vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's Latest CasinoGaming.com Column

#1

The article defines bankroll as "the amount of money you could lose gambling without having drastic implications on your lifestyle."
This is misleading. It's not only "could" lose. It's "could and be willing to lose." Bob alludes to this later in the column by saying that if losing $1000 is psychologically impossible for you then don't gamble. But that's not enough. If you are not WILLING to lose that $12,000, $30,000, $100,000 (or whatever) risk of ruin bankroll that the games you play require, then you also should not gamble. Unless you acknowledge that you are simply gambling for recreation.
I think the truth is that many of us THINK we have enough bankroll to be advantage players because we may have significant net worths and COULD lose the amounts required without ruining our lifestyles. That doesn't satisfy the second requirement. Are you willing to lose it? Could you lose the equivalent of a new SUV without jumping in front of one afterwards? I couldn't and that's why I classify myself as a recreational player.
I have seen posts from people who are playing high stakes and who proclaim they have more than adequate bankroll to cover their games. Consider this situation: Standard FP Jacks, $5 denomination ($25 per hand), 1% cashback (pretty difficult to get these days) and perfect play. To be REALLY safe as is claimed I will use risk of ruin of 1 percent. The required bankroll is $181,000. Want a less conservative ROR? Even at 5% the bankroll is $118,000. The numbers are much higher if you are playing the more common .67% cashback or multiline. Even if you have a coupla hundred thousand to lose, are you actually going to continue playing as you approach a six figure loss? That's a hell of a lot of coupons to clip. Truth is that no one knows without actually being there. That's why I think there is much more subjectivity to "bankroll requirements" than some allege.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

I think you are exactly right, Chief (assuming the math, which I haven't
checked, is correct). I, for one, am not willing to lose as much as I
can afford to lose; that's why I'm just a recreational player using
quarters. For as infrequently as I go to the casinos (maybe 8 times a
year), I still have plenty of fun playing just quarters, and get a lot
of bang for my few bucks.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

chiefvrwc@comcast.net wrote:

The article defines bankroll as "the amount of money you could lose
gambling without having drastic implications on your lifestyle."
This is misleading. It's not only "could" lose. It's "could and be
willing to lose." Bob alludes to this later in the column by saying
that if losing $1000 is psychologically impossible for you then don't
gamble. But that's not enough. If you are not WILLING to lose that
$12,000, $30,000, $100,000 (or whatever) risk of ruin bankroll that
the games you play require, then you also should not gamble. Unless
you acknowledge that you are simply gambling for recreation.
I think the truth is that many of us THINK we have enough bankroll to
be advantage players because we may have significant net worths and
COULD lose the amounts required without ruining our lifestyles. That
doesn't satisfy the second requirement. Are you willing to lose it?
Could you lose the equivalent of a new SUV without jumping in front of
one afterwards? I couldn't and that's why I classify myself as a
recreational player.
I have seen posts from people who are playing high stakes and who
proclaim they have more than adequate bankroll to cover their games.
Consider this situation: Standard FP Jacks, $5 denomination ($25 per
hand), 1% cashback (pretty difficult to get these days) and perfect
play. To be REALLY safe as is claimed I will use risk of ruin of 1
percent. The required bankroll is $181,000. Want a less conservative
ROR? Even at 5% the bankroll is $118,000. The numbers are much higher
if you are playing the more common .67% cashback or multiline. Even if
you have a coupla hundred thousand to lose, are you actually going to
continue playing as you approach a six figure loss? That's a hell of a
lot of coupons to clip. Truth is that no one knows without actually
being there. That's why I think there is much more subjectivity to
"bankroll requirements" than some allege.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

I must be a recreational player as well. But, I look at it in a slightly different
manner.

When it stops being fun, I stop. No matter what I have lost (or won!). And, no
matter what i think my bankroll is.

And, then I come back, when it seems as if it will be fun again.

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:

I still have plenty of fun playing just quarters, and get a lot
of bang for my few bucks.
Cheers.
Bill Velek

chiefvrwc@c... wrote:
> That's why I think there is much more subjectivity to
> "bankroll requirements" than some allege.

#4

bornloser1537 wrote:

I must be a recreational player as well. But, I look at it in a slightly different
manner.

When it stops being fun, I stop. No matter what I have lost (or won!). And, no
matter what i think my bankroll is.

And, then I come back, when it seems as if it will be fun again.

