Assume the following:
Game is 9/7 Double Bonus
RF pays 8000 coins
Long-term, +1.32% player edge
Session bankroll = 500 coins
Player intends to either double, or lose, the session bankroll.
Due to the infrequency of high-paying hands (RF, four aces), player
is somewhat more likely to lose the session bankroll before doubling
it.
How does one go about calculating the probability of losing, as
opposed to doubling, the bankroll? I don't recall ever seeing a
writeup concerning this . .
you can use this:
http://www.lotspiech.com/GamblersRuin.html
it doesn't have 9/7db but it has 10/7db
it's based on quarters, so 500 quarters is $125 (=stake) and double
that is $250 (=retire with).
after running 4,000 hands i get 70% busted and 24% retired.
you can do a first past compensation for 9/7db instead of 10/7db: full
houses occur about every 90 hands so for 9/7 you would be down one bet
relative to 10/7 on average every 90 hands
the amount of the royal doesn't matter as long as it's over your
retire limit, in this case $250
Assume the following:
Game is 9/7 Double Bonus
RF pays 8000 coins
Long-term, +1.32% player edge
Session bankroll = 500 coinsPlayer intends to either double, or lose, the session bankroll.
Due to the infrequency of high-paying hands (RF, four aces), player
is somewhat more likely to lose the session bankroll before
doubling
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "sphboc2003" <sphboc@a...> wrote:
it.
How does one go about calculating the probability of losing, as
opposed to doubling, the bankroll? I don't recall ever seeing a
writeup concerning this . .
another approach:
plug the paytable into the tool of your choice to find the hand
probabilities with max-er strategy.
once you have the hand probabilities, you can solve for R(1) using a
spreadsheet
i get R(1)=0.999669, now that's the long term number, and with a
bankroll of 500 coins = 100 bets your risk of ruin is 0.999669^100=
96.7%
for the short term, set the rf, sf and quad aces to zero, and add
cashback equal to their previous returns (4.8% + .6% + 3.5% = 8.9%),
so the average return is still +1.3% but you've removed the variance
of those hands, result: R(1)=0.997040, 0.997040^100= 74%
meaning, in the short term, you have probability of 74% of losing 100
bets plus the 8.9% cashback which you aren't actually getting
(assuming average survivability of 1000 hands, 8.9% x 1000 = an
additional 89 bets)
iterating, 50 bets would be closer, 0.997040^50= 86% ...
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
you can use this:
http://www.lotspiech.com/GamblersRuin.html
it doesn't have 9/7db but it has 10/7db
it's based on quarters, so 500 quarters is $125 (=stake) and double
that is $250 (=retire with).
after running 4,000 hands i get 70% busted and 24% retired.
you can do a first past compensation for 9/7db instead of 10/7db:
full
houses occur about every 90 hands so for 9/7 you would be down one
bet
relative to 10/7 on average every 90 hands
the amount of the royal doesn't matter as long as it's over your
retire limit, in this case $250>
> Assume the following:
> Game is 9/7 Double Bonus
> RF pays 8000 coins
> Long-term, +1.32% player edge
> Session bankroll = 500 coins
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Player intends to either double, or lose, the session bankroll.
>
> Due to the infrequency of high-paying hands (RF, four aces),
player
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "sphboc2003" <sphboc@a...> wrote:
> is somewhat more likely to lose the session bankroll before
doubling
> it.
>
>
> How does one go about calculating the probability of losing, as
> opposed to doubling, the bankroll? I don't recall ever seeing a
> writeup concerning this . .