I am basically a quarter/half dollar player. I have now tried
about ten times playing a dollar 9/6 job game, with a $100.00 buy in.
Each and every time I've busted in a very short time. Could someone
explain to me what a proper bankroll is for a session such as this to
have a chance for a winning session. Many thanks.
Pot Shot bankroll question
Since 9/6 JOB is a negative EV game, you should expect to lose money to
the game, and the longer you play, the more certain losing becomes. Of
course, you can often make the play turn positive with cash back and
bounce back coupons, but you can't generate very good offers if you
play really short sessions because you run out of money right away. So
a better question might be, "What is the proper session bankroll which
will allow me to play for xxx amount of hours (or hands) with very
little chance of running out of cash?"
I'm sure someone on the board like Dunbar can provide you with an exact
answer, but here is my rule of thumb for a long session (let's say 6 -
8 hours of play) on single line dollar 9/6 JOB: $2000 should usually be
enough, but $3000 will make you feel safer.
EE
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vprod1" <vprod1@...> wrote:
I am basically a quarter/half dollar player. I have now tried
about ten times playing a dollar 9/6 job game, with a $100.00 buy in.
Each and every time I've busted in a very short time. Could someone
explain to me what a proper bankroll is for a session such as this to
have a chance for a winning session. Many thanks.
The rule of thumb that I follow 9/6 JOB for a day of play is half a royal.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?source=EML_WL_ChangeWorld
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You are referring to single line correct?
···
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:36 PM, kelso 1600 <kelso1600@hotmail.com> wrote:
The rule of thumb that I follow 9/6 JOB for a day of play is half a royal.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?source=EML_WL_ChangeWorld
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks for your input. It is single line Susan...I guess I'm not even in the ballpark for the proper session allowance. That's why I love this site.
'
···
--- On Tue, 5/20/08, Susan Zelisko <szelisk@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Susan Zelisko <szelisk@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Pot Shot bankroll question
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2008, 6:07 PM
You are referring to single line correct?
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:36 PM, kelso 1600 <kelso1600@hotmail. com> wrote:
> The rule of thumb that I follow 9/6 JOB for a day of play is half a royal.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://im.live. com/Messenger/ IM/Join/Default. aspx?source= EML_WL_ChangeWor ld
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://members. cox.net/vpfree/ Links.htm
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
rod carlon wrote:
Thanks for your input. It is single line Susan...I guess I'm
not even in the ballpark for the proper session
allowance. That's why I love this site.
There's an extraordinarily useful bankroll tool in VP for Winners (VP)
software that ideally will assist you in getting a handle on how much
you may wish to bring to the casino.
Further, explored at length, it can be very valuable in determining
how consistent various "pot shot" opportunities are with your overall
play goals. (Generally speaking, pot shots can potentially be a near
sure-fire way to burn a far greater portion of your bankroll over time
than you'd otherwise intentionally venture into.)
- Harry
No, I think you are. The only reason I asked, is because the max payout
differs on multi-line machines (in my eyes). I would figure 3 lines max is
$3000, and 5 line is $5000 ($.25 level). Look at it that way, I see we are
pretty close on our beliefs.
···
On 5/21/08, rod carlon <vprod1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks for your input. It is single line Susan...I guess I'm not
even in the ballpark for the proper session allowance. That's
why I love this site.
'--- On Tue, 5/20/08, Susan Zelisko <szelisk@gmail.com<szelisk%40gmail.com>> > wrote:
From: Susan Zelisko <szelisk@gmail.com <szelisk%40gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Pot Shot bankroll question
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2008, 6:07 PMYou are referring to single line correct?
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:36 PM, kelso 1600 <kelso1600@hotmail. com> > wrote:
> The rule of thumb that I follow 9/6 JOB for a day of play is half a
royal.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://im.live. com/Messenger/ IM/Join/Default. aspx?source=
EML_WL_ChangeWor ld
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://members. cox.net/vpfree/ Links.htm
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm not sure what you mean by "a very short time", but let's say you
want to play one hour, or more accurately, 500 hands.
With a $100 bankroll, you have a 73% chance of busting out before the
hour is up and a 38% chance of being $100 ahead at some point in the
hour.
With a $200 bankroll, RoR=45%, chance of doubling = 26%
With a $300 bankroll, RoR=22%, chance of doubling = 12%
All calcs above were done with Dunbar's Risk Analyzer for Video Poker
in about 15 seconds.
--Dunbar
I am basically a quarter/half dollar player. I have now tried
about ten times playing a dollar 9/6 job game, with a $100.00 buy in.
Each and every time I've busted in a very short time. Could someone
explain to me what a proper bankroll is for a session such as this
to
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vprod1" <vprod1@...> wrote:
have a chance for a winning session. Many thanks.
Thank you for your input. My buy-ins have lasted about 10-15 minutes. You guys are great, I love this site.
···
--- On Wed, 5/21/08, dunbar_dra <h_dunbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: dunbar_dra <h_dunbar@hotmail.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Pot Shot bankroll question
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 5:56 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "a very short time", but let's say you
want to play one hour, or more accurately, 500 hands.
With a $100 bankroll, you have a 73% chance of busting out before the
hour is up and a 38% chance of being $100 ahead at some point in the
hour.
With a $200 bankroll, RoR=45%, chance of doubling = 26%
With a $300 bankroll, RoR=22%, chance of doubling = 12%
All calcs above were done with Dunbar's Risk Analyzer for Video Poker
in about 15 seconds.
--Dunbar
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups. com, "vprod1" <vprod1@...> wrote:
>
> I am basically a quarter/half dollar player. I have now tried
> about ten times playing a dollar 9/6 job game, with a $100.00 buy in.
> Each and every time I've busted in a very short time. Could someone
> explain to me what a proper bankroll is for a session such as this
to
> have a chance for a winning session. Many thanks.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
rod carlon wrote:
Thank you for your input. My buy-ins have lasted about 10-15
minutes. You guys are great, I love this site.
Another free resource you may wish to take a gander at: Jeff
Lotspich's "Gambler's Ruin" calculator:
http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/GamblersRuin.html
Select a game (among some common paytables) and input a stake and the
calculator will graphically display the distribution of your expected
results. (stake is expressed in $, assuming 5-coin $.25 play)
- Harry
If you are talking about lasting 15 minutes, then you have had very
bad luck. A $100 bankroll has a 64% chance of lasting 15 minutes
(125 hands).
Even if you are making errors at a rate of $10/hr, reducing your
games EV to 99.14%, you'd still have a 62% chance of lasting 15
minutes.
The chance of busting out in 1/2 hour is 59%. The chance that you
would not last 1/2 hr in 10 tries (even if making errors at $10/hr)
is 59%^10 = 0.5%, about 1 in 200.
--Dunbar
Thank you for your input. My buy-ins have lasted about 10-15
minutes. You guys are great, I love this site.
From: dunbar_dra h_dunbar@...
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Pot Shot bankroll question
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 5:56 PMI'm not sure what you mean by "a very short time", but let's say
you
want to play one hour, or more accurately, 500 hands.
With a $100 bankroll, you have a 73% chance of busting out before
the
hour is up and a 38% chance of being $100 ahead at some point in
the
hour.
With a $200 bankroll, RoR=45%, chance of doubling = 26%
With a $300 bankroll, RoR=22%, chance of doubling = 12%All calcs above were done with Dunbar's Risk Analyzer for Video
Poker
in about 15 seconds.
--Dunbar
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups. com, "vprod1" vprod1@ wrote:
>
> I am basically a quarter/half dollar player. I have now tried
> about ten times playing a dollar 9/6 job game, with a $100.00
buy in.
> Each and every time I've busted in a very short time. Could
someone
> explain to me what a proper bankroll is for a session such as
this
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, rod carlon <vprod1@...> wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/21/08, dunbar_dra h_dunbar@... wrote:
to
> have a chance for a winning session. Many thanks.
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vprod1 wrote:
I am basically a quarter/half dollar player. I have now tried
about ten times playing a dollar 9/6 job game, with a $100.00 buy in.
Each and every time I've busted in a very short time. Could someone
explain to me what a proper bankroll is for a session such as this to
have a chance for a winning session. Many thanks.
Rod, I'll offer up what I hope is a useful "big picture" perspective.
If read you right, you're now down $1000 on stabs at $1 play. While
that is likely exceptional, based upon Dunbar's input, a regular $1
player will tell you over longer term it's to expected ... in other
words, putting $1000 at risk, you'd have strong expectation of losing
it before hitting a royal.
I'm not telling you anything startling ... you easily jump to a
parallel with $250 risked on your quarter play, or $500 on your $.50.
And I entirely understand that what a pot shot comes down to is that
when flush after a day's play, it seems a good opportunity to take a
limited $ risk at a "pot shot".
···
------
On the surface that's hard to argue with. Gambling is about taking
chance and risk; if you're averse to that, it's foolish to be on the
casino floor. But, under the surface are hard facts why "pot shots"
run strongly counter to what most gamblers value and what otherwise
drives their play decisions.
No doubt, gambling involves acceptance of "ebb and flow", grasping
it's implicit. And a gambler becomes comfortable with it -- to the
extent of drawing satisfaction from it (play absent volatility is a
tedious exercise).
This is why jumping denom is attractive. Volatility adds to the
thrill and is adds an opportunity for an exceptional score. It seems
entirely appropriate provided there's an acceptable cap put on the
potential downside.
-----
However, most gambler's place very high value on bankroll
preservation. Most, presented with a gamble that isn't appeciably
different than their normal fare but told with authority that if they
lose the session they could kiss the money goodbye (little prospect to
recover it in their other play), would likely forego the play.
That scenario IS a pot shot. Players merge the "ebb and flow" of a
pot shot into overall play expectation. But the probability of losing
$x on the pot shot is FAR greater than the probability that they'll
later find themselves ahead by that amount. Further, should you
succeed in recovering $x you face an equally strong probability of
subsequently losing it as the original odds of the success. In other
words, what happens in the pot shot isn't matched by the ebb and flow
of play.