We're the same. I've stopped when winning when I've just gotten tired of sitting there or want to do something else. It would be nice to go once a month, but we always seem to have other things to do, too. I guess we'll increase to once per month after we retire and can manage trips during the week -- also a time when points are multiplied in some casinos.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

#5

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>
wrote:

I must be a recreational player as well. But, I look at it in a

slightly different

manner.

When it stops being fun, I stop. No matter what I have lost (or

won!). And, no

matter what i think my bankroll is.

And, then I come back, when it seems as if it will be fun again.

.....bl

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head!

I agree with you 100%. Unless you are a pro (or much more
dangerously, THINK you are a Pro) most vp players should play for
fun, recreation, excitement, kicks, companionship, or a chance to
clear the "ennui" from his/her brain after a boring day. Because of
that, they should probably limit themselves to a SESSION Bankroll
that they are completely comfortable losing. Otherwise, I fear, they
are setting themselves for a terrible, perhaps irreparable fall.
Hence, I believe that discussions of LONG-TERM Bankroll
requirements are both misleading and potentially ruinous.

If we could all adher to the above wise adage: "When it stops being
fun....STOP!"

Just my opinion. Babe

#6

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

Hence, I believe that discussions of LONG-TERM Bankroll
requirements are both misleading and potentially ruinous.

fascinating, truly fascinating
well, good luck with that attitude

"and what is the greatest wonder? that every day death takes lives
beyond number yet those who live think death can never come this day
to me" -mahabharata

#7

one more comment:
i play vp to win, does that make me a pro?

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>
wrote:
> I must be a recreational player as well. But, I look at it in a
slightly different
> manner.
>
> When it stops being fun, I stop. No matter what I have lost (or
won!). And, no
> matter what i think my bankroll is.
>
> And, then I come back, when it seems as if it will be fun again.
>
> .....bl

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head!

I agree with you 100%. Unless you are a pro (or much more
dangerously, THINK you are a Pro) most vp players should play for
fun, recreation, excitement, kicks, companionship, or a chance to
clear the "ennui" from his/her brain after a boring day. Because of
that, they should probably limit themselves to a SESSION Bankroll
that they are completely comfortable losing. Otherwise, I fear,

they

are setting themselves for a terrible, perhaps irreparable fall.
Hence, I believe that discussions of LONG-TERM Bankroll
requirements are both misleading and potentially ruinous.

If we could all adher to the above wise adage: "When it stops

being

···

fun....STOP!"

Just my opinion. Babe

#8

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...>
wrote:
> Hence, I believe that discussions of LONG-TERM Bankroll
> requirements are both misleading and potentially ruinous.

fascinating, truly fascinating
well, good luck with that attitude

. Thank you! And good luck to you

as well!

"and what is the greatest wonder? that every day death takes lives
beyond number yet those who live think death can never come this

day

to me" -mahabharata

I presume this quotation is meant

to convey that I could lose my bankroll some day. And, I suppose it
is quite possible that this could happen. But then, it would only
be the small amount of money that I was willing to risk on that day.
I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense to you. It's only my opinion,
and I don't think that it's a bad idea for most recreational players.
Of course, if you're a pro, playing vp to earn a living, this would
not apply to you.

#9

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

one more comment:
i play vp to win, does that make me a pro?

I doubt it. I ALWAYS play vp to win, practice diligently

on WinPoker, nearly always play 100% vp (I do confess to to having a
weakness for DDB and infrequently play the 9/6 version) and do
whatever I can to enhance my win percentage. I certainly don't
consider myself a pro, even though, according to WP, I do play at 99%
+ accuracy (at least at home, when being evaluated by WP). However,
if you do consider yourself a pro, or if you feel more comfortable
having a "several X Royal longterm" vp bankroll tucked away, I only
wish you the best. Too each his own method. Many Royals to you.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...>
wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537"

<bornloser1537@y...>

> wrote:
> > I must be a recreational player as well. But, I look at it in

a

> slightly different
> > manner.
> >
> > When it stops being fun, I stop. No matter what I have lost

(or

> won!). And, no
> > matter what i think my bankroll is.
> >
> > And, then I come back, when it seems as if it will be fun

again.

> >
> > .....bl
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think you have hit the nail squarely on the

head!

> I agree with you 100%. Unless you are a pro (or much more
> dangerously, THINK you are a Pro) most vp players should play

for

> fun, recreation, excitement, kicks, companionship, or a chance

to

> clear the "ennui" from his/her brain after a boring day. Because

of

> that, they should probably limit themselves to a SESSION

Bankroll

> that they are completely comfortable losing. Otherwise, I fear,
they
> are setting themselves for a terrible, perhaps irreparable

fall.

···

> Hence, I believe that discussions of LONG-TERM Bankroll
> requirements are both misleading and potentially ruinous.
>
> If we could all adher to the above wise adage: "When it stops
being
> fun....STOP!"
>
> Just my opinion. Babe

#10

Are you a pro? I don't know. (hmmmm...seems as if I made a little
poem there.) The answer really is: "Who cares"?

We all, certainly, play to win. But, those of us who play for the
entertainment value of VP, with an occassional trip to Las Vegas or
elsewhere, are intelligent enough to know that, within the dictates
of small number statistics, we are at the mercy of Lady Luck, more
than anything else. And, with the miniscule advantages that we may
enjoy with almost-100% machines and comps, breaking even is the
thrill that I enjoy, with an occassional Big-Win trip to keep the
blood pumping in my veins. Yes, I also have some losing trips, but
I will not bring that up here. <grin>

All of us take a bit of pride in seeking out the best pay tables and
we try to play as perfectly as we can. Practicing with WinPoker or
Frugal software at home entertains us in between trips and keep us
sharp. Yes, we also come here to read and to opine (and sometimes
to argue a bit).

Let us all be free to play VP the way that we ourselves want to.
Let us not disparage anyone else for not playing the way that we
do. Instead, let us, here, continue to share our experiences and
our knowledge for the betterment of all of us.

Royals to us all!

.....bl

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

···

one more comment:
i play vp to win, does that make me a pro?

#11

excellent post, thank you

and thanks to all for this great forum

Jim

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...> wrote:

Let us all be free to play VP the way that we ourselves want to.
Let us not disparage anyone else for not playing the way that we
do. Instead, let us, here, continue to share our experiences and
our knowledge for the betterment of all of us.

Royals to us all!

.....bl

#12

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>
wrote:

Are you a pro? I don't know. (hmmmm...seems as if I made a

little

poem there.) The answer really is: "Who cares"?

We all, certainly, play to win. But, those of us who play for the
entertainment value of VP, with an occassional trip to Las Vegas

or

elsewhere, are intelligent enough to know that, within the

dictates

of small number statistics, we are at the mercy of Lady Luck, more
than anything else. And, with the miniscule advantages that we

may

enjoy with almost-100% machines and comps, breaking even is the
thrill that I enjoy, with an occassional Big-Win trip to keep the
blood pumping in my veins. Yes, I also have some losing trips,

but

I will not bring that up here. <grin>

All of us take a bit of pride in seeking out the best pay tables

and

we try to play as perfectly as we can. Practicing with WinPoker

or

Frugal software at home entertains us in between trips and keep us
sharp. Yes, we also come here to read and to opine (and sometimes
to argue a bit).

Let us all be free to play VP the way that we ourselves want to.
Let us not disparage anyone else for not playing the way that we
do. Instead, let us, here, continue to share our experiences and
our knowledge for the betterment of all of us.

Royals to us all!

Hi bl, I guarantee you, that with your SUPER

attitude, frame of mind, and commonsense, that you are NOT, as your
email address erroneously suggests, "abornloser".....

Many happy vp sessions and royals to you !

Babe

···

.....bl

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> one more comment:
> i play vp to win, does that make me a pro?
>

#13

BL,

I agree. Its the action and the fun factor for me.
Thanks for the post.

Are you a pro? I don't know. (hmmmm...seems as if I made a little
poem there.) The answer really is: "Who cares"?

We all, certainly, play to win. But, those of us who play for the
entertainment value of VP, with an occassional trip to Las Vegas or
elsewhere, are intelligent enough to know that, within the dictates
of small number statistics, we are at the mercy of Lady Luck, more
than anything else. And, with the miniscule advantages that we may
enjoy with almost-100% machines and comps, breaking even is the
thrill that I enjoy, with an occassional Big-Win trip to keep the
blood pumping in my veins. Yes, I also have some losing trips, but
I will not bring that up here. <grin>

All of us take a bit of pride in seeking out the best pay tables and
we try to play as perfectly as we can. Practicing with WinPoker or
Frugal software at home entertains us in between trips and keep us
sharp. Yes, we also come here to read and to opine (and sometimes
to argue a bit).

Let us all be free to play VP the way that we ourselves want to.
Let us not disparage anyone else for not playing the way that we
do. Instead, let us, here, continue to share our experiences and
our knowledge for the betterment of all of us.

Royals to us all!

.....bl

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

one more comment:
i play vp to win, does that make me a pro?

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

···

bornloser1537 <bornloser1537@yahoo.com> wrote:

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
  
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#14

don't you keep a running total?
for example, your win/loss for the full year, at least for tax
purposes?
you realize that all those little session wins and losses can add up,
to potentially a bigger loss than any given session loss?
i'm probably beating a dead horse here, the concepts of savings and
bankroll aren't mainstream american
from what i understand, the typical gambler actually generates their
trip stake with a credit card cash advance.

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I presume this quotation is

meant

to convey that I could lose my bankroll some day. And, I suppose

it

is quite possible that this could happen. But then, it would only
be the small amount of money that I was willing to risk on that day.
I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense to you. It's only my opinion,
and I don't think that it's a bad idea for most recreational

players.

···

Of course, if you're a pro, playing vp to earn a living, this would
not apply to you.

#15

---bornlooser wrote:
The Sermon:

All of us take a bit of pride in seeking out the best pay tables and
we try to play as perfectly as we can. Practicing with WinPoker or
Frugal software at home entertains us in between trips and keep us
sharp. Yes, we also come here to read and to opine (and sometimes
to argue a bit).

The Invocation:

Let us all be free to play VP the way that we ourselves want to. [Lemme hear an

AMEN!!]

Let us not disparage anyone else for not playing the way that we
do. [AMEN!!!] Instead, let us, here, continue to share our experiences and
our knowledge for the betterment of all of us. [Lawd-a-mercy, AMEN!!]

The closing first verse to Hymn #45:

Royals to us all!

.....bl

Add minister of the church of the RNG to your resume'.
Well written.
Our past-time's parallels to religion are funny at first glance, but maybe a litle
alarming!

~Mrk (aka pastor flash)

#16

Not to answer for another person, but...

Of course, we all keep totals. My wife calls me a record keeping
fool. LOL. But, I do not see how my knowledge, or my lack of
knhowledge, of an (academic) bankroll number will cause me to play
any differently. While I am having fun, I play. When it stops
being fun, I stop.

What record keeping that I do is, of course, part of the fun for
me. Seeing how much we are up, or down. Those little session
losses do add up, but, they are often counterbalanced by little
session wins (sometimes, big session wins). Any bankroll number is
simply academic to me and does not affect how I practice at home,
how I play at a casino, how I look for good pay tables, or how I
look to play and stay at places that give me nice comps. I play as
long as it is fun, and my play has nothing to do with any bankroll
number that may exist.

I really don't see what you are getting at, here.

Again, we all play for fun. We all know what we lose, but we also
know what we win. For me, the bankroll is simply academic. It has
no relevance for me. But, that is ME. Everyone has their own pet
record keeping practices and what they want to know and what they
want to work toward.

The big thing is for all of us to share our fun, and learn from our
own and from other's experiences.

As I said before, royals to us all!

.....bl

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

don't you keep a running total?
for example, your win/loss for the full year, at least for tax
purposes?
you realize that all those little session wins and losses can add

up,

to potentially a bigger loss than any given session loss?
i'm probably beating a dead horse here, the concepts of savings and
bankroll aren't mainstream american
from what i understand, the typical gambler actually generates

their

trip stake with a credit card cash advance.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I presume this quotation is
meant
> to convey that I could lose my bankroll some day. And, I suppose
it
> is quite possible that this could happen. But then, it would

only

> be the small amount of money that I was willing to risk on that

day.

> I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense to you. It's only my

opinion,

> and I don't think that it's a bad idea for most recreational
players.
> Of course, if you're a pro, playing vp to earn a living, this

would

···

> not apply to you.

#17

Yes!

A big "AMEN" to Pastor Flash!

Now, where is that collection plate?

All contributions happily and gratefully accepted.

Where would religion be without a collection plate?

LOL.

.....bl

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

Our past-time's parallels to religion are funny at first glance,

but maybe a litle

···

alarming!

~Mrk (aka pastor flash)

#18

the only reason i gamble is to win
and winning for me means positive total at the end of each year
bankroll is a fundamental part of that winning process
my goal is to extract the average return, but to do that i must have
the bankroll to ride the roller coaster of variance, only if you
survive the initial droughts (royals, deuces, aces, etc) can you play
long enough to extract the average return
(and long enough isn't millions of hands, it's around 5 royal cycles
but varies per game, long enough=N0=variance/(er-1)^2 hands)
believe me, if you gamble, bankroll is not an academic concept
one day, most likely, you will experience that long drought, if you
understood the bankroll concept you would be prepared for it, if you
ignore bankroll you would say stuff like:
"i can't believe it happened to me, i play perfect strategy only on
positive machines, how could i lose that much???"
you can lose that much, you can lose a bankroll, it's all a question
of probability, it's all math, practical applied math, believe it or
not
positive gambling is still gambling
negative gambling is a fool's folly

wrote:

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>

I really don't see what you are getting at, here.
Again, we all play for fun. We all know what we lose, but we also
know what we win. For me, the bankroll is simply academic. It has
no relevance for me. But, that is ME. Everyone has their own pet
record keeping practices and what they want to know and what they
want to work toward.

#19

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head!
I agree with you 100%. Unless you are a pro (or much more
dangerously, THINK you are a Pro) most vp players should play for
fun, recreation, excitement, kicks, companionship, or a chance to
clear the "ennui" from his/her brain after a boring day.

So, I guess playing to win is out? :wink: I am a recreational player. I play the best opportunity I can and always the best game that I know how to play. In one way or another I figure out how to extract as much value from my play as possible. The enlightened play of video poker lets me take more value from the casino than the casino takes from me. Perhaps you should list that as one of the reasons to play video poker?

Because of
that, they should probably limit themselves to a SESSION Bankroll
that they are completely comfortable losing. Otherwise, I fear, they
are setting themselves for a terrible, perhaps irreparable fall.
Hence, I believe that discussions of LONG-TERM Bankroll
requirements are both misleading and potentially ruinous.

Discussions of bankroll requirements are ruinous and misleading? A careless misunderstanding or disregard of several concepts surrounding sound video poker play could conceivably be "ruinous" but who would be to blame for that? I just don't get the call for ignorance. I would argue the exact opposite. The discussions of ROR, bankroll requirement, volatility, and many other subjects presented here have informed and broadened my understanding (in spite of my very limited math talent) of the game of video poker. I think I play smarter and am less likely to do something stupid as a result of that understanding.

···

At 07:10 PM 10/1/2004, you wrote:

#20

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

ignore bankroll you would say stuff like:
"i can't believe it happened to me, i play perfect strategy only on
positive machines, how could i lose that much???"
you can lose that much, you can lose a bankroll, it's all a

question

of probability, it's all math, practical applied math, believe it

or

not
positive gambling is still gambling
negative gambling is a fool's folly

Dear noti,

It appears that we have a disagrement here. Why would "ignoring
bankroll" make me say things like you are saying? Whether I am
aware of the bankroll number or not, my winning or my losing would
be exactly the same. My winning or losing is a pure result of
probablility, not of what the value of some "bankroll" is.

Are you saying that if I am unaware of the bankroll "number", then I
am negative gambler? Why is that? Exactly like you, I play the
best machines that I can find, where I happen to be. Exactly like
you, I try to play as well as I can. How can the simple knowledge
of a "bankroll number" make any difference?

I admit that some people like to establish a "comfort zone" for
themselves, based upon the statistics of the game that they are
playing. To establish this "comfort zone", all that is needed are
the EV and the variance (or the standard deviation). The amounts
that can be won or lost are random, based purely upon the statistics
that are defined by the EV and variance of that game and the skill
level of the player. The chances of one being 5-sigma away from the
mean (winning or losing) are very much less than one being just 1 or
2-sigma away from the mean. And, the more hands that one plays, the
more likely that one will be nearer to the mean.

But, in the end, I guess what we are getting down to, is the fact
that we are both saying exactly the same thing. We are simply
looking at different parameters of the same problem. "Bankroll" is
actually a derived parameter, computed from the EV and the
variance. You have stated the formulae yourself, relating them.
You are comfortable with using "bankroll" to establish your comfort
zone. Other people may be more comfortable with EV and variance.

But, all of this is secondary, for me anyway, to enjoying the game
and only playing when it is fun. I play when it is fun. I do not
play when it stops being fun. And, in some sense EV, variance, and
bankroll are immaterial, as long as I play well and try to play at
machines with "good" pay tables.

.....bl