Figuring Risk of Ruin for MultiHand Games
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw">
http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw</a>
************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes and doesn't
constitute an endorsement or approval of the linked article's
content by vpFREE. Any discussion of the article must be done
in accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
************************************************
It's about time. Thanks, ROR software, sweet.
But what about spinpoker!?? 
I tried to get paymar to cut loose with his methods for determining
co-variance for N-play games many years ago. Asked him in person
once, in an on-line poker game, and through e-mails. Seems like this
new software is (will be) using brute force compared to his mystery
formula. What's the deal Paymar!?? We're you bluffing?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae6128305" <vpfae6128305@...> wrote:
Figuring Risk of Ruin for MultiHand Games
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw">
http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw</a>
I like the Dunbar VP/ROR software since I use the "short-term ROR" calculations
exclusively. For me, they are GREAT for planning for any gambling trip. I am hoping that
the "new" software now being discussed will have "short-term ROR", as a part of the
package, especially for multi-line gaming. For me, personally, the "infinite term ROR"
calcualtions are "interesting" but not useful for what I want.
Again, all of this is just my opinion and "dryuthers". I am sure there are many different
feelings (and many different requests).
.....bl
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Houck" <macliverdamage@...> wrote:
It's about time. Thanks, ROR software, sweet.
But what about spinpoker!??
I tried to get paymar to cut loose with his methods for determining
co-variance for N-play games many years ago. Asked him in person
once, in an on-line poker game, and through e-mails. Seems like this
new software is (will be) using brute force compared to his mystery
formula. What's the deal Paymar!?? We're you bluffing?--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae6128305" <vpfae6128305@> wrote:
>
> Figuring Risk of Ruin for MultiHand Games
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw
>
> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw">
> http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw</a>
>
This is why I don't post much (I'm we're were where do what now? an idiot)
Correction:
I got Dan Paymar confused with Jazbo Burns. In any case, some VP
famous guy I don't know very well...Thanks T.R. for unintentionally
bringing this to my attention.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Houck" <macliverdamage@...> wrote:
It's about time. Thanks, ROR software, sweet.
But what about spinpoker!??
I tried to get paymar to cut loose with his methods for determining
co-variance for N-play games many years ago. Asked him in person
once, in an on-line poker game, and through e-mails. Seems like this
new software is (will be) using brute force compared to his mystery
formula. What's the deal Paymar!?? We're you bluffing?--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae6128305" <vpfae6128305@> wrote:
>
> Figuring Risk of Ruin for MultiHand Games
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw
>
> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw">
> http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw</a>
>
bornloser1537 wrote:
I like the Dunbar VP/ROR software since I use the "short-term ROR"
calculations exclusively.
Of course the Dunbar product also provides long-term ROR/bankroll
calculations as well.
The caution that I might provide in looking at any variance number is
that it's a single point estimator of the complex variable.
In other words, it measures overall bankroll variability with a single
value, even though over the course of time two games with similar
variance values may behave very differently.
A case in point is a comparison with Pick'em and Jacks or Better (full
pay versions). If you enter into a PE session with a comfortable
Jacks bankroll, you may well find that you meet with a session
variability that belies the smaller Pick'em variance by comparison
with Jacks.
The key reason for this is the disimilar structure of the two games.
Paytable isn't the only driver of how variance will play out over time
-- the game structure itself is.
Over an extended period of time, most people's experience with Pick'em
is that it's a smoother game than Jacks. However, over the course of
an hour or two, it can be downright wicked by comparison.
------------
I discuss this here because of the variance feature of the Action
Gaming/Dancer Video Poker for Winners product.
If the software does calculate variance for multiline games, it will
be quite interesting to see the results. However, I expect the
numbers will be modestly misleading in terms of what to expect for
loss potential for a given $-coin-in of the game in question.
I again expect that a variability curve (expected loss/win range)
charted over the course of x given plays will be dissimilar in shape
for single line play vs. multiline play of a given game variety (e.g.
Jacks). This is what I suggest is the case for PE vs Jacks.
The consequence is that someone might venture into a multiline Jacks
game with a variance of 10 and feel that because they're comfortable
with single line Jacks at a bet that's half the amount per play, feel
confident enough to agressively pursue an extended session -- bearing
up under short term loss swings even if they seem a bit uncomfortable
(assuming that a little sour luck is the only factor).
