing a game with a substantial progressive, largely because I wasn't confident in the strategy and had other plans with family.

After I got home I ran the numbers and it was paying 103.42% with a variance of 233.05. Plus a tiny amount of comps I'm sure.

It's a single-line quarter machine. What sort of bankroll would be needed to feel comfortable playing it? $25-30 an hour in EV is nothing to sneeze at for most players, but that variance is awfully high.

Thanks in advance.

#2

Kelly bankroll would be over approximately $1.25 x 233.05 / .0342 = $8,518. If your bankroll was less or became less after some play you would have to stop and find another more suitable play for your bankroll. Don't forget to include your play error rate in your edge calculation, the computer perfect edge calculated by the software programs is unrealistic, even Bob Dancer has admitted to making play mistakes in the highly distracting casino environment. Unless you think it is likely you will be playing this progressive on a regular basis, the min-cost-royal approach is probably a more realistic way to go at it in the short term. That includes min-cost-royal strategy and the cost of the royal gives you a sense of the average bankroll required for one royal cycle. You have to know the full paytable to derive both. You also have to decide whether or not you want to use a player tracking card. Sure, there might be some benefit to using a tracking card, though the trend seems to be less and less, but there is definitely a serious downside to using one, and casinos in general do not like progressive players. If you have a good rating already at a casino, you could ruin it with just one play on a progressive machine, even if you lost and never hit a progressive. It's short sighted, eventually some casino will put in a ton of progressives and make a killing, but in general casinos do not like progressives because it means somebody is going to get lucky and win and casinos do not like winners, not even one. As long as the base game plus the meter movement is less than 100%, the casino always makes money, especially when the progressives go on a runner to really high levels (which means the progressive hasn't been hit in a while). Many of the slot progressives are payed by IGT now, IGT knows progressives, casinos hate them even though they could make money from them. And one more note, if you really plan on seriously playing progressives, buy Frank's book on the subject at:

progressivevp.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

Thanks for the detailed answer. My bankroll would be more than adequate, but that of the friend I would have passed it along to might not.

It's a Deuces Joker machine, and though I've seen the five wild paying over $5000 a few times before, I hadn't seen it do so when the natural royal was also over $2000 as it was on Sunday. It's not a game I "enjoy", and I still have a comfortable day job. So I'll stick to games I do, for now. :slight_smile:

···

On Jan 20, 2015, at 12:41 PM, "nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Kelly bankroll would be over approximately $1.25 x 233.05 / .0342 = $8,518. If your bankroll was less or became less after some play you would have to stop and find another more suitable play for your bankroll. Don't forget to include your play error rate in your edge calculation, the computer perfect edge calculated by the software programs is unrealistic, even Bob Dancer has admitted to making play mistakes in the highly distracting casino environment. Unless you think it is likely you will be playing this progressive on a regular basis, the min-cost-royal approach is probably a more realistic way to go at it in the short term. That includes min-cost-royal strategy and the cost of the royal gives you a sense of the average bankroll required for one royal cycle. You have to know the full paytable to derive both. You also have to decide whether or not you want to use a player tracking card. Sure, there might be some benefit to using a tracking card, though the trend seems to be less and less, but there is definitely a serious downside to using one, and casinos in general do not like progressive players. If you have a good rating already at a casino, you could ruin it with just one play on a progressive machine, even if you lost and never hit a progressive. It's short sighted, eventually some casino will put in a ton of progressives and make a killing, but in general casinos do not like progressives because it means somebody is going to get lucky and win and casinos do not like winners, not even one. As long as the base game plus the meter movement is less than 100%, the casino always makes money, especially when the progressives go on a runner to really high levels (which means the progressive hasn't been hit in a while). Many of the slot progressives are payed by IGT now, IGT knows progressives, casinos hate them even though they could make money from them. And one more note, if you really plan on seriously playing progressives, buy Frank's book on the subject at:

progressivevp.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4

Just to clarify noti's excellent feedback, a kelly bankroll defines a minimum bankroll threshold. Many agree that 2 x kelly represents an "adequate" bankroll ($17k in this instance).

---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <clementiyn@...> wrote :

Thanks for the detailed answer. My bankroll would be more than adequate, but that of the friend I would have passed it along to might not.

It's a Deuces Joker machine, and though I've seen the five wild paying over $5000 a few times before, I hadn't seen it do so when the natural royal was also over $2000 as it was on Sunday. It's not a game I "enjoy", and I still have a comfortable day job. So I'll stick to games I do, for now. :slight_smile:

···

On Jan 20, 2015, at 12:41 PM, "nightoftheiguana2000@… mailto:nightoftheiguana2000@… [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com mailto:vpF…@…com> wrote:

>
> Kelly bankroll would be over approximately $1.25 x 233.05 / .0342 = $8,518. If your bankroll was less or became less after some play you would have to stop and find another more suitable play for your bankroll. Don't forget to include your play error rate in your edge calculation, the computer perfect edge calculated by the software programs is unrealistic, even Bob Dancer has admitted to making play mistakes in the highly distracting casino environment. Unless you think it is likely you will be playing this progressive on a regular basis, the min-cost-royal approach is probably a more realistic way to go at it in the short term. That includes min-cost-royal strategy and the cost of the royal gives you a sense of the average bankroll required for one royal cycle. You have to know the full paytable to derive both. You also have to decide whether or not you want to use a player tracking card. Sure, there might be some benefit to using a tracking card, though the trend seems to be less and less, but there is definitely a serious downside to using one, and casinos in general do not like progressive players. If you have a good rating already at a casino, you could ruin it with just one play on a progressive machine, even if you lost and never hit a progressive. It's short sighted, eventually some casino will put in a ton of progressives and make a killing, but in general casinos do not like progressives because it means somebody is going to get lucky and win and casinos do not like winners, not even one. As long as the base game plus the meter movement is less than 100%, the casino always makes money, especially when the progressives go on a runner to really high levels (which means the progressive hasn't been hit in a while). Many of the slot progressives are payed by IGT now, IGT knows progressives, casinos hate them even though they could make money from them. And one more note, if you really plan on seriously playing progressives, buy Frank's book on the subject at:
>
> progressivevp.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#5

vp_wiz wrote: "Just to clarify noti's excellent feedback, a kelly bankroll defines a minimum bankroll threshold. Many agree that 2 x kelly represents an "adequate" bankroll ($17k in this instance)."

That'd be my basic approach to any gamble or "investment". If your current bankroll is at least double Kelly (2 x betsize x variance / edge) then start. If you run bad, unlucky or maybe you miscalculated your true edge, and your bankroll shrinks to single Kelly, stop and start scouting for a gamble that is at least double Kelly for your current bankroll. Scouting is free, enjoy the display of the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat all around you. Don't start gambling again unless you find something that is at least double Kelly. There's about a 10% chance of bankroll shrinkage from a double Kelly bankroll to a single Kelly bankroll due to luck alone, so there's no need to worry about this strategy not being aggressive enough. Mathematically, you can't be more agressive in seeking bankroll growth than Kelly, outside of the Kelly criterion is just less bankroll growth and more risk, good luck if that's your choice.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]