I'll be heading to Vegas 9/12. I usually play DDB $1 games. I
bought winpoker and have experimented with 10 play DDB. What's the
feeling about this game at the $1 level and what kind of bankroll do
I need to play?
Multi games
newnow2002 wrote:
I'll be heading to Vegas 9/12. I usually play DDB $1 games. I
bought winpoker and have experimented with 10 play DDB. What's the
feeling about this game at the $1 level and what kind of bankroll do
I need to play?
Are we talking "bankroll" as in how much your losses are likely to
exceed (over time) with a likelihood of no more than 5% (or 1%) of the
time? Or what is more accurately referred to as a sufficient trip stake?
Either way, I'd find the dollars staggering, but I'll own up to not
having an actual $ estimate. In truth, to estimate a true bankroll
value, you'd have to specify the paytable and cb rate for someone to
give you a solid reply. If we're talking a total below 100% the
answer is easy: more than all the money in the world. I'm not being
facetious on that one. A bankroll is not defined for a "negative"
play since expected losses ultimately are unlimited.
In any case, the bankroll (or trip stake) requirement would be akin to
a little less than that of $5 single line -- in the case of a
bankroll, involving such major bucks played at a likely limited edge
that I'd feel more comfortable speculating in stock options.
I'm not trying to be flip here, ok? The prospect just leaves me a
little weak in the knees. Hell, $1 single line DDB does that alone.
- Harry
If you have experimented with 10 play DDB for $1 then
you should know the huge bankroll needed. Are you
playing at 100% for 4 hours? what are your points
after 4 hours?
···
--- Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:
newnow2002 wrote:
> I'll be heading to Vegas 9/12. I usually play DDB
$1 games. I
> bought winpoker and have experimented with 10 play
DDB. What's the
> feeling about this game at the $1 level and what
kind of bankroll do
> I need to play?Are we talking "bankroll" as in how much your losses
are likely to
exceed (over time) with a likelihood of no more than
5% (or 1%) of the
time? Or what is more accurately referred to as a
sufficient trip stake?Either way, I'd find the dollars staggering, but
I'll own up to not
having an actual $ estimate. In truth, to estimate a
true bankroll
value, you'd have to specify the paytable and cb
rate for someone to
give you a solid reply. If we're talking a total
below 100% the
answer is easy: more than all the money in the
world. I'm not being
facetious on that one. A bankroll is not defined
for a "negative"
play since expected losses ultimately are unlimited.In any case, the bankroll (or trip stake)
requirement would be akin to
a little less than that of $5 single line -- in the
case of a
bankroll, involving such major bucks played at a
likely limited edge
that I'd feel more comfortable speculating in stock
options.I'm not trying to be flip here, ok? The prospect
just leaves me a
little weak in the knees. Hell, $1 single line DDB
does that alone.- Harry
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
If I were you, I will look for 10/6 DDB, which is positive. I'm
almost 100% sure this game is not available in Las Vegas in dollars
on ten play.
The next best game is 9/6 DDB, which returns 98.98%. This you can
find in dollars in ten play. According to Frugal, if you play single
line at 800 hands per hour, you can expect to lose $10.19 per hour,
long term. I would assume you will lose $101.90 average long term on
ten play, playing 800 hands per hour, but I'm not absolutely certain
the extrapolation is entirely correct.
If you seriously want to do this, you will of course be taking a
great risk. Figure on losing more than the above because you might
not hit a Royal right away, or aces with a kicker, etc. Of course,
you could get lucky and be dealt aces with a kicker at the start, for
a tidy $20,000, but you can't count on that. I did lots of
simulations in Frugal of this game, playing 100,000 hands. This would
be ten thousand hands in a ten play machine, something you could
achieve in fifteen or twenty hours of play. The results are all over
the place. You could lose $20,000, or win $20,000 at the end.
You don't want a more precise answer than this, do you? You are not
seriously thinking of playing this game long term, are you? If so,
please tell us the casino that gives over 1% of cashback and has this
game. Then it might be worth mortgaging the house to play it, if
taxes don't eat you up.
Good luck!
E
I'll be heading to Vegas 9/12. I usually play DDB $1 games. I
bought winpoker and have experimented with 10 play DDB. What's the
feeling about this game at the $1 level and what kind of bankroll
do
When a member replies to a post they should consider rearranging
things modestly when it's the case that their reply includes the text
of the original post and that of a prior reply.
I sometimes worry in such an instance whether they know who wrote what
when the author's IDs of those posts become nested. (For an example,
see Decker's reply quoted below.)
This concern arises because the structure of this new reply becomes as
convoluted as the first sentence above :). In addition, when others
read the new reply on top of the other text, there's the potential
they'll be further confused.
