vpFREE2 Forums

23 SEP PLAYER'S EDGE Column

#1

<<<"QJ" with no straight interference > SF3 0h0i --- specifically '345',
'456', and '567'

This is true in 9-6-239 and not 9-6-250>>>>

For this play to be correct you have to consider how much you would tip
on a royal flush. If you would tip more than 33 coins for a royal flush
then you should continue to hold the SF3-0h0i.

For me personally I usually tip $100 on a $20k royal so I would make the
change. On a $4K royal I usually tip $40 so I would not make the change.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 06:42:01 -0700 "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@compdance.com> writes:

#2

For this play to be correct you have to consider how much you would tip
on a royal flush. If you would tip more than 33 coins for a royal flush
then you should continue to hold the SF3-0h0i.

For me personally I usually tip $100 on a $20k royal so I would make the
change. On a $4K royal I usually tip $40 so I would not make the
change.

    I personally LOVE this kind of refinement! (No sarcasm at all. I'm
serious.) Someday I'm going to publish "Strategies for Cheapskates",
which will be filled with this kind of play where it makes a difference
whether you're generous tip-wise or not. Other eligible hands for this
list would be AK8 "QJ" in 9/6/250 Jacks and "AT"579 (last three totally
unsuited) in NSU.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

Bob Dancer wrote: Someday I'm going to publish "Strategies for Cheapskates",

You really let them have it this time. I like the way you wrapped it up so diplomatically without any trace of sarcasm.
Helmut

···

============================================
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@compdance.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: Re: [vpFREE] Re: 23 SEP PLAYER'S EDGE Column

For this play to be correct you have to consider how much you would tip
on a royal flush. If you would tip more than 33 coins for a royal flush
then you should continue to hold the SF3-0h0i.

For me personally I usually tip $100 on a $20k royal so I would make the
change. On a $4K royal I usually tip $40 so I would not make the
change.

   I personally LOVE this kind of refinement! (No sarcasm at all. I'm
serious.) Someday I'm going to publish "Strategies for Cheapskates",
which will be filled with this kind of play where it makes a difference
whether you're generous tip-wise or not. Other eligible hands for this
list would be AK8 "QJ" in 9/6/250 Jacks and "AT"579 (last three totally
unsuited) in NSU.

Bob Dancer

#4

Bob Dancer wrote:

For this play to be correct you have to consider how much you would tip
on a royal flush. If you would tip more than 33 coins for a royal flush
then you should continue to hold the SF3-0h0i.

For me personally I usually tip $100 on a $20k royal so I would make the
change. On a $4K royal I usually tip $40 so I would not make the
change.

I wish you'd come up with a way to quantify aversion to fluctuation.
Steve Jacobs emphasized this and he seemed to come up with a way, but
I never understood it. Just going by your figures above, on a $5
machine, this play costs between $19,800 and $19,900 to hit an
additional royal. Even IF I wouldn't tip at all for a royal, it would
still give me the creeps to draw to it, knowing that I was subjecting
myself to a highly fluctuating extra $19,850 or so cost to hit a
highly fluctuating extra $20,000 royal. I usually allow about a 10%
"fudge factor" and probably wouldn't draw to the royal on any hand
that had a cost per royal of more than $18,000 or so, but that's just
my gut talking and isn't based on anything mathematical. If you could
program a computer to quickly play hands that cost $19,850 per royal
and occasionally hit a $19,900 royal, would you? I sure wouldn't, no
matter how much money I had, knowing that losing streaks of hundreds
of thousands of dollars, with little hope of recovery in any near
future due to the tiny advantage, were reasonably possible, but I
don't know where to draw the line. It seems like there should be a
way to quantify it.

#5

You know Helmut. I'm not sure if cheapskate fits. I think considering
tip makes a lot of sense. If an advantage player considers best play
based on a 10 cent or less difference, why would the same player be
called a cheapskate when he considers the tip in choosing play. The
return to player is way greater in tip situation. My consideration,
choosing passing the big play for smaller return, is the time waiting
for hand pay. Even if I just go home and watch tv my time is worth a
lot to me.

Cheers ... Jeep
.

Bob Dancer wrote: Someday I'm going to publish "Strategies for

Cheapskates",

You really let them have it this time. I like the way you wrapped

it up so

diplomatically without any trace of sarcasm.
Helmut

============================================
From: "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@c...>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: Re: [vpFREE] Re: 23 SEP PLAYER'S EDGE Column

> For this play to be correct you have to consider how much you

would tip

> on a royal flush. If you would tip more than 33 coins for a

royal flush

> then you should continue to hold the SF3-0h0i.
>
> For me personally I usually tip $100 on a $20k royal so I would

make the

> change. On a $4K royal I usually tip $40 so I would not make the
> change.
>
>
>
> I personally LOVE this kind of refinement! (No sarcasm at all.

I'm

> serious.) Someday I'm going to publish "Strategies for

Cheapskates",

> which will be filled with this kind of play where it makes a

difference

> whether you're generous tip-wise or not. Other eligible hands for

this

> list would be AK8 "QJ" in 9/6/250 Jacks and "AT"579 (last three

totally

···

.--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Helmut Wolf" <hewolf@c...> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
> unsuited) in NSU.
>
> Bob Dancer

#6

My consideration,

choosing passing the big play for smaller return, is the time waiting
for hand pay. Even if I just go home and watch tv my time is worth a
lot to me.

Cheers ... Jeep

The record for fast hand pays has to go to Harrah's Joliet, circa 2003.
They had their machines set to lock-up on 1000 credit wins, even .25
multiplay machines 3-50 play. Their goal was to service each Diamond
customer, roughly 75% of the clientele, within three minutes. In my
experience they never even came close to missing their three minute
goal, they were usually there in less than one minute! The change
people were probably the highest tipped in the country.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "whitejeeps" <whitejeeps@y...> wrote:

#7

<<Bob Dancer wrote: Someday I'm going to publish "Strategies for
Cheapskates",

You really let them have it this time. I like the way you wrapped it up so
diplomatically without any trace of sarcasm.>>

The dancing man is totally serious. He is well known for his footnote on
tipping for Four Deuces in FPDW when deciding whether to hold Five of a Kind
with three Deuces.

Cogno

#8

My favorite argument about this topic was a few years ago, before TITO, about whether to hold in FPDW a 3-deuce 5-of-a-kind. For those newbies that don't know about this, some writers said to hold all such 5-of-a-kinds if there was a risk of paying a tip if you got the 4 deuces. Once TITO was established, writers agreed on mathematically correct strategy; i.e., drop low pairs and go for the ducks! Dancer and Paymar had quite a "go" about this at the time.
-- Steve in LV (geez, was it all so long ago?!)