vpFREE2 Forums

Multstrike 5-play?

I wrote:

> (.25 3-play has a higher bankroll requirement than $.25 single
> play strictly as a consequence of covariance, not the fact that
> you wager more per play)

iggy replied:

that's incorrect for the same total wager, multiplays have lower
bankroll requirements multiplays lower the variance of the draw,
dealt variance remains unchanged

No argument with your statement, iggy. But keep in mind that my
comparison was betwen multiplay and single play at the same
denomination ($.25), not "total wager" (here the example was a $3.75
3-play wager and a $1.25 single play wager).

This fragment of my post (which FWIW, didn't reference the deal) was
to illustrate that the reason why when you play multiple hands at a
given denomination in multiplay vs. the same number of hands (not
plays) in single play, variance (and bankroll requirement) increase
strictly as a consequence of covariance, and not the greater wager
each play.

However, as you note, when you increase the denomination of single
play so that the total wager per play is identical (e.g. $.25 4-play
and $1 single play), a second influence on variance kicks in -- the
dispersion of that greater wager over more hands per play. This
variance reducing effect is stronger than the effect of covariance and
thus, as you note, at the same total wager variance is reduced.

- Harry

$.25 3-play has a higher dollar bankroll requirement than $.25 single
play ***only*** because you are wagering more per bet:

$.25 single play full pay deuces:
er=1.0076, variance=25.83
bankroll(11%ror)=25.83/.0076= 3399 bets x $1.25/bet= $4,249

$.25 3-play full pay deuces:
er=1.0076, variance=3.140053 +22.694565/3=10.7
bankroll(11%ror)=10.7/.0076= 1408 bets x $3.75/bet= $5,280

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

I wrote:
> > (.25 3-play has a higher bankroll requirement than $.25 single
> > play strictly as a consequence of covariance, not the fact that
> > you wager more per play)

iggy replied:
> that's incorrect for the same total wager, multiplays have lower
> bankroll requirements multiplays lower the variance of the draw,
> dealt variance remains unchanged

No argument with your statement, iggy. But keep in mind that my
comparison was betwen multiplay and single play at the same
denomination ($.25), not "total wager" (here the example was a $3.75
3-play wager and a $1.25 single play wager).

This fragment of my post (which FWIW, didn't reference the deal) was
to illustrate that the reason why when you play multiple hands at a
given denomination in multiplay vs. the same number of hands (not
plays) in single play, variance (and bankroll requirement) increase
strictly as a consequence of covariance, and not the greater wager
each play.

However, as you note, when you increase the denomination of single
play so that the total wager per play is identical (e.g. $.25 4-play
and $1 single play), a second influence on variance kicks in -- the
dispersion of that greater wager over more hands per play. This
variance reducing effect is stronger than the effect of covariance

and

···

thus, as you note, at the same total wager variance is reduced.

- Harry

my apologies for being a little slow
i think i get what you are saying now
if one was expecting quarter 3-play to have the same dollar bankroll
requirement as quarter single play, one would be wrong, and one could
say that quarter 3-play has a higher dollar bankroll requirement
because of the covariance between hands

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

$.25 3-play has a higher dollar bankroll requirement than $.25

single

play ***only*** because you are wagering more per bet:

$.25 single play full pay deuces:
er=1.0076, variance=25.83
bankroll(11%ror)=25.83/.0076= 3399 bets x $1.25/bet= $4,249

$.25 3-play full pay deuces:
er=1.0076, variance=3.140053 +22.694565/3=10.7
bankroll(11%ror)=10.7/.0076= 1408 bets x $3.75/bet= $5,280

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > > (.25 3-play has a higher bankroll requirement than $.25

single

> > > play strictly as a consequence of covariance, not the fact

that

> > > you wager more per play)
>
> iggy replied:
> > that's incorrect for the same total wager, multiplays have

lower

> > bankroll requirements multiplays lower the variance of the

draw,

> > dealt variance remains unchanged
>
>
> No argument with your statement, iggy. But keep in mind that my
> comparison was betwen multiplay and single play at the same
> denomination ($.25), not "total wager" (here the example was a

$3.75

> 3-play wager and a $1.25 single play wager).
>
> This fragment of my post (which FWIW, didn't reference the deal)

was

> to illustrate that the reason why when you play multiple hands at

a

> given denomination in multiplay vs. the same number of hands (not
> plays) in single play, variance (and bankroll requirement)

increase

> strictly as a consequence of covariance, and not the greater wager
> each play.
>
> However, as you note, when you increase the denomination of single
> play so that the total wager per play is identical (e.g. $.25

4-play

> and $1 single play), a second influence on variance kicks in --

the

···

> dispersion of that greater wager over more hands per play. This
> variance reducing effect is stronger than the effect of covariance
and
> thus, as you note, at the same total wager variance is reduced.
>
> - Harry

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

my apologies for being a little slow
i think i get what you are saying now
if one was expecting quarter 3-play to have the same dollar bankroll
requirement as quarter single play, one would be wrong, and one
could say that quarter 3-play has a higher dollar bankroll
requirement because of the covariance between hands

You're fast on the trigger compared to most, including myself (at
times) :wink:

In truthfulness, I've been awkward in discussing the topic -- my stat
isn't as versatile as other topics and I'd have to polish a little
harder than I'm willing to take the time just now to really get things
clean (I'll impress upon you that now, more than usual, I'm letting my
fingers/mind fly on these posts while juggling other matters).

Glad I managed to convey the basic point and hopefully the
carrythrough to the MS multiplay variance assessment.

- Harry

Thanks!!
REB

···

--- Jean Scott <QueenofComps@frugalgambler.biz> wrote:

<<Jean,
Where is the best place to get the proper 5-play MS
strategy?
>>

I just went to the Web site below for the first time
and discovered they
have a great "Link" page, which includes many
articles written about the
game and other Web sites to consult. Some of these
contain actual
strategies for specific games and the link to my
3-part series in Frugal
Fridays tells you how to make one yourself, using
software programs like
WinPoker, Strategy Master, and Frugal Video Poker

http://www.multistrikepoker.com/msp_shockwave.htm
________________________________________
Jean $�ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards and for the
  Frugal series of books.

Thanks!!
REB

···

--- Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:

Richard Boozer wrote:
> Where is the best place to get the proper 5-play
MS
> strategy?

Just to ensure it's clear ... 5-play MS strategy
doesn't differ from
standard MS strategy (in the same way that most
other multiline play
strategy is identical to single line).

Jean's link will get you to the appropriate
discussion of MS strategy.

- H.