vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 7 NOV 2006

#21

Dunbar;
  There is no possible reason to not round the bankroll figure. Exactitude has no real value here. As far as breaking the multiline variance barrier, when talking about a long-term bankroll, that was done a long time ago by Jazbo Burns, (he just never made it available to the public - except in the limited form on his web site). When all is said an done, I suspect a simple rule of thumb will be more than sufficient for most games. What will be very interesting is a session bankroll calculator for Multilines.

Have you ever contacted Jazbo? Perhaps you can include this in your next version.

Thanks,
Skip

www.vpinsider.com
www.vpplayer.com
VPFREE DISCOUNT: http://www.vpplayer.com/GROUP/vpfree.html (use vpfree/vpfree for access)

dunbar_dra wrote:

···

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
  

#22

Skip Hughes wrote (in reply to Dunbar):

... As far as breaking the multiline variance barrier, when talking
about a long-term bankroll, that was done a long time ago by Jazbo
Burns, (he just never made it available to the public - except in the
limited form on his web site).

I don't know that Bob Dancer has used the phrase "breaking the
barrier", or some variation of that, in reference to Video Poker for
Winners. These were Dunbar's words.

It's accurate to say that Jazbo's work on the subject was indeed
ground breaking and his online article yields valuable insight into it
and the likely relationship to session volatility/bankroll. That
article can be found at: http://jazbo.com/videopoker/nplay.html
(Be prepated to bend your mind around this a little. It took several
reads for me to fully digest it.)

···

-------

What Bob wrote in his article was:
"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."

Because I also haven't seen Paymar's Optimum VP product, I also don't
know what manner by which session ROR's. Bob's statement may be
overly aggressive in absence of specifics of that software.

However, in the late-beta VPFW released a few weeks ago (of which,
I've had a "sneak peak"), there's every sign that the ROR's are
calculated from the actual distribution of possible play outcomes.

If this is also true of Paymar's product, and the ROR's therein aren't
estimated through numeric analytic methods, the fact has been
unfortunately underplayed. (For that matter, Paymar's product
receives very little discussion in general -- something else that's
regreatable.)

What I can say is that the bankroll features of VPFW are indeed ground
breaking in my experience, from the perspective of accessibility to
the everyday player. I'm simply astounded by the versatility that is
present in the software.

And, beyond multiline, there is no question that there has been no
other work that analyzes game variants like MultiStrike and Super
Times Pay. VPFW does.

------

With respect to Jazbo and his analysis of multiline variance, I
haven't had access to work that he may have made available privately.
What's rather exciting is that VPFW confirms the results of the
general formula presented online by which he calculates n-play
variance. VPFW additionally provides the actual outcome distribution
of a single play.

Access to the VPFW distribution data, in conjunction with Jazbo's
formula and explanation of the contribution of underlying single line
variance and covariance (the relationship between the deal and the
outcome on the draw), yield one of the most comprehensive pictures of
the subject accessible to the quantitative layman.

But, of paritcular added value, is that VPFW will calculate that
variance for any of the numerous games in the software (Jazbo only
provides the variance data for a limited number of games) -- and not
only for multiline play, but for other machine variants as well. I
finally can dispense with my home-grown clunky MultiStrike variance
calculator, and now have access to a variance number for Super Times
Pay, where the complexity introduced by the multiplier set it beyond
my capacity to calculate variance.

For those who obsess with the analytics of play, the tools within VPFW
are simply breathtaking.

------

VPFW may not have broken the multiline "variance barrier". But it
takes us where no software has gone before :wink:

- Harry

#23

Harry wrote: VPW may not have broken the multiline "variance barrier".
But it takes us where no software has gone before

I appreciate Harry's kind words. And yes, the program has many, many
features not found elsewhere. It does not contain every feature found on
other products, so I will continue to also use (but not promote)
WinPoker. I'm sure others will like features of FVP that weren't
included here. But nobody will seriously argue that there isn't a lot
more available in VPW than in the other products.

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.

#24

Dunbar;
  There is no possible reason to not round the bankroll figure.
Exactitude has no real value here.

