If you play a machine with a variance of 30, a payback of 101% and no CB, will you see bigger swings in the bankroll than if you play a machine with a variance of 30, a payback of 99% and 2% CB? My intuition says yes, but the TomSki index for each would (I think) be the same.
Thanks
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Gene Frohbieter wrote:
If you pay a machine with a variance of 30, a payback of 101% and no
CB, will you see bigger swings in the bankroll than if you play a
machine with a variance of 30, a payback of 99% and 2% CB? My
intuition says yes, but the TomSki index for each would (I think) be
the same.
I get where you're coming from. Gut sense would suggest that given
two games with equal total ER and variance, the less riskier (smaller
bankroll swings) would be the one for which a greater portion of the
return is guaranteed.
However, keep in mind that variance is a measure of the extent to
which actual results may vary from expected return. If you simply
increase the return of a game with more cashback, you do nothing to
effect the variability of play against the adjusted ER and the same
play swings will be anticipated.
Bottom line, both games present the player with equivalent risk.
Note, however, it would be a different situation if you were to start
with the 101% game, reduce the return to 99% through a paytable cut,
and then restore the 2% via cashback. In this case game variance is
clearly cut - a consequence whenever you reduce pays on winning hands.
The effect here is to replace a portion of the variable return of the
game with a fixed return (cb), cutting risk accordingly.
(And you're on target with the expectation that TSI of both games
would be identical.)
- Harry