Math / RoR Question: Which is the better play?
Here's my quandry...
I need to put in $25,000 coin-in on one day.
I have a $1000 bankroll (I have more, if NEED BE; but I'm taking $1000.)
I know the game I'm going to play also... 25c 9/6 JoB.
I have two choices on it though...but I THIIINK it's really the same choice.
In the High Limit room, they have two 50-play machines...
My question is, which would be easier on my bankroll..
Scenario A:
2 players, each playing 4-handed ($5 a pop), $12,500 coin-in each
Scenario B:
1 player, playing 8-handed ($10 a pop), $25,000 coin-in
I think it ends up being the same...but I'm just having a hard time with the fact that the "dealt" hand (on the bottom line) would be "stronger" for a single-player, rather than two-players...however, that could also be it's weakness because with two-players, it might smooth it out in case one player runs into a streak of bad "dealt" hands
Anyone wanna gauge it?
Of course, you are expected to lose but you've already figured that into your calculations.
Quote: teddysThe 2-player scenario would be less volatile because the 8-handed game is strongly correlated to what you get dealt on the bottom line. So your gut feeling is correct.
Of course, you are expected to lose but you've already figured that into your calculations.
That's what I thought too..more "dealt" hands = less volatility...but with n* play I wasn't exactly positive...
Quote: teddysThe 2-player scenario would be less volatile because the 8-handed game is strongly correlated to what you get dealt on the bottom line. So your gut feeling is correct.
Of course, you are expected to lose but you've already figured that into your calculations.
I believe that's called covariance. And yes 2 sets of 4-play will have less variance than 1 set of 8-play due to less covariance.
Quote: teddysThe 2-player scenario would be less volatile because the 8-handed game is strongly correlated to what you get dealt on the bottom line. So your gut feeling is correct.
Of course, you are expected to lose but you've already figured that into your calculations.
Teddy's brings up an old problem with N-play. The total variance in N-play increases with the number of lines due to the covariance with the base line, respectively. However, if you remove the dealt hand effect, the variance or "volatility" per line is actually less in 8-play than 2 games of 4-play, other things being equal.
Quote: jc2286I believe that's called covariance. And yes 2 sets of 4-play will have less variance than 1 set of 8-play due to less covariance.
People who studied statistics know what variance or co-variance means, however a term like volatility is difficult to pin down. If you remove the variance from the dealt hand effect, the 8-play is the better choice. Think of it this way, if you flop a RF (1 in about 650,000 hands), then you got 8 RF and a shitload of variance (compounded by the co-variance) on 8-play. Without the flopped hands, aka dealt hand effect, the player is facing a low-variance game at a lower return (since the RF accounts for about 2%) and that is why people lose predictably or at a very predictable way in N-Play.
To be clear, the total variance is higher with 8-play, but when adjusted for the dealt hand effect, the variance per line is lower on 8-play. I am not sure if Timspeed really wants low variance in a negative EV game.
In the investment world, the conception of pulling the whole (i.e. the total variance) into the sum of it parts is called attribution analysis.
