Bankroll

[nightoftheiguana2000]

wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" > All depends
how you define "long term".
>
> If you define long term as the point at which you have at least an
84%
> chance of winning, that is N0, which equals (approximately)
> variance/(er-1+cashback)^2 hands. (260,000 hands for FPDW +0.25%cb)
>
> If you define long term as the point at which a standard deviation is
> +/- 10% of the average return, that is 100 times N0.
>
> The first definition is probably more useful.

You have probably covered this before, but could you elaborate as to
why this (NO) is a better definition of long term.

More useful, because it is possible to play N0 hands in a year,
whereas 100 times N0 would take many years.

Also in the second statement( 10% if average return) does that mean
+/- 10% of ER = one SD? or 10% of coin in or what?

The standard distribution is 10% of the average return.

  Also what is
unique about +/- 10% of average return?

Nothing in particular.

Could it not be any predetermined value, acceptable to the person
doing the defining ?

That's right.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>

[deuceswild1000]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" > All

depends

> how you define "long term".
> >
> > If you define long term as the point at which you have at

least an

> 84%
> > chance of winning, that is N0, which equals (approximately)
> > variance/(er-1+cashback)^2 hands. (260,000 hands for FPDW

+0.25%cb)

> >
> > If you define long term as the point at which a standard

deviation is

> > +/- 10% of the average return, that is 100 times N0.
> >
> > The first definition is probably more useful.
>
>
> You have probably covered this before, but could you elaborate

as to

> why this (NO) is a better definition of long term.

More useful, because it is possible to play N0 hands in a year,
whereas 100 times N0 would take many years.

That is the only reason? So going by other standards, saying
millions of hands is realistic?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>

[deuceswild1000]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" > All

depends

> how you define "long term".
> >
> > If you define long term as the point at which you have at

least an

> 84%
> > chance of winning, that is N0, which equals (approximately)
> > variance/(er-1+cashback)^2 hands. (260,000 hands for FPDW

+0.25%cb)

> >
> > If you define long term as the point at which a standard

deviation is

> > +/- 10% of the average return, that is 100 times N0.
> >
> > The first definition is probably more useful.
>
>
> You have probably covered this before, but could you elaborate

as to

> why this (NO) is a better definition of long term.

More useful, because it is possible to play N0 hands in a year,
whereas 100 times N0 would take many years.

>
> Also in the second statement( 10% if average return) does that

mean

> +/- 10% of ER = one SD? or 10% of coin in or what?

The standard distribution is 10% of the average return.

Please give me a number example. For example is it for FPDW 100.76
x .10 =10.076% is the SD or what. IOW what do you mean by average
return? ER or amount over 100 percent or what.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>

[cdfsrule1]

All this talk about the long-term seems way off the mark to me. I'd wage (a little) that if we
did a poll that most would say that care more about their actual results in real dollars than
in percentage units. And when talking about the long-term (what ever it is), this seems to
be crucial. Remeber, the longer you play, the larger the variance or standard deviation
will, in theory be:

Var (N) = VAR(1) * N
SD(N) = SD(1) * Sqrt(N)

Sure if you normalize it by EV or the amount bet (or something else proportional to N), and
turn it into a percentage, it gets smaller the longer you play, becuase you are dividing by
N.

normalized by EV = SD(N)/EV(N) = SD(1)/ EV(1) / sqrt(N)]
normalized by total Bet = SD(N)/(B*N) = SD(1)/ B / sqrt(N) where B is the bet per hand

That fact-- that the normalized quantity gets smaller the longer you play-- leads to the
idea that in the "long term" the variance doesn't matter. But, if what matters to you is the
actual amount you win (or lose) in real dollars, than the "long term" becomes a concept
that is hard to define and frankly somewhat irrelevent. What seems to important to some
people is the average win rate (for a postive game) and when they can expect that win
rate-- which is proportional to N-- to exceed say the standard deviation (or other metric)
that is proportional to the square roote of N. [Math refresher: the square root of N is
always less than or equal to N (since N is >=1). Also, SD(1) is always MUCH greater than
the EV(1).]

[Harry_Porter]

cdfsrule wrote:

All this talk about the long-term seems way off the mark to me. I'd
wage (a little) that if we did a poll that most would say that care
more about their actual results in real dollars than in percentage
units.

I don't think anyone would argue.

Your comment was in direct reply to a post discussing the concept of
"N0" - the length of time on a positive play until you have a
reasonable expectation of a profitable result.

While derived in terms of ER and SD percentages, that seems to speak
to very tangible win/loss.

- H.

[nightoftheiguana2000]

wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000"
<deuceswild1000@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" > All
depends
> > how you define "long term".
> > >
> > > If you define long term as the point at which you have at
least an
> > 84%
> > > chance of winning, that is N0, which equals (approximately)
> > > variance/(er-1+cashback)^2 hands. (260,000 hands for FPDW
+0.25%cb)
> > >
> > > If you define long term as the point at which a standard
deviation is
> > > +/- 10% of the average return, that is 100 times N0.
> > >
> > > The first definition is probably more useful.
> >
> >
> > You have probably covered this before, but could you elaborate
as to
> > why this (NO) is a better definition of long term.
>
> More useful, because it is possible to play N0 hands in a year,
> whereas 100 times N0 would take many years.

That is the only reason? So going by other standards, saying
millions of hands is realistic?

Yes, if your expectation is to have a 68% chance of being within 10%
of the average return (100.68%-100.84% for FPDW) that will require 100
times N0 hands or 44,497,600 hands.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>

[deuceswild1000]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000"
> <deuceswild1000@y...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" > All
> depends
> > > how you define "long term".
> > > >
> > > > If you define long term as the point at which you have at
> least an
> > > 84%
> > > > chance of winning, that is N0, which equals (approximately)
> > > > variance/(er-1+cashback)^2 hands. (260,000 hands for FPDW
> +0.25%cb)
> > > >
> > > > If you define long term as the point at which a standard
> deviation is
> > > > +/- 10% of the average return, that is 100 times N0.
> > > >
> > > > The first definition is probably more useful.
> > >
> > >
> > > You have probably covered this before, but could you

elaborate

> as to
> > > why this (NO) is a better definition of long term.
> >
> > More useful, because it is possible to play N0 hands in a year,
> > whereas 100 times N0 would take many years.
>
>
> That is the only reason? So going by other standards, saying
> millions of hands is realistic?

Yes, if your expectation is to have a 68% chance of being within

10%

of the average return (100.68%-100.84% for FPDW) that will require

100

times N0 hands or 44,497,600 hands.

Again I ask that you explain, rather than just flash numbers

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>

[Jean_Scott1]

<<If I understand correctly, if your definition of long term is being
positive I think I agree.>>

I guess that's the only thing that interests me. I wouldn't find it fun to find out how soon I would go broke playing negative games.

<<So summarizing, If you definition of long term is when you will go
positive, then play high ER, low variance, and lots of CB and
promotions. Nothing new there.>>

Darn, I wish you would have written that to me 8 years ago. Think of the hundred of thousands of hours I could have saved by not writing all those magazine articles and books!!!!!

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  Tax time is coming up - groan! "Tax Help
   for the Frugal Gambler" can answer many
   of your questions!