vp_wiz wrote: "Humor me a bit, NOTI. At your convenience, assuming play of $1 9/6 JB w/ 1% in game incentives, what's the 1% ROR bankroll requirement for the 2 respective strategies. That, at least for me, will more strongly cement relative potential advantages. (mind you, I'm not sure that MCR equates to bankroll requirement minimization.)"
There is such a thing as the min-ROR strategy. Obviously that's the strategy that would minimize the longterm ROR. It only works if you have an overlay, and you get the strategy by discounting every win by an amount proportional to the overlay, so both MCR and min-ROR discount the royal for overlays, so they are similar, but not identical, and the min-ROR is between the MCR and maxEV. If you want to do the math, it's doable with a spreadsheet, the adjustment formula is (1-R(1)^W)/(1-R(1)) where R(1) is the familiar risk of ruin number.
But, it doesn't have to be this complicated. The N0 for Jacks+2.06% is about variance/edge^2 = 19.51/.016^ is about 76,211. So, if you're willing to play at least this many hands in a tax year, maxEV or min-ROR are the better strategies. Below this number you should really be thinking MCR. This number is around the royal cycle, so it makes sense that MCR is the better fit, around the royal cycle and less. If you're willing to go beyond, and the casino will let you (think about it, that's a big pregnant if with this kind of overlay), you're going to play more than one royal cycle, and maxEV and min-ROR now become the better fits as you are less concerned with the cost of one particular royal cycle and more concerned with longer term survival. Make sense? I know you personally are a 7-stars player, and I assume you got it the hard way, by playing millions of hands per tax year, so for you MCR makes little sense while min-ROR would be a no brainer, IMHO.
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (33) |
