I visited a webpage to learn more about Double Double Bonus. Go see:
"http://wizardofodds.com/videopoker/strategy/doubledoublebonus.html"
Has anyone else looked at the section called "Conflict Hands"?
I ran all 39 "conflict hands" through my BDPWP 5.0a program and found
that some hands used to illustrate each rule included a penalty card
that made the rule FALSE. Three of these hands would have been better
located under a separate caption or heading labeled "Exceptions to
the rule". (At a minimum, an asterisk with an accompanying footnote
indicating an exception would be in order for these three hands.)
They are Conflict hands #9, #17 and # 25.
For 10/6/40...
QUOTE for #9. "J J Q K 9 High Pair (J/Q/K) or 3 to a Royal Flush
(suited KQJ): Keep the suited KQJ."
#9 was false due to a 9 penalty card. I also found it would be false
if an Ace were substituted for the 9. (Otherwise, the rule was true.)
QUOTE for #17. "4 5 6 J Q 3 to a straight flush (type 1) or 2 suited
high cards: Go for the straight flush"
#17 was false because J,Q suited is stronger than '4,5,6' suited.
(Otherwise, the rule is true for AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ as the two suited
high cards.)
QUOTE for #25. "Q J A 9 7 QJ unsuited or Ace: Keep the QJ unsuited"
#25 was false because the 9 served as a straight penalty card. The
result is the same if you substitute an 8 for the 9. (An 8 is also a
straight penalty card to Q,J unsuited.)
N.B. I am indebted to the Wizard of Odds (Michael Schackleford) for
free access to his website. (It is free for everyone.) Through this
website (http://wizardofodds.com), I learned the "optimal basic
strategy" for 9/6 JOB and all the penalty card situations. He also
gave attribution to Bob Dancer's "9/6 Jacks or Better Video Poker
Report" as a source to verify his strategy and also as a source
of "obscure exceptions" used to correct (update) his "optimal
strategy".
I expected the same high level of analysis for other VP game
strategies listed on the "Wizard's" site. I did not always find it.
I was disappointed by his (the "wizardofodds") treatment of
the "Double Double Bonus Strategy" on his website. He states thatÂ…
"This page shows my strategy for 10/6 Double Double Bonus Poker. With
optimal strategy, the expected return of 10/6 Double Double Bonus is
100.07%.
At no time does Michael Schackleford state that his DDB strategy
is "optimal" nor does he state what the "ER" ACTUALLY is for "his"
strategy when used for either 9/6 or 10/6 DDB. I say that because I
found (stumbled actually) on some penalty card situations that are
not disclosed in the introduction, strategy or definitions sections.
However, it is IMPLIED by the fact that he advises to use the same
strategy for 9/6 as for 10/6 DDB. QUOTE: "This strategy will also
work fine for 9/6 Double Double Bonus (with a return of 98.98%)."
Also, unlike the JOB and Deuces Wild strategies that he published, he
did not include a "Methodology" section that gives attribution to
other sources consulted. I wish it had. Perhaps copyright enforcement
prrevented him from doing so. Could he have been served with a "cease
and desist" court order initiated by a "well-known VP columnist"
alleging plagiarism or "fair use" violations?
Is it possible that the "wizard's" strategy was originally written
for 9/6 and the author (Michael Schackleford or a ghostwriter?)
changed it to a 10/6 strategy (at the last minute) without sufficient
editing?
Short of buying new software... Where else can I go to find out ALL
of the penalty card situations for 10/6/40 DDB and their effect on
the ER? I have seen in JOB that the difference in EV can be quite
minute, almost infinitesimal.