The point is that for all intents and purposes you should look at pot
shot losses as a permanent drain against your bankroll (in contrast
with standard play swings that can be regarded as temporary).
------
This observation will be of lesser consequence for those very strongly
bankrolled for their regular play. But most gamblers strive to
increase their bankroll, hoping to be in position for regular higher
denom play that presents advantages otherwise not available. Against
that benchmark, pot shots stand strongly against their interests.
My experience in climbing denoms, via profit and a resultant
willingness to put greater bankroll at risk, has still led to a strong
bias against pot shots -- obviously revealed in this discussion. (For
for the sake of disclosure, I'm a solid $1 player, so hardly play at
remarkable levels.)
That said, I'll point out that there are times where jumping denom is
prudent, on an exception basis. Strong promotions present the time to
make an aggressive run (those sufficiently strong to pose little added
risk vs standard play -- think ER 1% greater than normal; 2%+ an
ideal) This doesn't represent a pot shot in any form. Such
promotions present the greatest opportunity to build bankroll adequate
to regularly play at the higher denom.
------
I own up to going for a pot shot on rare occasion. Against odds, I've
enjoyed great success. Still, I'm strongly disinclined to them.
Overall experience in climbing denoms has borne out the reality of the
facts.
- Harry
Harry-a GREAT informational indepth reply, Thank You....
···
--- On Thu, 5/22/08, Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:
From: Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Pot Shot bankroll question
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, May 22, 2008, 3:45 PM
vprod1 wrote:
> I am basically a quarter/half dollar player. I have now tried
> about ten times playing a dollar 9/6 job game, with a $100.00 buy in.
> Each and every time I've busted in a very short time. Could someone
> explain to me what a proper bankroll is for a session such as this to
> have a chance for a winning session. Many thanks.
Rod, I'll offer up what I hope is a useful "big picture" perspective.
If read you right, you're now down $1000 on stabs at $1 play. While
that is likely exceptional, based upon Dunbar's input, a regular $1
player will tell you over longer term it's to expected ... in other
words, putting $1000 at risk, you'd have strong expectation of losing
it before hitting a royal.
I'm not telling you anything startling ... you easily jump to a
parallel with $250 risked on your quarter play, or $500 on your $.50.
And I entirely understand that what a pot shot comes down to is that
when flush after a day's play, it seems a good opportunity to take a
limited $ risk at a "pot shot".
------
On the surface that's hard to argue with. Gambling is about taking
chance and risk; if you're averse to that, it's foolish to be on the
casino floor. But, under the surface are hard facts why "pot shots"
run strongly counter to what most gamblers value and what otherwise
drives their play decisions.
No doubt, gambling involves acceptance of "ebb and flow", grasping
it's implicit. And a gambler becomes comfortable with it -- to the
extent of drawing satisfaction from it (play absent volatility is a
tedious exercise).
This is why jumping denom is attractive. Volatility adds to the
thrill and is adds an opportunity for an exceptional score. It seems
entirely appropriate provided there's an acceptable cap put on the
potential downside.
-----
However, most gambler's place very high value on bankroll
preservation. Most, presented with a gamble that isn't appeciably
different than their normal fare but told with authority that if they
lose the session they could kiss the money goodbye (little prospect to
recover it in their other play), would likely forego the play.
That scenario IS a pot shot. Players merge the "ebb and flow" of a
pot shot into overall play expectation. But the probability of losing
$x on the pot shot is FAR greater than the probability that they'll
later find themselves ahead by that amount. Further, should you
succeed in recovering $x you face an equally strong probability of
subsequently losing it as the original odds of the success. In other
words, what happens in the pot shot isn't matched by the ebb and flow
of play.
The point is that for all intents and purposes you should look at pot
shot losses as a permanent drain against your bankroll (in contrast
with standard play swings that can be regarded as temporary).
------
This observation will be of lesser consequence for those very strongly
bankrolled for their regular play. But most gamblers strive to
increase their bankroll, hoping to be in position for regular higher
denom play that presents advantages otherwise not available. Against
that benchmark, pot shots stand strongly against their interests.
My experience in climbing denoms, via profit and a resultant
willingness to put greater bankroll at risk, has still led to a strong
bias against pot shots -- obviously revealed in this discussion. (For
for the sake of disclosure, I'm a solid $1 player, so hardly play at
remarkable levels.)
That said, I'll point out that there are times where jumping denom is
prudent, on an exception basis. Strong promotions present the time to
make an aggressive run (those sufficiently strong to pose little added
risk vs standard play -- think ER 1% greater than normal; 2%+ an
ideal) This doesn't represent a pot shot in any form. Such
promotions present the greatest opportunity to build bankroll adequate
to regularly play at the higher denom.
------
I own up to going for a pot shot on rare occasion. Against odds, I've
enjoyed great success. Still, I'm strongly disinclined to them.
Overall experience in climbing denoms has borne out the reality of the
facts.
- Harry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
My wife has coined the phrase: "Video poker gives a person hours of frustration and dismay
interspersed with microseconds of elation".
<smile>
..... bl
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
Gambling is about taking
chance and risk; if you're averse to that, it's foolish to be on the
casino floor.