Holy Mackerel!!!
I play .25 FPDW and I have my bankroll at 3-4 Royals ($3-4K). Now you're
telling me it should be $10K??
Is this true??
'In a message dated 9/29/2004 9:50:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com writes:
well, let's try to quantify things a bit here:
i'll assume you're playing 5 coin quarter full pay deuces wild with
perfect strategy, for that the risk number is 0.999346831, 5 royals is
4000 bets ($5,000), and for that bankroll the risk of ruin is
0.999346831^4000=0.07=7%
now, you said, "close enough to zero", so in your case a bankroll of
10 royals ($10,000) would be more appropriate and the risk of ruin
would be 0.999346831^8000=.005=0.5%
now, you've got savings of over say $100,000, so a $10,000 loss is no
big deal
but .... what happens if you decide to switch to dollars?
progressives? 10/7 doublebonus or even one eyed jacks?
ignore bankroll and risk of ruin at your own peril, it always exists,
whether you choose to believe it or not
for any gamble you need to ask:
1. is it fair and regulated?
2. what is the best strategy?
3. is it positive? (er>1) (add any cashback to er)
4. what is the variance?
5. do i have the bankroll to play? [variance/(er-1) bets]
6. do i have the patience to play a sufficient number of hands?
[N0=variance/(er-1)^2 hands=84% chance of winning]
7. are there better gambles? sharpe ratio squared (bankroll growth) =
(er-1)^2 x 10^7/variance
you are free to ignore these considerations, but they always apply
that's the nature of math, it's true whether you believe it or not
Anyway, my point is that perhaps the original poster was suggesting
that many of us play at a level at which our life bankroll is so
much
larger than the bets being made that we don't need any further
bankroll considerations. Calculations of "risk of ruin" etc aren't
critical for us, since we've already (implicitly, instinctively)
chosen to play at a level where our risk of ruin is close enough to
zero.Stuart (RandomStu)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <sresnick2@c...> wrote: