Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 4 JUN 2013

[Dunbar]

Wow. Is there really a 4 percent chance of losing half a RF after only 2000 hands of 9/6 jacks? Your percentages add up to 103 but I assume that's because of rounding.

Ouch! That "4 percent" should be "0 percent". The "4 percent" is an artifact of the way I captured and posted the results.

Here's what happened. I first ran the Short-Term RoR for 9/6 JOB. I copied and pasted the "Distribution of Outcomes" table to a blank EXCEL file. Everything in the table is a number EXCEPT for the probability of losing everything. That cell has the variable "TripRoR". (if you have DRA-VP and click the probability of "lose 100%", you'll see "=TripRoR" in the Formula Bar near the top of the page). The 'lose 100%' cell value can change if TripRoR changes. Which is exactly what happened next.

When I next ran the Short-Term RoR for 9/6 DblDblBonus, the variable "TripRoR" in the 9/6 JOB table changed to the new 4% value that I got from the 9/6 DDB run. (you can see the 4% in the DDB table in my original post.) I didn't notice that the 9/6 JOB table had picked up the RoR value from the DDB table when I made the original post.

That also explains why the figs in my posted JOB table add to 103%. The actual rounded figs added to 99%, and that diff IS due to rounding.

Thanks for catching the error, Slowpoke!

--Dunbar

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Slowpoke" <decca@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dunbar_dra" <h_dunbar@> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what the original scenario was, but here is the distribution of outcomes after playing 2000 hands of $5 9/6 JOB when starting with a $10K bankroll:
>
> FINAL BANK % CHANGE PROBABILITY
> 0 lose 100% 4%
> 1 - 1999 lose 80% to 99% 0%
> 2000 - 3999 lose 60% to 80% 1%
> 4000 - 5999 lose 40% to 60% 8%
> 6000 - 7999 lose 20% to 40% 26%
> 8000 - 9999 lose up to 20% 33%
> 10000 - 11999 win up to 20% 19%
> 12000 - 13999 win 20% to 40% 6%
> 14000 - 15999 win 40% to 60% 1%
> 16000 - 17999 win 60% to 80% 0%
> 18000 - 19999 win 80% to 99+% 0%
> 20000 + double or more 5%

[Dunbar]

Hi Harry,

The table I posted indicated just a 9% chance of exceeding a $4000 loss on $50K coin-in at $5 JOB. I think you must have added in the 26% fig relating to a final bank of $6000-7999.

I went ahead and checked the chance of losing $2400 or more when playing the DIAD 1600 hands of $5 JOB. It's 22.5%.

--Dunbar

Thanks, Dunbar ...

Relating my "gut estimate" to your stats, it's comforting that I wasn't far off the mark:

I suggested about a 40% likelihood of exceeding a final $2400 loss on $40k (diad) of $5 single line jb.

You indicate a 37% likelihood of exceeding a final $4000 loss on $50k of such play.

I imagine that the original premise risk was more like 30% (I'll consult my purchased copy of DRA when I'll get home :). Great tool!

- H.

>
> I'm not sure what the original scenario was, but here is the distribution of outcomes after playing 2000 hands of $5 9/6 JOB when starting with a $10K bankroll:
>
> FINAL BANK % CHANGE PROBABILITY
> 0 lose 100% 4%
> 1 - 1999 lose 80% to 99% 0%
> 2000 - 3999 lose 60% to 80% 1%
> 4000 - 5999 lose 40% to 60% 8%
> 6000 - 7999 lose 20% to 40% 26%
> 8000 - 9999 lose up to 20% 33%
> 10000 - 11999 win up to 20% 19%
> 12000 - 13999 win 20% to 40% 6%
> 14000 - 15999 win 40% to 60% 1%
> 16000 - 17999 win 60% to 80% 0%
> 18000 - 19999 win 80% to 99+% 0%
> 20000 + double or more 5%

(as mentioned in another post, the probability of "lose 100%" above should be "0%", not "4%".)

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dunbar_dra" <h_dunbar@> wrote:

>
> Here is what you get if you play 9/6 DDB instead:
>
> FINAL BANK % CHANGE PROBABILITY
> 0 lose 100% 4%
> 1 - 1999 lose 80% to 99% 6%
> 2000 - 3999 lose 60% to 80% 12%
> 4000 - 5999 lose 40% to 60% 15%
> 6000 - 7999 lose 20% to 40% 15%
> 8000 - 9999 lose up to 20% 13%
> 10000 - 11999 win up to 20% 9%
> 12000 - 13999 win 20% to 40% 7%
> 14000 - 15999 win 40% to 60% 5%
> 16000 - 17999 win 60% to 80% 3%
> 18000 - 19999 win 80% to 99+% 2%
> 20000 + double or more 9%
>
> (sorry if the formatting is a mess.)
>
> So, if you start with $10K,
> 40% of the time you will lose more than 20% of your bankroll in 2000 hands of 9/6 JOB.
> 52% of the time you will lose more than 20% of your bankroll in 2000 hands of 9/6 DDB.
>
> --Dunbar
>
> (I used DRA-VP for the calcs)
>
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@> wrote:
> >
> > Bob B succinctily responds to that claim
> >
> > Your posts reflect a decent measure of common sense and rationality (which is why I bothered to probe your motivations for the $5 foray). But it's clear that thre's much fodder on these groups from which you can benefit.
> >
> > You suggest that most of your short session jb results stay within a 2%-4% loss cap. That would be rather exceptional. My gut reaction (from 15 years of play) would be that a 6% cap would cover 60% of 2000 hand sessions, with 10% loss experience hardly being an outlier (20% would be an outlier, but not unheard of).
> >
> > Software tools, such as VP for winners, provide an exceptional means bywhich to guage potential loss exposure when tackling a play that lies outside of your standard monetary risk exposure, and is well worth the investment.
> >
> > As far as potential venues for taking a Diamond in a day run, vpfree2.com is chock full of accessible alternatives. I would suggest that a something such as a multiplay $.25 machine (or perhaps 3-play $1) machine would be much more apt, in terms of bankroll risk. These are available in several venues.
> >
> > Researching alternative venues by browsing archived posts here and te harrahscasinos forum will offer some intel on where thr rewards for such play might be a bit richer.
> >
> > Frankly, I'm gonna speculaye that you benefit fron a guardian angel, who shied you away from the CLV $5 machines, before you found yourself heabily invested in an adverse session. (True, it would have been far kinder to just flop a RF for you ... But, I've yet to stumble on that type of leprachaun
> >
> > - H.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "richard d" <cdgnpc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You can stare at the stats but my $1 9/6 play never had anywhere near that swing. My typical $5-10k session is plus or minus $1-200. So I let the anecdotal trump them impirical. I am not the only guilty of that. I also had an idea of trying to make up that lost EV at a invitation only multiplier event.
> > > I live in NYC so my options are slimmer than in LV.
> >
>

[Tim]

vp_wiz wrote:

10-play $.25 jb would have handily seen you through your DIAD play in 6-7 hrs, with nominal risk, relative to $5 single line. There are other options, detailed in vpFREE2 that might have suited your purposes as well.

Tim wrote:
Hi there, I have a question about multi-play vs single play regarding variance.
The Wizard of Odds site says that the multi-play (3 play, 10 play, 100 play) machines have a higher variance than single play machines here on this link:
http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/appendix/3/

If this is true, then wouldn't it be better to play a single play machine over a multi play if your goal was to earn points (i.e. play a $5 single line vs a $1 five play)?

Please help me understand.

I am a low level Harrahs diamond player and play for fun but I also like my dollar to go as far as it can. They have a deal where you get 5000 bonus tier credits when you earn 2500 tier in a day, with this you can earn diamond level in two days of 2500 points per day. I did it on a $5 9/5 JOB machine in Shreveport but would like to know if it would have been better to play a $1 five play machine (same $ bet per hand).

Thanks for any advise.

Tim in Texas

[Albert_Pearson1]

Maybe this example will help.
A single line $5 denomination machine at $25 per hand has a lower variance than
a 10 play $5 denomination machine for sure.

But if you compare that single line game to a 10 play 50 cent denomination machine
at the same $25 per hand the variance will be much much smaller.

Regards

A.P.

···

________________________________
From: kb5zcr <thetiminator@gmail.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 8:02:23 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] was Re: Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 4 JUN 2013

vp_wiz wrote:

10-play $.25 jb would have handily seen you through your DIAD play in 6-7 hrs, with nominal risk, relative to $5 single line. There are other options, detailed in vpFREE2 that might have suited your purposes as well.

Tim wrote:
Hi there, I have a question about multi-play vs single play regarding variance.
The Wizard of Odds site says that the multi-play (3 play, 10 play, 100 play) machines have a higher variance than single play machines here on this link:
http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/appendix/3/

If this is true, then wouldn't it be better to play a single play machine over a multi play if your goal was to earn points (i.e. play a $5 single line vs a $1 five play)?

Please help me understand.

I am a low level Harrahs diamond player and play for fun but I also like my dollar to go as far as it can. They have a deal where you get 5000 bonus tier credits when you earn 2500 tier in a day, with this you can earn diamond level in two days of 2500 points per day. I did it on a $5 9/5 JOB machine in Shreveport but would like to know if it would have been better to play a $1 five play machine (same $ bet per hand).

Thanks for any advise.

Tim in Texas

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