It could well be the case that the game actually presents a much
harsher downside potential in the short run than what the variance
number would suggests.
------------
In some respects, that last discussion is somewhat unnecessary since
it sounds as if VPFW also provides a ROR bankroll calculation for
multiline games. This is a much sounder benchmark against which to
measure whether you're prepared to undertake the risk of a particular
play. (Of course, it's only valid for positive opportunities when
applied in a pure sense.)
Bankroll numbers won't give you solid information about short term
expectations however, and you're still subject to the comparative
difference I describe above when it comes to single line and multiline
play.
However, bankroll numbers are a firm measure from which to assess
whether a play represents a reasonable inclusion in your overall play
repertoire, even if the short-term risks may be sharper than other
games you play.
- Harry
With all due respect to Dan, Jazbo Burns was the pioneer in this area. Did you contact him?
Thanks,
Skip
www.vpinsider.com
www.vpplayer.com
VPFREE DISCOUNT: http://www.vpplayer.com/GROUP/vpfree.html (use vpfree/vpfree for access)
Dan Houck wrote:
It's about time. Thanks, ROR software, sweet.
But what about spinpoker!??
I tried to get paymar to cut loose with his methods for determining
co-variance for N-play games many years ago. Asked him in person
once, in an on-line poker game, and through e-mails. Seems like this
new software is (will be) using brute force compared to his mystery
formula. What's the deal Paymar!?? We're you bluffing?--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae6128305" <vpfae6128305@...> wrote:
Figuring Risk of Ruin for MultiHand Games
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw">
http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw</a>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
This is why I don't post much (I'm we're were where do what now? an
idiot)
Correction:
I got Dan Paymar confused with Jazbo Burns. In any case, some VP
famous guy I don't know very well...Thanks T.R. for unintentionally
bringing this to my attention.
That explains my question. Jazbo's work is well known and has been
available for a lot of years, which makes me wonder about the
statement: "Never before have multi-hand RoRs been calculated. They've
been estimated by a few analysts-I've seen work by Liam W. Daily on
this subject and I've heard about work by Dan Paymar (but I've not
seen it), but not calculated. The typical method to make this estimate
this is to use Monte Carlo techniques. In short, this means having a
computer play the game hundreds of thousands of times to see what the
results turn out to be."
Bob doesn't even mention Jazbo.
Thanks,
Skip
www.vpinsider.com
www.vpplayer.com
VPFREE DISCOUNT: http://www.vpplayer.com/GROUP/vpfree.html (use
vpfree/vpfree for access)
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Houck" <macliverdamage@...> wrote:
I always appreciate HP's thoughtful comments and find them to be quite informative.
For my own private and personal style of play, I find "long term ROR" calculations to be
virtually worthless. My gambling trips to LV are "special" to me and I like to plan on not
running out of money during any single trip. I choose a game with which I am
comfortable, in terms of "fun" and "finance". Having the game and the span of time that I
would like to play in mind, Dunbar's short term ROR calculations tell me whether I can play
as I choose and not run out of money. My goal is usually 10,000-15,000 hands of $1
single line NSUD. With ROR, I know that $5,000-$7,500 will suffice. I have never lost it all
and, at times, I gleefully stop at the Wells Fargo branch at McCarron, with a nice deposit,
after a winning trip.
Since I have started going to Shreveport once in a while, and the availablility of 100-line
NSUD at the $0.05 level, I am still going with the $5,000-$7,500 figure. I have never run
out, by a long shot, and I am curious to know what a suitable bakroll might be for one of
my Shreveport trips. I will be curious as to what the Dancer software might or might not
be able to do, in terms of "short-term ROR", since I htink his early comments are that it
will only go up to 10-line games.
.....bl
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
However, bankroll numbers are a firm measure from which to assess
whether a play represents a reasonable inclusion in your overall play
repertoire, even if the short-term risks may be sharper than other
games you play.- Harry
Dan Houck said: It's about time. Thanks, ROR software, sweet.
But what about spinpoker!??
Yes Spin Poker (9 line version) has RoR information included.
Hopefully the software will be available in less than a month. There
will be short-run bankroll calculations available as well. I'll write
about the soon in other columns.
Bob Dancer
For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.
HOORAY!
.....bl
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:
There will be short-run bankroll calculations available as well.
Bob Dancer
Bob Dancer bwrote:
Yes Spin Poker (9 line version) has RoR information included.
Hopefully the software will be available in less than a month. There
will be short-run bankroll calculations available as well.
A modestly interesting exercise will be to compare to economics of
spinpoker with 10-play. However, I doubt it will surprise the initiated.
- H.
Hey there bl
I have a ROR calculator that has worked for years. I call it..."me."
I know that going to AC for a 3 day weekend I need 5G if I play $1
JOB. If I want to play 5s and 1s I'm going to need 7G. However, even
with a 7 thousand bank, it is important to practice money management.
A couple of bad sessions on 5s and it's time to limit play to dollar.
The ROR program is not gong to tell me if or when to switch to $1.
Going to Vegas my calculator tells me 7 thousand is enough for a week
or more. Calculator also tells me; playing on a good progressive can
knock my plans all to hell. When one sits at a prog, it just gets
better untill it hits. I don't play progs unless I can play till it
hits. But, again, money management is on the top line of strategy
chart. Making the decision to sit at prog, I know from experience a
progressive can easily burn up a bankroll and I might have to borrow
too. If my bank is not enough for a certain play I have a backup for
$$ or I don't play prog. Like you, I don't want to be in Vegas
without $$. I play a lot of Loose Deuce and Job. I know that Loose in
$1 can send you to the showers in a short time, so I switch to
quarter. I like DB too. If the bankroll dips too much in one day,
I'll go to the pool or limit next morning play. Watching my $$ in
Vegas is way easier since I take a week or more in Vegas. I don't
play near as many hours per day as I do in AC. I casino hop with
rental car, do shows, do downtown or just goof off at mall or swap.
Eating can use up a lot of time too and it's something I enjoy way
too much.
My point is; there is no substitute for my 25 years of playing video
poker. Experience calculates how well I play in the real world. My
calculations are exact and I'm not speculating on the results. I keep
score in my front pocket. You know what? You know exactly $$$ you
need in Vegas. I'll bet you didn't need any calculator to come up
with the figure. Shreveport seems to work ok too. Sometime I think we
want to depend too much on machines. We have information overload.
Cheers....Jeep
.
.
I always appreciate HP's thoughtful comments and find them to be
quite informative.
For my own private and personal style of play, I find "long term
ROR" calculations to be
virtually worthless. My gambling trips to LV are "special" to me
and I like to plan on not
running out of money during any single trip. I choose a game with
which I am
comfortable, in terms of "fun" and "finance". Having the game and
the span of time that I
would like to play in mind, Dunbar's short term ROR calculations
tell me whether I can play
as I choose and not run out of money. My goal is usually 10,000-
15,000 hands of $1
single line NSUD. With ROR, I know that $5,000-$7,500 will
suffice. I have never lost it all
and, at times, I gleefully stop at the Wells Fargo branch at
McCarron, with a nice deposit,
after a winning trip.
Since I have started going to Shreveport once in a while, and the
availablility of 100-line
NSUD at the $0.05 level, I am still going with the $5,000-$7,500
figure. I have never run
out, by a long shot, and I am curious to know what a suitable
bakroll might be for one of
my Shreveport trips. I will be curious as to what the Dancer
software might or might not
be able to do, in terms of "short-term ROR", since I htink his
early comments are that it
will only go up to 10-line games.
.....bl
>
> However, bankroll numbers are a firm measure from which to assess
> whether a play represents a reasonable inclusion in your overall
play
from my sister-in-law who lives in Vegas. I could use my friend VISA
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@> wrote:
> repertoire, even if the short-term risks may be sharper than other
> games you play.
>
> - Harry
>
I hear you, Jeeps. And, I respect you for your experience and the
work that represents. Without guys like you, who have "paid your
dues", we would still be "wandering in the VP desert".
However, for a "newbie" like me, and for whom mathematics has always
been the "staff of life", the ROR calculators (like Dunbar's and, I
hope, Dancer's) make up for having missed out on 25 years of
experience.
....bl
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "whitejeeps" <whitejeeps@...> wrote:
Hey there bl
My point is; there is no substitute for my 25 years of playing video
poker.
Good point... Especially if your interest lies there.
I have always been interested in coin op games starting with pinballs
then moving to Pong, Space Invaders, Pac man, Galaxian and vp. In the
80s I could play a vp machine all nite even if it were set on free
play. So my interest is in playing the games. I don't really care how
they work, unless there is a need to know.
You give me credit that's not due. The credit goes to an industry
that started with a pay schedule that never generated enough play to
make the casino want very many vp games. Then someone came up with a
change in paytables that returned bet on jacks or better. They had a
lot of pair As or 2 pair to return bet. With new paytables JOB paid a
good return. The bell was rung.
Along came Wong and Frome. I got info from both of them. That's when
one had to search out info. No internet. Had to drive downtown to, I
believe, Gamblers Book Club. If I remember right it was a small place
on a side street. I seem to remember a concrete block building, but I
might be wrong there. The strategy practicing and playing programs
are the only way to learn. Way better than learning, as in the old
days", from a book.
Frome and Wong and others like them are the ones that kept us
from "wandering". We needed a few math guys to figure out proper
strategies for those 2.5 million hands for JOB. (I think 2.5 million
is close to right.) For sure, the math guy ain't me. I just think ROR
calculators are overkill. It's like trying to describe Vegas to
someone who has never been there. You have to go to Vegas to
understand. Same with losing bankroll. It's got to happen to you a
few times. Then you understand.
I guess my problem is; I'm the guy who puts the Christmas toys
together without reading the directions; untill I get stuck. On ROR,
take a few thousand to play a few times and I learn what I need to
know. My philosophy is, "Wade in and see what happens."
Cheers
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@...>
wrote:
I hear you, Jeeps. And, I respect you for your experience and the
work that represents. Without guys like you, who have "paid your
dues", we would still be "wandering in the VP desert".However, for a "newbie" like me, and for whom mathematics has
always
been the "staff of life", the ROR calculators (like Dunbar's and, I
hope, Dancer's) make up for having missed out on 25 years of
experience.....bl
>
> Hey there bl
>
> My point is; there is no substitute for my 25 years of playing
video
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "whitejeeps" <whitejeeps@> wrote:
> poker.
<< I just think ROR
calculators are overkill. It's like trying to describe Vegas to
someone who has never been there. You have to go to Vegas to
understand. Same with losing bankroll. It's got to happen to you a
few times. Then you understand.>>
I'm all for ROR discussions and calculators. Viktor and I have a couple chapters in "Frugal VP" with discussion and figures for short-term ROR. However, Whitejeeps is right. They don't adequately prepare you for actual play, and I would add especially for long losing streaks. After gambling in casinos for about 21 years, first at BJ and for the last 17 years mostly at VP, and even though Brad and I have a more-than-adequate financial bankroll for the level at which we play, our psychological bankroll is just barely adequate to take an $8000 loss in one hour, as we did yesterday. I felt a little "down" although this has happened to us many many times. (I blamed it partially on low blood sugar - and I did feel better after I ate!!!)
________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
This new book (autographed) and other
frugal products are now available at my
new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
E-mail address is queenofcomps@cox.net.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
whitejeeps wrote:
I just think ROR calculators are overkill. It's like trying to
describe Vegas to someone who has never been there ...
I'm all for ROR discussions and calculators. However, Whitejeeps is
right. They don't adequately prepare you for actual play, and I
would add especially for long losing streaks.
ROR/bankroll statistics are no panacea for the adverse side of play.
However, I expect someone who finds a shortcoming in them is looking
for exactly that. They're merely one additional tool to use in
guaging how best to conduct your play and strenghten your expectations
of what may arise.
It's fine to say that hands on experience is your best measure on what
to expect in play. Over the course of a session or a small handful
that's indisputable. However, most players are regularly confronted
with scenarios in which a "seat of your pants" introduction to a game
might easily lead one to get quickly in over their heads.
