Thread Rating:

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1332
  • Posts: 21923
January 24th, 2020 at 5:18:56 AM permalink
Quote: EVBandit

tringlomane's post makes it clear s/he is clueless about variance in VP.



Personal insult, three-day suspension.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1332
  • Posts: 21923
January 24th, 2020 at 5:48:41 AM permalink
I am getting a headache trying to figure out what is in dispute here. It would be nice if somebody asked a down to earth question. In fact, I will:

1: What is the total variance of playing 500 hands at $1 per bet per hand on 5-play Jacks or Better?
2. What is the total variance of playing 100 hands at $5 per bet per hand on 1-play Jacks or Better?

Please note that $500 total is bet in both cases. By a "hand," I mean the number of hands you see on the screen. For example, in 5-play one plays 5 hands at a time.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

The best quarter Deuces Wild game at my local casino is 97% at max coins. This same game is offered in triple play. I realize there is a cost to play these games. I have heard playing triple play games lowers the variance. Does this mean my daily bankroll will last longer? Does triple play affect the house edge or the long term results? Will I need a triple bankroll to play these games?



The question is a bit vague. Triple Play lowers variance only if compared to making the same total bet per ROUND. For example, making a single $25 bet on 1-play has more variance than five $5 bets on 5-play.

However, I tend to think that is not what the OP is asking. Playing 1,000 hands at $1 per hand on 1-play has less variance than 1,000 hands at $1 per hand on 5-play. Assuming the same pay table, the house edge is the same. Let's not even muddy the water with the bankroll part.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 123
  • Posts: 12831
January 24th, 2020 at 11:56:38 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard



The question is a bit vague. Triple Play lowers variance only if compared to making the same total bet per ROUND. For example, making a single $25 bet on 1-play has more variance than five $5 bets on 5-play.



Thank you! That's all I was saying about three-play v. single-line on the same TOTAL amount bet. Out of $3.75 (if such a thing existed) for single-line and $3.75 (three lines * 1.25/line) the latter would have less variance.

Again, I admit that my phrasing was really bad on the second part, but I feel like the first part was pretty clear, especially after I clarified my meaning. I really don't see anything particularly controversial with my statement.
Vultures can't be choosers.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 123
  • Posts: 12831
January 24th, 2020 at 12:00:45 PM permalink
Quote: unJon

First your posts are completely off putting.

Second the above does not make sense to me, but maybe I do not understand the setup.

Hereís my read of this example:

Play one hand of single line VP for $3.75.

Play one hand of triple play (really three co-varied hands because the initial five card deal is the same cards and only the drawing cards might differ) for $1.25 a hand for a total of $3.75 of the three lines.

Correct?

If so, the triple play will have the lower variance (in $ outcomes). The triple play will have higher variance than playing three hands of single line at $1.25 because of the positive covariance of the triple play hands. But lower variance (in $ outcome terms) than one hand of single line at $3.75.

Thatís just elementary math. I wonít go so far as to call you math challenged like you did to tringlomane, since I think that would constitute a personal insult.



Thank you also.
Vultures can't be choosers.
tringlomane
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6261
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
January 24th, 2020 at 3:43:53 PM permalink
Quote: unJon

First your posts are completely off putting.

Second the above does not make sense to me, but maybe I do not understand the setup.

Hereís my read of this example:

Play one hand of single line VP for $3.75.

Play one hand of triple play (really three co-varied hands because the initial five card deal is the same cards and only the drawing cards might differ) for $1.25 a hand for a total of $3.75 of the three lines.

Correct?

If so, the triple play will have the lower variance (in $ outcomes). The triple play will have higher variance than playing three hands of single line at $1.25 because of the positive covariance of the triple play hands. But lower variance (in $ outcome terms) than one hand of single line at $3.75.

Thatís just elementary math. I wonít go so far as to call you math challenged like you did to tringlomane, since I think that would constitute a personal insult.



Yes, that was the argument that I was trying to make because I thought that was the argument Mission146 was trying to make. It wasn't dealing with the points that EVBandit was trying to make. I was only trying to clarify what point Mission146 was trying to make. I may have done poorly in that regard. But I didn't really want to do actual math to show it because I like being lazy. Lol

Quote: Wizard

I am getting a headache trying to figure out what is in dispute here. It would be nice if somebody asked a down to earth question. In fact, I will:

1: What is the total variance of playing 500 hands at $1 per bet per hand on 5-play Jacks or Better?
2. What is the total variance of playing 100 hands at $5 per bet per hand on 1-play Jacks or Better?

Please note that $500 total is bet in both cases. By a "hand," I mean the number of hands you see on the screen. For example, in 5-play one plays 5 hands at a time.



The question is a bit vague. Triple Play lowers variance only if compared to making the same total bet per ROUND. For example, making a single $25 bet on 1-play has more variance than five $5 bets on 5-play.

However, I tend to think that is not what the OP is asking. Playing 1,000 hands at $1 per hand on 1-play has less variance than 1,000 hands at $1 per hand on 5-play. Assuming the same pay table, the house edge is the same. Let's not even muddy the water with the bankroll part.



Yes, the part I bolded was the main part of my argument. I was just trying to clarify to EVBandit that is what Mission146 was trying to say in the first place. That's all, nothing more.

---------------------------------

And just for a math reminder, answering your #1 and #2 in the thread might be a good thing.

Variance in bets taken from here for 9/6 JoB:

https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/appendix/3/

#1: (5-line play/500 total hands): (27.380241) x 500 x ($1)^2 = $13,690

#2: (1-line play/100 total hands): (19.514676) x 100 x ($5)^2 = $48,787

I believe this is correct for the example questions. Someone please correct me if I made an error in applying the math.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1332
  • Posts: 21923
January 24th, 2020 at 5:02:25 PM permalink
Quote: unJon

Thatís just elementary math. I wonít go so far as to call you math challenged like you did to tringlomane, since I think that would constitute a personal insult.



That doesn't fool me. Three-day suspension for personal insult.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1332
  • Posts: 21923
Thanks for this post from:
tringlomaneSanchoPanzaCrystalMathMission146Forager
January 24th, 2020 at 5:11:06 PM permalink
Quote: tringlomane

#1: (5-line play/500 total hands): (27.380241) x 500 x ($1)^2 = $13,690

#2: (1-line play/100 total hands): (19.514676) x 100 x ($5)^2 = $48,787



I agree. I hope this proves the point that if you can break one big bet on single line VP into multiple smaller bets (per hand) in multi-play, then you should, assuming the same pay table and total bet per deal/round. As far as I know, nobody is disagreeing with that here.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.

  • Jump to: