A Simplified Look At Bankroll Requirements
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html
<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html</a>
Bob Dancer's Latest CasinoGaming.com Column
Sensible advice, but the 3-5 rule is totally inadequate for very
streaky games like One Eyed Jacks. My bankroll was cut nearly in half
by this game at which point I decided to put on the brakes and demoted
myself to quarter play. 3-5 is probably ok for the games that Bob
lists, but I can tell you from personal experience and that of others
who play OEJ that the rule probably needs to be bumped up to 7 Royals
for this game.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
A Simplified Look At Bankroll Requirements
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html
<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html</a>
For OEJs I would suggest something more like 8-9. I've gone down this
much a couple of times and eventually made it up. The variance of
around 40 is what makes it so streaky.
Dick
Sensible advice, but the 3-5 rule is totally inadequate for very
streaky games like One Eyed Jacks. My bankroll was cut nearly in
half
by this game at which point I decided to put on the brakes and
demoted
myself to quarter play. 3-5 is probably ok for the games that Bob
lists, but I can tell you from personal experience and that of
others
who play OEJ that the rule probably needs to be bumped up to 7
Royals
for this game.
>
>
> A Simplified Look At Bankroll Requirements
>
> http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html
>
> <a
href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html">
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_nbi" <nbi@w...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
> http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html</a>
That probably explains it. My bankroll at its peak was nowhere near 8
Royals (32k). In hindsight I probably should not have started playing
OEJ as I was apparently underfunded. The dryspell I'm in is
particularly aggravating because I worked so hard at mastering OEJ and
my regular testing shows I'm playing at nearly 100%.
An additional OEJ wrinkle has developed at my local casino that may
force me to abandon it permanently. Apparently monthly bb coupons are
calculated with payback percentage weighted very heavily as opposed to
actual coin-in. Even though I was giving the casino more action in a
month then most patrons were giving it in a year, many of the nibblers
received significantly larger coupons. And to further rub it in this
comes at a time when there are serious physical problems with the OEJ
playing environment and the machines themselves (which apparently
reset under mysterious circumstances and nobody has an explanation).
Sadly I suspect that I will not be playing OEJ again.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
For OEJs I would suggest something more like 8-9. I've gone down this
much a couple of times and eventually made it up. The variance of
around 40 is what makes it so streaky.Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_nbi" <nbi@w...> wrote:
> Sensible advice, but the 3-5 rule is totally inadequate for very
> streaky games like One Eyed Jacks. My bankroll was cut nearly in
half
> by this game at which point I decided to put on the brakes and
demoted
> myself to quarter play. 3-5 is probably ok for the games that Bob
> lists, but I can tell you from personal experience and that of
others
> who play OEJ that the rule probably needs to be bumped up to 7
Royals
> for this game.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > A Simplified Look At Bankroll Requirements
> >
> > http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html
> >
> > <a
href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html">
> > http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html</a>
kelly bankroll (~11%ror)= variance/(er-1) bets
200/75/50 oej: er=1.0028, var=40, bankroll=14,286 bets or 17.9 royals
3-5 royals rule only applies to games with er-1 near 1% and variance
around 25 (fpdw+0.25%cashback, nsud+1%cashback, 9/6job+1%cashback,
etc)
exact bankroll calculator (doesn't do oej):
http://www.gamblingtools.net/vp/vpanalyzer.html
That probably explains it. My bankroll at its peak was nowhere near
8
Royals (32k). In hindsight I probably should not have started
playing
OEJ as I was apparently underfunded. The dryspell I'm in is
particularly aggravating because I worked so hard at mastering OEJ
and
my regular testing shows I'm playing at nearly 100%.
An additional OEJ wrinkle has developed at my local casino that may
force me to abandon it permanently. Apparently monthly bb coupons
are
calculated with payback percentage weighted very heavily as opposed
to
actual coin-in. Even though I was giving the casino more action in a
month then most patrons were giving it in a year, many of the
nibblers
received significantly larger coupons. And to further rub it in this
comes at a time when there are serious physical problems with the
OEJ
playing environment and the machines themselves (which apparently
reset under mysterious circumstances and nobody has an explanation).
Sadly I suspect that I will not be playing OEJ again.> For OEJs I would suggest something more like 8-9. I've gone down
this
> much a couple of times and eventually made it up. The variance of
> around 40 is what makes it so streaky.
>
> Dick
>
> > Sensible advice, but the 3-5 rule is totally inadequate for very
> > streaky games like One Eyed Jacks. My bankroll was cut nearly
in
> half
> > by this game at which point I decided to put on the brakes and
> demoted
> > myself to quarter play. 3-5 is probably ok for the games that
Bob
> > lists, but I can tell you from personal experience and that of
> others
> > who play OEJ that the rule probably needs to be bumped up to 7
> Royals
> > for this game.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > A Simplified Look At Bankroll Requirements
> > >
> > > http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html
> > >
> > > <a
> href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/d
ancer/2004/0928.html">
cer/2004/0928.html</a>
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_nbi" <nbi@w...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_nbi" <nbi@w...> wrote:
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
to be more accurate, for 200/75/50 oej i get a risk number of
0.999855549
so, 5 royals (4000 bets) has a risk of ruin of:
0.999855549^4000=0.56 (56%)
14,286 bets (~17.9 royals) has a risk of ruin of:
0.999855549^14286=0.13 (13%)
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
kelly bankroll (~11%ror)= variance/(er-1) bets
200/75/50 oej: er=1.0028, var=40, bankroll=14,286 bets or 17.9
royals
3-5 royals rule only applies to games with er-1 near 1% and variance
around 25 (fpdw+0.25%cashback, nsud+1%cashback, 9/6job+1%cashback,
etc)
exact bankroll calculator (doesn't do oej):
http://www.gamblingtools.net/vp/vpanalyzer.html> That probably explains it. My bankroll at its peak was nowhere
near
8
> Royals (32k). In hindsight I probably should not have started
playing
> OEJ as I was apparently underfunded. The dryspell I'm in is
> particularly aggravating because I worked so hard at mastering OEJ
and
> my regular testing shows I'm playing at nearly 100%.
>
> An additional OEJ wrinkle has developed at my local casino that
may
> force me to abandon it permanently. Apparently monthly bb coupons
are
> calculated with payback percentage weighted very heavily as
opposed
to
> actual coin-in. Even though I was giving the casino more action
in a
> month then most patrons were giving it in a year, many of the
nibblers
> received significantly larger coupons. And to further rub it in
this
> comes at a time when there are serious physical problems with the
OEJ
> playing environment and the machines themselves (which apparently
> reset under mysterious circumstances and nobody has an
explanation).
> Sadly I suspect that I will not be playing OEJ again.
>
> > For OEJs I would suggest something more like 8-9. I've gone down
this
> > much a couple of times and eventually made it up. The variance
of
> > around 40 is what makes it so streaky.
> >
> > Dick
> >
> > > Sensible advice, but the 3-5 rule is totally inadequate for
very
> > > streaky games like One Eyed Jacks. My bankroll was cut nearly
in
> > half
> > > by this game at which point I decided to put on the brakes
and
> > demoted
> > > myself to quarter play. 3-5 is probably ok for the games that
Bob
> > > lists, but I can tell you from personal experience and that
of
> > others
> > > who play OEJ that the rule probably needs to be bumped up to
7
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_nbi" <nbi@w...> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_nbi" <nbi@w...> wrote:
> > Royals
> > > for this game.
> > >
> > > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A Simplified Look At Bankroll Requirements
> > > >
> > > > http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/0928.html
> > > >
> > > > <a
> > href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/d
ancer/2004/0928.html">
> > > > http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dan
cer/2004/0928.html</a>