On ROR, take a few thousand to play a few times and I learn what I > need to know. My philosophy is, "Wade in and see what happens." queenofcomps wrote:
------
You can't venture into any play if you're going to scare when you run
into a rough hour. You'll spend most of your time hinding under the
bed if you play with some aggression relative to your bankroll (If you
take $5000 into the casino, than you probably won't suffer this
problem during a trip when you stick to $.25 single line play).
So, one might face a situation where they're very comfortable with
$.50 play when along comes a $1 game that has a very strong EV. Do
you simply sit down and if after 2 hours you're down $1200, go
running, ruing what you left behind? How about if you lose $600 in
your first 15 minutes ... do you persevere? What's your risk that the
next 15 minutes will bring such a loss?
Granted, you can mess around around with the game trial and error on
one of the vp tutors to get a feel in advance. But even that is a bit
haphazard.
Session and L/T ROR bankroll numbers are a strong tool with which to
equip yourself when venturing into unfamilar play turf. Again, they
are hardly the be all and end all, but they can be damned handy.
-----------
Another problem is that short-run experience can be misleading when it
comes to what to expect in the longer term. (And, as always, I'm
talking about something far shorter than lifetimes of play.)
I recently cited the fact that over the course of an hour or two,
pick'em can be relatively rougher than JB, yet thereafter smooth out
to something more comfortable. This reflects the differing structures
of the game play (perhaps more so than paytable differences).
An analogous situation arrives with any other variation on straight
single line play -- including multiline, STP, spinpoker, MultiStrike,
etc. The behavior of the play in the longer term relative to short
term behavior will all diverge from that of their single line
counterparts.
The arrival of a ROR bankroll calculator for some of these variants is
a godsend, for it'll offer up intelligence that could only be gleaned
otherwise from a considerable amount of play in each variation.
------------
Perhaps the ultimate value in a ROR calculator is that, like it or
now, we are all subject to longer term expectations. The best way to
manage your bankroll in a manner that limits disappointment is to
assume appropriately conservative (or agressive) risks for that bankroll.
Many players will take a stab at a play whose bankroll is
insufficiednt for it's long term volatility, arguing that their merely
throwing a couple hundred (or whatever) at it to try their luck. The
problem is that over time, given enough such pot shots, the player
ends up putting their bankroll at considerable risk -- risk that they
might no otherwise consider if they held a larger perspective on their
ventures.
With a given loss threshold in mind, a ROR calculator willd directly
asses the assumed risk for a play. It sets a benchmark that can
provide greater peace of mind when considering an unfamilar, but
attractive play.
Granted, if you tackle something with a bankroll representing a 1% ROR
and you still bust, the ROR statistic is of no consolation, It
doesn't even give you much in the way of bragging rights, i.e. "I
suffered worse luck than 99 in 100 players can expect!" One in a
hundred? Look around you in the casino; that hardly puts you on
exclusive turf.
However, what I have in mind is when you run accross the occasional
progressive meter that's sky high on a modestly poor paytable, perhaps
at a denomination that otherwise would be a stretch. Short of a ROR
calculator, "seat of your pants" is typically a poor substitute for
most players. (Of course, I'm not generalizing to you, jeeps
------
Ok ... I've let my fingers run wild for another rant. My goal is
simply to make real why ROR isn't an abstract esoteric statistic.
Ideally, it should serve as a valued guide.
- Harry
I don't think this takes a calculator either unless you are truly a
person intrigued with math.
All you have to do is take the amount of coin-in that you want to
play on one day (such as you want to play eight hours of dollar JOB
and you play 800 hands/hour -- total $32,000). Then determine the
contribution for hands that you may not get in a day of play (using
Frugal Poker or WinPoker) -- royal flush, straight flush, and
perhaps the proper number of quads --- gives you a figure of about
5% (arbitrary figure you can adjust a percentage point higher if you
want but probably not lower) that you can then apply to your desired
amount of coin-in. Thus the bankroll for a day of play would be
about $1600 (and it would not be unheard of to lose this entire
amount) which you could adjust upward depending upon how determined
you are to keep playing for the day in the event of a streak of bad
luck.
I always bankroll (or trip stake) a little higher for the first few
days of a trip with the expectation that I will break-even or have a
small profit/loss on one of those days. Do not like to be pushing
against trip stake limits early in the trip and get a negative
attitude.
