Poker Poker Poker!: [vpFREE] Re: Here we go again?

Jean Scott wrote:
> For non-math people who are still reading this thread, here is my
> explanation. You will get to the long term faster by playing
> multi-line so you won't need quite as large a lifetime bankroll as
> for the same coin-in on a single line, but you will definitely go
> deeper into your SESSIONS bankroll.

Jean, I'll disagree with the latter portion of this statement. When
the context is the same coin-in played per play, so long as it's
assumed that each session consists of the same total coin-in,
multi-line play will go SLIMMER into your bankroll within a single
session.

And the fact that multi-line play is typically slower than single line
(fewer plays per hour), it's likely a multi-line session will entail
smaller total coin-in, making the "SLIMMER" statement all the more true.

So long as "same coin-in per play" is assumed, a slimmer bankroll
requirement characterizes multi-line play in all regards.

When "same denomination of play" is assumed, the converse holds.

------

Moving back into the math realm, (merely to add an additional
practical dimension) there is a base denomination of each game and
number of multi-line lines for which bankroll requirements (session,
when coin-in is the same - and lifetime) roughly equalize. This would
likely be the point at which the total variance of each play is
identical (at least in the case that the same game, e.g. 10/7 DB, is
played in each case). An example for which this might be the case is
14-line $.25 play vs. single line $1 play (I haven't performed the
specific calculation).

However, because of disparate coin-in per hour, sessions bankrolls for
sessions consisting of same length of play would differ. In this
case, similar bankrolls for each type of session of equal length might
require that the product of respective variances and $ coin-in/hr be
identical. Again, the Jazbo website previously noted discusses the
calculation of variance for multi-line play.

- H.