I assume that a "common bankroll" means that each person contributes, for example, $2,000 to the "kitty" and then draws from that $4,000 fund as necessary, without regard to whether they have lost "their half", to finance their play, as long as there's money left in the fund -- as opposed to agreeing to share losses and wins, with each person playing for an agreed-upon time / number of hands / win-loss goal, with a $2,000 bankroll for each, and if you lose your $2,000, you are finished, even if the other person is still playing and winning and perhaps even making up for your own losses by the "stop point"?
While each method of "shared play" is often acceptable to both players, the truly shared bankroll would, I would think, allow more total hands to be played, which is good if the game is positive EV, while the shared wins and losses without a shared bankroll would more often cause one of the two players to have to stop playing when his share of the money is gone.
Obviously, it's no fun to put $2,000 into a common fund, put your first few bills into your machine, and be at break-even or even winning a little with your own play while your partner has lost everything they put in and everything you put in except what you already have in your machine. On the other hand, it's no fun to lose your own $2,000 and have to find something else to do while your partner bangs away with his/her $2,000, while you hope he/she wins enough to redeem your own loss, instead of ending up a loser and costing you still more without the joy of playing.
Personally, I play single-line, but I have a friend who enjoys playing with me, and he prefers multi-line games at the same denomination. I'll play my money at single-line when he's not around, but when he is playing and wants me to join him, we'll each put the same amount into a "common bankroll" and then play the multi-line game, taking turns at playing (which, I know, now makes us essentially a single player anyway) the machine until we lose the common bankroll, double (or triple) it, or make some other shared decision on how to manage it (often it's, don't go below nnnn credits, adjust nnnn upward each time we win another xx credits). After we finish our shared session, I go back to single-line or live poker, and he continues to play the multi-line machine on his own.
Quite honestly, our shared bankrolls would never be sufficient for the multi-line machine (he usually chooses a higher-return higher-volatility game such as Super Times Play, while I pound away at Jacks or Better, mostly for Diamond status and occasional comps, so along with the coin-in per each play, we're way above what our bankroll justifies), so we are not really trying to manage our money in any pre-determined way when we do a "shared session" - it's just for shared joy or pain. His bankroll is also insufficient for the game, but he replenishes it when necessary out of earned income. I try to do all my play out of my gambling fund, and while it's fluctuated, mostly downward since I stopped playing high limit blackjack as a card counter, it has funded my play for many decades.
--BG
=====================
2a. Re: Pick 'em Poker Risk of ruin calculation
> A related question I have always puzzled about.
> Does two people playing out of a common bankroll
> change the risk of return calculation?
Jean Scott addressed this in her latest blog:
"Having a "gambling buddy" can be an economic advantage, especially if you have a small bankroll, because two people playing the same play together don't need a bigger bankroll than the solo player."
http://jscott.lvablog.com/?p=3261 http://jscott.lvablog.com/?p=3261
That's true if we're considering the longterm bankroll needs of two people playing forever (and with an edge). If two people agree to become partners for a limited time, things are different, although there is still an economic advantage to being partners. For a trip, the partners DO need to bring a larger combined bankroll than a single player would have to have brought.
Consider a weekend trip in which two players each want to play 20 hours of $1 Pick'em. For a single player, a $4000 bankroll would result in a 2% RoR. But if both players try to play 20 hours on a $4000 bankroll, then that's the same as a single player playing 40 hours. The Trip RoR would jump up to 14%.
The two partners can achieve the same 2% RoR with a combined bankroll of $6000. So having a partner allows you to reduce your weekend bankroll from $4K to $3K while keeping the same RoR. But it doesn't allow you to reduce it to $2K.
> A related question I have always puzzled about.
> Does two people playing out of a common bankroll
> change the risk of return calculation?
Jean Scott addressed this in her latest blog:
"Having a "gambling buddy" can be an economic advantage, especially if you have a small bankroll, because two people playing the same play together don't need a bigger bankroll than the solo player."
http://jscott.lvablog.com/?p=3261 http://jscott.lvablog.com/?p=3261
That's true if we're considering the longterm bankroll needs of two people playing forever (and with an edge). If two people agree to become partners for a limited time, things are different, although there is still an economic advantage to being partners. For a trip, the partners DO need to bring a larger combined bankroll than a single player would have to have brought.
Consider a weekend trip in which two players each want to play 20 hours of $1 Pick'em. For a single player, a $4000 bankroll would result in a 2% RoR. But if both players try to play 20 hours on a $4000 bankroll, then that's the same as a single player playing 40 hours. The Trip RoR would jump up to 14%.
The two partners can achieve the same 2% RoR with a combined bankroll of $6000. So having a partner allows you to reduce your weekend bankroll from $4K to $3K while keeping the same RoR. But it doesn't allow you to reduce it to $2K.
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (14) |
.
__,_._,___