Skip, I obviously agree with that completely. I think Bob would
agree with it, too, at the level of rounding we are talking about
here.

My post was meant to clear up any misunderstanding about whether
there is an inconsistency between the bankroll figures from DRA-VP
and Bob's new program. There is no inconsistency in the example Bob
looked at.

As far as breaking the multiline
variance barrier, when talking about a long-term bankroll, that

was done

a long time ago by Jazbo Burns, (he just never made it available

to the

public - except in the limited form on his web site). When all is

said

an done, I suspect a simple rule of thumb will be more than

sufficient

for most games. What will be very interesting is a session

bankroll

calculator for Multilines.

First, I meant my "breaking the barrier" comment to be specific to a
commercial product. I believe Bob's program is the first to include
an accurate multi-line RoR/Bankroll calculator.

Dan Paymar has published what I think are accurate multi-line
session RoR/Bankroll results in 2 of the last three issues of VP
Times. As far as I know, these were the first reasonably accurate
multi-line session bankroll/RoR results published.

I've heard that jazbo may have worked out the payoff frequencies for
multi-line awhile ago, but I've never seen that work. I am familiar
with jazbo's article on his website about using variance and
covariance to determine multi-line RoR's, but it wasn't clear to me
how he got the covariance values. What Bob has done (and what I am
working on) is generate the frequency of every possible payoff in a
multiline game. For example, for a 3-line game, there are 114
possible payoffs ranging from Nothing up to 3 royals. The lowest
impossible payoff is 23 units. If you have those frequencies, you
can generate both longterm and short-term RoR/Bankroll
relationships. I don't know if that's what jazbo did, too.

Have you ever contacted Jazbo? Perhaps you can include this in

your next

version.

I think I'll ask him about it, Skip.

Best,
Dunbar

www.vpinsider.com
www.vpplayer.com
VPFREE DISCOUNT: http://www.vpplayer.com/GROUP/vpfree.html (use
vpfree/vpfree for access)

dunbar_dra wrote:
> 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

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@...> wrote:

> RoR barrier is a valuable contribution!
>
> --Dunbar
>
>
>

#25

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

Lainie, thanks for the kind words. (thank you, too, bl!)

I don't really understand the position some have expressed that an RoR
calculator is superfluous. There is no substitute for real playing
experience, but similarly, IMO, there is no way experience can prepare
you to evaluate every game and session length you may encounter.

--Dunbar

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Lainie Wolf <lainiewolf702@...> wrote:

Harry, FWIW, I agree with you. I've lost too many times because

#26

dunbar_dra wrote

First, I meant my "breaking the barrier" comment to be specific to a commercial product. I believe Bob's program is the first to include an accurate multi-line RoR/Bankroll calculator.
  

No doubt.

<snip>

I've heard that jazbo may have worked out the payoff frequencies for

multi-line awhile ago, but I've never seen that work. I am familiar with jazbo's article on his website about using variance and covariance to determine multi-line RoR's, but it wasn't clear to me how he got the covariance values. What Bob has done (and what I am working on) is generate the frequency of every possible payoff in a multiline game. For example, for a 3-line game, there are 114 possible payoffs ranging from Nothing up to 3 royals. The lowest impossible payoff is 23 units. If you have those frequencies, you can generate both longterm and short-term RoR/Bankroll relationships. I don't know if that's what jazbo did, too.

Have

I think I'll ask him about it, Skip.

I would really like to hear what he has to say about all of this. Maybe on this forum. We have heard from him less and less over the years. I assume he's devoting all his time to live poker and other things.

BTW, I know we went through all this back when Bob first starting marketing Dean Zamzow's program and I hesitate to start it up again, but there are references in your note to "Bob's Program" and "what Bob has done"... I know it's easier to refer to the program that way, but Bob did not make this breakthrough. I think he has been explicit about this. The product was developed by Action Gaming*. Bob will be marketing/promoting it.

*In that regard, it's another breakthrough. It's the first software of this kind to be developed from within the industry, instead of by a player/programmer. No doubt the quality of the software will superior.