Many doctors claim they can see better when doing robotic.

I think you're right, it's still too early to make reliable
comparisons.
Even though the manufacturers offered him a 'free' robot, the uro who
did my laparascopic RP (basically the same thing but without the
robot) decided against training and turned down the offer to get to
grips with it, preferring instead the closer physical association he
enjoys with his team assembled directly round him (anaesthetist,
brow-mopper, instrument-passer, masseur, teaboy etc).  This seems to
make some sort of sense.  The robot-assisted surgeon probably leads a
lonely working life in front of his LCD while all those other bods are
cosying up together round the patient.  

My guess is that laparascopic (plain or robot-assisted) will gain
favour over time and perhaps completely displace the open surgery -
but it is only a guess.  Significantly less operating time on average,
less blood loss, quicker recovery time - whether these advantages are
construed as trifles or not, there's little point in not accepting
them graciously if all other things - curative, rehabilitative - turn
out, after due appraisal, to be broadly equal.

Most of my information on RLRP comes from this NG.  And, all other things
being equal in 2000, if RLRP was available, I would have chosen it over RRP.
However, depending on your definition of "surgical risk", I think that open
surgery might have the nod on that one.  As I recall, RLRP involves a much
longer time under anesthetic, which is never good.  It also involves a lot
more bleeding.  However, RLRP also involves a much better look at the
prostate and the all-important "margins".  But, there is no "feel"
whatsoever.  So, as to risk, I think it's a toss-up.

As to erectile recovery, I think it might have an advantage as to seeing the
nerves and a disadvantage as to peeling them.

As to continence, I don't think there is an advantage either way.

I am fully prepared to be told I'm wrong; which will educate me and others.