I hear you, Jeeps. And, I respect you for your experience and the
work that represents. Without guys like you, who have "paid your
dues", we would still be "wandering in the VP desert".However, for a "newbie" like me, and for whom mathematics has
always
been the "staff of life", the ROR calculators (like Dunbar's and,
I
hope, Dancer's) make up for having missed out on 25 years of
experience.....bl
>
> Hey there bl
>
> My point is; there is no substitute for my 25 years of playing
video
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "whitejeeps" <whitejeeps@> wrote:
> poker.
Harry, FWIW, I agree with you. I've lost too many times because I've played above my bankroll. I think the calculators are great (and that Dunbar has done the community a tremendous service) because they let people like me play more profitably. Lainie
I just think ROR calculators are overkill. It's like trying to
describe Vegas to someone who has never been there ...
I'm all for ROR discussions and calculators. However, Whitejeeps is
right. They don't adequately prepare you for actual play, and I
would add especially for long losing streaks.
ROR/bankroll statistics are no panacea for the adverse side of play.
However, I expect someone who finds a shortcoming in them is looking
for exactly that. They're merely one additional tool to use in
guaging how best to conduct your play and strenghten your expectations
of what may arise.
It's fine to say that hands on experience is your best measure on what
to expect in play. Over the course of a session or a small handful
that's indisputable. However, most players are regularly confronted
with scenarios in which a "seat of your pants" introduction to a game
might easily lead one to get quickly in over their heads.
Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote: whitejeeps wrote:
On ROR, take a few thousand to play a few times and I learn what I > need to know. My philosophy is, "Wade in and see what happens." queenofcomps wrote:
------
You can't venture into any play if you're going to scare when you run
into a rough hour. You'll spend most of your time hinding under the
bed if you play with some aggression relative to your bankroll (If you
take $5000 into the casino, than you probably won't suffer this
problem during a trip when you stick to $.25 single line play).
So, one might face a situation where they're very comfortable with
$.50 play when along comes a $1 game that has a very strong EV. Do
you simply sit down and if after 2 hours you're down $1200, go
running, ruing what you left behind? How about if you lose $600 in
your first 15 minutes ... do you persevere? What's your risk that the
next 15 minutes will bring such a loss?
Granted, you can mess around around with the game trial and error on
one of the vp tutors to get a feel in advance. But even that is a bit
haphazard.
Session and L/T ROR bankroll numbers are a strong tool with which to
equip yourself when venturing into unfamilar play turf. Again, they
are hardly the be all and end all, but they can be damned handy.
-----------
Another problem is that short-run experience can be misleading when it
comes to what to expect in the longer term. (And, as always, I'm
talking about something far shorter than lifetimes of play.)
I recently cited the fact that over the course of an hour or two,
pick'em can be relatively rougher than JB, yet thereafter smooth out
to something more comfortable. This reflects the differing structures
of the game play (perhaps more so than paytable differences).
An analogous situation arrives with any other variation on straight
single line play -- including multiline, STP, spinpoker, MultiStrike,
etc. The behavior of the play in the longer term relative to short
term behavior will all diverge from that of their single line
counterparts.
The arrival of a ROR bankroll calculator for some of these variants is
a godsend, for it'll offer up intelligence that could only be gleaned
otherwise from a considerable amount of play in each variation.
------------
Perhaps the ultimate value in a ROR calculator is that, like it or
now, we are all subject to longer term expectations. The best way to
manage your bankroll in a manner that limits disappointment is to
assume appropriately conservative (or agressive) risks for that bankroll.
Many players will take a stab at a play whose bankroll is
insufficiednt for it's long term volatility, arguing that their merely
throwing a couple hundred (or whatever) at it to try their luck. The
problem is that over time, given enough such pot shots, the player
ends up putting their bankroll at considerable risk -- risk that they
might no otherwise consider if they held a larger perspective on their
ventures.
With a given loss threshold in mind, a ROR calculator willd directly
asses the assumed risk for a play. It sets a benchmark that can
provide greater peace of mind when considering an unfamilar, but
attractive play.
Granted, if you tackle something with a bankroll representing a 1% ROR
and you still bust, the ROR statistic is of no consolation, It
doesn't even give you much in the way of bragging rights, i.e. "I
suffered worse luck than 99 in 100 players can expect!" One in a
hundred? Look around you in the casino; that hardly puts you on
exclusive turf.
However, what I have in mind is when you run accross the occasional
progressive meter that's sky high on a modestly poor paytable, perhaps
at a denomination that otherwise would be a stretch. Short of a ROR
calculator, "seat of your pants" is typically a poor substitute for
most players. (Of course, I'm not generalizing to you, jeeps
------
Ok ... I've let my fingers run wild for another rant. My goal is
simply to make real why ROR isn't an abstract esoteric statistic.
Ideally, it should serve as a valued guide.
- Harry
---------------------------------
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In defense of the short-term ROR calculators (and I have only used Dunbar's and, thus,
have next to no experience with them in general), the fact that the software can go
through as many scenarios, in a monte carlo fashion, as many times as I am comfortable
with, makes up for my total lack of long-term VP experience, sitting in front of a real
machine. I am not saying that long-term experience is not good, but I do acknowledge
that I do not have ANY long-term experience and the short-term ROR calculator helps me
make up for that lack of experience.
Thus, if I choose a machine (like $1 single line NSUD) and plan to play 20,000 hands, and
if I run the scenario for 0% (short-term) ROR and double the "canned number of trials", I
can be confident that, with that bankroll, I will not run out of money. Maybe some will
think me naive to "trust" the mathematical simulation, and I fully realize that I can end up
with nothing, on that final pull. But, I will still be able to play the number of hands that I
planned to.
.....bl
First, I want to congratulate Bob on being the first to come out
with a commercial product that does multi-line RoR. I haven't seen
it yet, but I'm sure "Video Poker for Winners" is going to be an
important contribution to the VP community.
I'd like to correct a couple of things Bob wrote in his column:
"If you play 25¢ 9/6 Jacks or Better video poker with a 1% slot club
and are willing to take a 10% chance of going broke, Dunbar says you
need a bankroll of $4,550. (Dunbar rounds all of his bankroll
figures to the nearest $10.) "
I round those numbers UP to the nearest $50, not $10:
% RoR Bankroll
25% 2,750
20% 3,200
15% 3,750
10% 4,550
5% 5,900
2% 7,750
1% 9,100
0.5% 10,450
0.1% 13,650
0.01% 18,150
"In December of this year, a new video poker software program called
Video Poker for Winners will become available. VPW also has a risk
of ruin calculator, and the figure it comes up with for the game in
question is $4,534. The difference in the numbers is likely due both
to the number of significant digits maintained in the calculation,
and the amount of rounding done. I'm assuming the VPW figure is more
accurate, but for practical purposes, they are identical."
I don't think the VPW figure is more accurate than my DRA-VP
figure. My raw number is $4,534.69. This is rounded up to $4,550
in my main table of RoR/Bankroll. So it is completely consistent
with Bob's value.
The amount of rounding one uses is a bit arbitrary. For the 25c
game in the example Bob used, it could be argued that bankroll
figures should be given to the nearest 25c. Thus, the actual
bankroll for the game would be $4,534.75. (according to my
program).
I chose to round UP by $50 for 2 reasons: (1) I felt it was easier
to look at and remember the bankroll values that way, and (2) it's a
little safer to round on the UP side.
There IS a place on my sheet where bankroll figures are rounded up
to the nearest $10. That's over on the left, where it says "Specify
a longterm RoR". If you put in 10% RoR, the bankroll that comes up
is $4,540, not $4,550. (Further, if you put $4,550 into the "Test a
bankroll", it comes up 9.9%, not 10%.) In each case, there is no
inconsistency Bob's figure. As Bob noted, for practical purposes,
all these figures are identical.
Bob's comments make it clear, however, that I should have spelled
out what kind of rounding was being done.
I don't mean for any of this to detract from what Bob has apparently
accomplished with his new product--breaking through the multi-line
RoR barrier is a valuable contribution!
--Dunbar
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae6128305" <vpfae6128305@...>
wrote:
Figuring Risk of Ruin for MultiHand Games
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw">
http://tinyurl.com/y75kfw</a>************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes and doesn't
constitute an endorsement or approval of the linked article's
content by vpFREE. Any discussion of the article must be done
in accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.************************************************