Proper "bankroll" in "short-term" play

[Dan]

Lawrence Boxer wrote:

Dan, just for clarification, I don't mean to imply that Sorokin's equation
is at all misleading, or that your opinions are misleading, and I appreciate
that you haven't said so of mine.

Sorokin says just what you say it says, but the clear implication is left
unsaid: that short term play and low bankroll generally go hand in hand,
for obvious reasons,

I don't see any obvious reason that short term play implies a small
bankroll. How about the tourist that is in Las Vegas for only a
weekend and wants to spend part of that time seeing shows, etc.? His
play will be short term, yet his RoR is effectively zero since he
won't play enough to put a significant part of his bankroll at risk.

and so ror is significantly higher in short term play,

The Sorokin formula indicates a higher RoR with a small bankroll
because it assumes unlimited play. With short term play, a small
bankroll might have the same RoR as a large bankroll would for long
term play. There is no direct relationship between length of play and
RoR.

and since it's agreed that ror describes the effect of variance on
expectations, it logically follows that if ror is higher in short term play,
variance must play a greater role in that short term play.

I have never agreed that RoR describes the effect of variance by
itself on expectations. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that
variance alone is a poor measure of a game, and that if you are going
to consider only one of the several variables then ER is the most
important for either long term or short term.

RoR describes the effects of variance and ER and bankroll on
expectations. Variance considered in isolation from those other
variables means nothing.

You say "variance can be misleading," but variance isn't meant to be either
leading or misleading. It's just is the normal state of affairs to a
greater or lesser degree depending on the game, just as the normal state of
affairs at a craps table is "choppy," neither hot nor cold, and equally
unpredictable in the short term. That variance also has a greater or lesser
effect on outcome, depending on the game and the time spent playing, is also
true.

I did not mean to infer that variance was meant to be misleading, but
when considered by itself, without taking the game's ER and your
bankroll into account, it is of little value, and I gave an example
of how it can be misleading.

This, at least imo, is the logical next step to the information you have
provided, including your very useful AQ.

Thank you. For short term play, I strongly recommend the AQ over any
game comparison method that does not consider both the ER and the
variance.

Dan

···

--

Dan Paymar, author of the book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor and Publisher of "Video Poker Times" newsletter
Web site at http://www.OptimumPlay.com

"Chance favors the prepared mind."
-- Louis Pasteur

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

[Pat_O_Connell]

Dan wrote:

Lawrence Boxer wrote:
>Dan, just for clarification, I don't mean to imply that Sorokin's equation
>is at all misleading, or that your opinions are misleading, and I appreciate
>that you haven't said so of mine.
>
>Sorokin says just what you say it says, but the clear implication is left
>unsaid: that short term play and low bankroll generally go hand in hand,
>for obvious reasons,

I don't see any obvious reason that short term play implies a small
bankroll. How about the tourist that is in Las Vegas for only a

All play is necessarily short term. You have to go home (or to your
room) to sleep sometimes.

>You say "variance can be misleading," but variance isn't meant to be either
>leading or misleading. It's just is the normal state of affairs to a

Would standard deviation be a better measure?

An aside: how does one measure luck (I don't think one can)? I've had
recent VP sessions when everything hit, others where nothing did, and
others when luck was middling (like last night) and ER actually seemed
to govern winnings.

...

I did not mean to infer that variance was meant to be misleading, but
when considered by itself, without taking the game's ER and your
bankroll into account, it is of little value, and I gave an example
of how it can be misleading.

>This, at least imo, is the logical next step to the information you have
>provided, including your very useful AQ.

Thank you. For short term play, I strongly recommend the AQ over any
game comparison method that does not consider both the ER and the
variance.

Do you have a list of AQs for various paytables, either on your
website or in a book?

···

--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

[Lawrence_Boxer]

I don't see any obvious reason that short term play implies a small
bankroll.

You earlier quote on this was:

"Most people playing only a short session are doing so because either
they will only be in Las Vegas for a short time (e.g. a weekend) or
they have a very limited bankroll. In either case, RoR calculations
are important."

So some of them, at least, have a limited bankroll. As for the others, if
they are playing for a short time it's probable that they will not see long
term results, regardless of money spent, at least not in the specific brief
time frame in which they are playing.

For Risk of Ruin to be valid, it must not only assume varying bankroll but
varying time as a framework in which that bankroll works. IOW, larger
bankroll over more time, which is also necessary to see something
approaching long term results. Otherwise, bankroll would be the primary
consideration, regardless of short term variance (volitility), and I don't
think that would be something that any of us would want to recommend to a
novice or recreational player. Hence, in this context, short term play
assumes smaller bankroll.

I have never agreed that RoR describes the effect of variance by
itself on expectations. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that
variance alone is a poor measure of a game, and that if you are going
to consider only one of the several variables then ER is the most
important for either long term or short term.

I have not stated that variance by itself is any predicator, since variance
itself is unpredictable and is the normal state of affairs during play.
What I said originally was:

but as you've pointed out previously, a higher starting bankroll will
result in a significantly lower ror than a lower starting bankroll,

assuming

the same positive expectation game. Why? Because in order to survive the
variance, you've got to have the proper bankroll.

My point above is that variance is what kills you in the short term game
(and often in the long term also). Your response to the above was:

That's just stating RoR a different way. You've reinforced my point.<<

To continue...

>For short term play, I strongly recommend the AQ over any

game comparison method that does not consider both the ER and the
variance.

I can see where you would <g>, and I agree that it is a valuable tool. My
main point since the beginning of this thread is that in short term play
results are dictated by variance to such a degree that there are no
realistic expectations, and that ER is less of a predicator in the short
term. I think that I've demonstrated with some success that the Sorokin
equation supports this thesis, although I certainly understand where someone
would reasonably disagree. I respect your expertise, but I'm confident in my
conclusions.