vpFREE2 Forums

Question about bankroll

VP is mathematically equivalent to the random walk produced from
a biased coin which has the same ROR as the overall VP game.
I demonstrated this in a recent (couple weeks ago) post titled
"Equivalent Games". I believe this result generalizes to virtually
an game that is based on discrete payoffs, so in a qualitative
sense ROR completely specifies swings. Large payoffs may
give the illusion that VP is qualitatively different, but carefully
comparing a VP game to a BJ game with identical risk shows
that both games can be modelled as an endless stream of
flips of the same biased coin.

···

On Tuesday 09 December 2003 03:25 pm, Effen Dolts wrote:

If you play blackjack with constant bets, the bankroll
varies in a manner similar to a random walk with no bias, and you
can expect positive swings based on small hits. In VP, especially
games with a high drain, you are less likely to have significant
positive swings without hitting hands paying 100-1 or better.

This whole bankroll topic is so interesting! I can't comment on the
bankroll for short sessions, but I do have some input on very large
sessions, such as 50,000 games or more.

I mentioned a discussion on the WinPoker board (last year) as to
whether the Normal Distribution applied to VP. To test this idea,
Dean did a WinPoker simulation based on 50,000 games. He ran 100,000
simulations of 50,000 games and plotted the results, based on 9/6
JorB. It turned out the normal approximation for 50,000 hands was
fairly good, but definitely not exact. If the Normal does apply, it
takes more than 50,000 games, although I doubt the 4,000,000 estimate
offered by Jazbo, especially for a low variance game like 9/6 JorB!

The results of his simulation are shown below, along with the
expectation if the Normal Distribution actually applied.

Pct Sim Normal

···

------------------------------
1% -9970 -12630 3.69%
5% -8140 -9264 7.82%
10% -7025 -7470 11.67%
25% -4800 -4472 22.93%
50% -1695 -1140 45.53%
75% 1860 2191 72.82%
90% 5535 5189 91.17%
95% 7820 6984 96.52%
99% 12520 10349 99.72%

At the "losing" tail, 1% of the 100,000 tests had losses of -9970
coins or more. The Normal expectation would be -12630 coins (or
3.69%) of the tests.

Unfortunately these results can't be directly compared to Jazbo's
charts, because his were based on only 5,000 or 10,000 games.
However, its interesting because the above tests, and in Jazbo's
charts too, the "worst case" results turn out better than the Normal
Distribution would suggest. That's important because it
suggests the Normal Distribution is a "conservative" estimator of the
bankroll required for a very large session. Its possible a player
might get further behind than these counts before the 50,000 games
have all been played, but I doubt it because these "worst case"
results occur when no RF occurs during the 50,000 games.

If this simulation is correct, it means there is only a 1% chance of
needing a bankroll of more than 9970 coins ($2492.50 for a quarter
game), with the qualification just mentioned above. Similar bankroll
estimates can be made at the 5%, 10%, and 25% level.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your observation
compleletly.

L.Wluiki

Actually, I think that the answer is somewhere in between for
most "trip" lengths. A "bad" trip will almost never contain a

royal,

so the loss associated with the lack of royal is directly
proportional to hands played. The results from lesser hands,
ignoring the royal, look much more like a normal distribution.

When

you look at numbers in Effen's table, the 1% loss figures increase

by

closer to sqrt(2.5) than sqrt(2) for a doubling of hands played.

AJ

> (snip)..My thoughts of 15% based on 4,000 hands/day in full-coin
> quarters would be a loss allowance of $750.00, which in reality

I

> would
> never actually tolerate in my usual gambling which is typically

a

day
> trip or over-nighter to Tunica (just a few hours drive for me),

as

> opposed to an expensive planned trip to Vegas, including

airfare,

> etc.
> I will naturally take more with me to Vegas than to Tunica, but

in

> retrospect, I can see how I would never be able to stomach a

$2,250

> loss
> over 3 days, even in Vegas.
>

...................................................................

.

.
> Bill, may I, with due respect, point out that you need not

stomach

a
> $2,250 loss, but only a $1,299 ( $750 * square root 3) loss over

3

> days.
> This "bankroll" thread started when I suggested to

member "gms5997"

> to increase her short term bankroll by the factor (square root

2) to

> accommodate her husband playing on the same bankroll. The same
> mathematical principle of Risk = (more or less) Standard

Variation

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "AJ" <mile_5280@y...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "lwluiki" <lwluiki@a...> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:

> Square root of Variance applies here also.
>
> L. Wluiki

I was at the KC Argosy yesterday to cash in a coupon and I made a quick
round of the VP machines again.

The $1 DDB machines now have the 9/6 pay scale (98.98%). According to my
notes, these machines were 9/5 back on Opening Day in December.

I suppoooose if you played on Double Points Days (which the Argosy does have
from time to time) and factored in food comps, the cash coupons they would
send you the following month, and whatever other little freebies/gifts you
could wrangle out of them, this comes close to full pay. At least they're
moving in the right direction.

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