Here's my question:

Does playing multi-lines on a $1 JOB 9/6 - increase the amount I would need in my bankroll to have the same risk of ruin when compared to a single line at the same denomination?

Example: according to the wizard on wizardofodds.com (http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/appendix/1/):

the bankroll needed for a 2.5% risk of ruin on a $1 JOB 9/6 full pay ($5 per hand)

with 1% in cashback:

is 7256 units or $36,280

So if I was playing $1 JOB 9/6 triple play ($15 per hand) (1% cashback)- what is the bankroll required here to have the same 2.5% risk of ruin?

1. $36,280?

2. ($36,280 X 3) = $108,840?

3. Or somewhere in between ($36,280 - $108,840)?

2 major points here:

1. The $15 cost to the get dealt the starting hand

2. but, you are "running it" 3 times, to get 3 different results from your starting hand - (thereby decreasing variance).

Any help on this is appreciated.

My thoughts are that each has their own RNG and thus you're simply playing 3 separate games at a time, which means you'd get to the long run 3x as fast and thus experience LESS variance.

It was shown though that the hands are slightly correlated because of the starting hand being the starting cards for all 3, so while this does indeed get you to the long run faster, it could make for a slightly bumpier ride (i.e. more variance). There was shown (in that thread) to be slightly more variance when playing multi-line... Though if you have a "proper" bankroll for single line, I would think you're about on track and should be "okay" to play multi-line. Don't take that wrong and think you should go play 100 play all day, but understand that there is slightly more variance due to co-variance with multi-line.

Quote:RomesThe idea of multi-line variance was discussed in another recent VP thread. You could probably find your answers in that thread.

My thoughts are that each has their own RNG and thus you're simply playing 3 separate games at a time, which means you'd get to the long run 3x as fast and thus experience LESS variance.

It was shown though that the hands are slightly correlated because of the starting hand being the starting cards for all 3, so while this does indeed get you to the long run faster, it could make for a slightly bumpier ride (i.e. more variance). There was shown (in that thread) to be slightly more variance when playing multi-line... Though if you have a "proper" bankroll for single line, I would think you're about on track and should be "okay" to play multi-line. Don't take that wrong and think you should go play 100 play all day, but understand that there is slightly more variance due to co-variance with multi-line.

Ah, ok, thanks for the feedback.

Do you happen to know the name of the other thread this topic was discussed?

Thanks.

...it's like 5 threads down.

Quote:RomesI clicked Gambling. I clicked Video Poker... I saw "How much more variance is triple plan than single line?"

...it's like 5 threads down.

Found it. I read through it. However, although the thread talks about how the triple play and multilines are more variance- it does not talk about bankroll. I understand the higher the variance - the larger your bankroll needs to be - but by how much ? Is what I am trying to figure out.

After 1,000,000 hands your EV is X, plus or minus 3SD... EV - 3SD is a good number for bankroll as that should encompass (with 99.9% certainty) every likely outcome. i.e. You know, with 99.9% certainty, the worst you could do is EV - 3SD... So if your bankroll is that amount, you know - with 99.9% certainty - that you won't bust (RoR = 0).

I believe Bob Dancer and others have software that can calculate your bankroll for you given inputs.

common sense would also seem to say you need a bigger bankroll

I disagree with the last part though... If you want to play 1,000,000 hands of VP. You can calculate your 3SD for 1 hand, 100 hands, 10,000 hands, 100,000 hands and 1,000,000 hands. Your 3SD will be the largest at the largest number of trials. Largest as in physically the largest amount. Thus, what you're saying at 1,000,000 hands is I expect EV, plus or minus 3SD, where 3SD is (with 99.9% certainty) the mathematically WORST you can do.

If you encompass the worst case scenario in your bankroll, where all other points in the timeline must be smaller 3SD's, then you should reduce your RoR to zero.

Show Your Work

Let's assume you found a pay table in JoB which gave you a 1% advantage, thus the payback was 101%.

Variance = 19.514676, SD = 4.417542 (from the wiz)

AvgAdv = 1%

AvgBet = $5 ($1 single line, 5 coins)

OriginalSD = SD * AvgBet = 4.4 * 5 = 22

SD(x hands) = SQRT(x) * OriginalSD... Thus:

Num Hands | Expected Value | 3 SD |
---|---|---|

1 |
$0.05 |
+-$66.00 |

1,000 |
$50.00 |
+-$2,087.10 |

10,000 |
$500.00 |
+-$6,600 |

100,000 |
$5,000 |
+-$20,871.03 |

1,000,000 |
$50,000 |
+-$66,000 |

5,00,000 |
$250,000 |
+-$147,580.49 |

Thus, we can see that "the long run", or N0, or "break even"... whatever you want to call it... is between 1,000,000 and 5,000,000 hands as with 3SD of confidence at 5,000,000 hands we will GUARANTEED mathematically have profits.

This tells us that if you have a bankroll of ~$150,000... your RoR (with 99% confidence) is 0. Actually, it'll be less than that. You need to find the exact break even point and take 3SD at that number of trials. I'll leave that as an exercise for the OP.

100% FALSE.Quote:Romes<snip>where 3SD is (with 99.9% certainty) the mathematically WORST you can do.

nice try

Oh,

yuk try, imo

to be outside of 3 sd is easy at a 1 in 371 chance

happens all the time

and more times when one says it can't happen

real money is lost and won gambling

only thing that matters

hajhahahaj

"the mathematically WORST you can do"

take that to the bank!

<<<>>>

for the OP

there are software that calculates bankrolls and risk of ruin for VP game sessions

one still has to understand what 1 in 20 can mean for example

most have no clue or think it means something totally from what it does mean.

have fun and have luck

Wikipedia disagrees with you.Quote:mustangsally100% FALSE.

nice try

Oh,

yuk try, imo...

...3σ = .1, thus comes with 99.9% confidence.