--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John.G.Zaroff" <John.G.Zaroff@d...>
wrote:
After reading Ednar's post, I got to wondering about how much
player error would contribute to risk of ruin. I used Yuri's
iterative ROR calculator and instead of adjusting the paytable to
reflect player error, I lessened the cash back portion. Here's what
I found out.
For a $10,000 bankroll, playing single line NSUD with 0.5%
cashback , the risk of ruin is 16.1%. That's a pretty large number.
So, $10,000 to play single line quarters and 1 out of 6.25 times you
do this, you will go broke.
Now, what if we make 0.01% errors?
at 0.01% error, ror is 17.48%
at 0.02% error, ror is 18.98%
at 0.03% error, ror is 20.6%
Each 1/100 % error that you make increases your risk of ruin by
about 1.6%. That's quite a bit. Maybe Dancer is actually
understating the risk when he says a 3 to 5 royal flush bankroll is
needed.
The reason that errors affect this example so greatly and that you
need such a huge bankroll is that you are talking about a game with a
paper-thin edge. with 0.5% CB, the edge on this game is 0.22%. That
means with only 0.22% in errors (not very uncommon error rate) or
cash back of .25% or less, the Risk of Ruin would be 50% (or higher,
depending on your definition of RoR), even with a $1,000,000 bankroll
playing quarters. This is because RoR is defined as the likelihod of
you going broke in infinite play. If you have no edge (or are
playing a losing game), your bankroll can't help you from losing.
Since the RoR with perfect play starts at 16% with no errors, each
one-hundredth of a percent in errors will greatly increase the RoR.
On the other hand, if you are playing something with a 1% edge (like
FPDW with .25% CB), a $3000 bankroll is probably more than enough and
a small error rate shouldn't hurt your RoR too badly.