Now, the real problem in the following example is that in my reply I
placed my comments AFTER the text of the original post of "newnow". I
wanted others to understand, before reading my reply, exactly what it
was I was referencing. This causes any subsequent reply to my post to
"nest" the IDs of both authors (mine and newnow).
My point simply is that when replying to a post, a member should look
to edit the quoted text to ensure that each author's ID immediately
precedes the appropriate text. I've noticed a number of cases over
time where a quoted thread gets pretty bollocksed up (that's not an
obscenity in this country, is it? :), in this manner.
- Harry
Example
···
-------
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jr decker <jrdecker@y...> wrote:
If you have experimented with 10 play DDB for $1 then
you should know the huge bankroll needed. Are you
playing at 100% for 4 hours? what are your points
after 4 hours?
--- Harry Porter <harry.porter@v...> wrote:
> newnow2002 wrote:
> > I'll be heading to Vegas 9/12. I usually play DDB
> $1 games. I ...
Harry Porter wrote:
When a member replies to a post they should consider rearranging
things modestly when it's the case that their reply includes the text
of the original post and that of a prior reply.
It does become difficult when you start seeing things like ...
...
>>> This ...
>>>> ... and that ...
>>>>> ... and the other thing ...
>>>> ... etc.
... but I'm not sure what you mean when you say "rearranging things".
If you simply mean that some folks need to rearrange the order of their own response from, let's say, either a simple top-post or bottom-post where their _entire_ reply is stated all at once, ... to an arrangement in which their reply is interspersed throughout the quoted text in the immediate areas of each relevant point to which those points apply, then I whole-heartedly agree and I try to religiously practice that myself.
If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that folks start to rearrange the quoted text from previous posts, I'd have to disagree with that approach just on the basis that it is too easy to create even more confusion -- especially with injudicious snipping -- and probably will cause a lot of resentment on the part of folks who will then feel that they have been unfairly misquoted. That said, I think there are exceptions for particularly complicated posts, but any confusion can be avoided by adding a note sort of like: "Earlier in his same post, Harry had also said this: 'E Pluribus Unum'" ... and then make your point.
I sometimes worry in such an instance whether they know who wrote what
when the author's IDs of those posts become nested. (For an example,
see Decker's reply quoted below.)
Agreed, especially when, in the snipping process perhaps used by several folks, the various ID's have been dropped along the way. In such instances, you have probably seen me say something like "SOMEBODY said:"
Interestingly, someone (I can't even remember who) actually flamed me over a similar discussion because they felt strongly that it was somehow MY responsibility to go back and try to figure out the IDs that had been dropped by _other_ folks, and to then reinsert them; otherwise, they felt that I would somehow be at fault for misquoting people and perpetuating any confusion. Well, I got quite a good laugh out of that silly idea (for lots of logical and practical reasons I won't go into) and then I promptly 'plonked' the idiot; anyone that moronic probably isn't likely to have much to say of value to me, and they failed to grasp that when I quote the very last person in the thread (in this instance, you, Harry), I don't have the right to start inserting information that I think (or even KNOW) that you had dropped from the text of the person who _you_ were quoting; otherwise, I'd technically be misquoting YOU. I think it would certainly be a proper approach, when significant, to add my own note -- within my OWN text -- in order to clear up the error.
snip
... In addition, when others
read the new reply on top of the other text, there's the potential
they'll be further confused.
snip
I've always felt top-posting is unnecessarily confusing; the only advantage is that it eliminates the need for some scrolling, but with proper snipping and the desire to disperse a response throughout the quoted text, as I'm doing right now, any such advantage is nullified.
I have my default set to bottom post, which just places my sig file and cursor at the bottom of the page; I then scroll up to the top and begin my writing.
Now, what would at least _help_ a little bit is if browsers were equipped with an option that could be toggled on and off and which would work like this: it would search through a received message or post for each line which would begin with one or more ">" symbols and would count them, and then assign a different color (customizable) to each group of text accordingly. E.g., all lines beginning with only a single ">" would appear in blue text; all lines beginning with ">>" would be red; all lines starting with ">>>" would be green; etc.
Hopefully Bill Gates plays Video Poker and is a member of this group 
Cheers.
Bill
Bill Velek wrote:
I have my default set to bottom post, which just places my sig file
and cursor at the bottom of the page; I then scroll up to the top
and begin my writing.
This brings out a pertinent element, Bill. I suspect a lot of
potentially confusing structured replies occur when the replies are
entered through the online group system, and not via email reply which
generally is better organized.
I reply online since I prefer to browse posts there rather than deal
with a mail folder that receives a huge dump each day (oops ... that
didn't come out right ...)
Just to clarify what I was referring to when suggesting a member
"reorganize" their reply. I was simply talking about ensuring that a
member's name appears directly adjacent to their text -- this is where
the problem lies.
- Harry