Skip Hughes wrote:
JB:
Choosing RF3>HI PR costs you .007% in EV, not enough to give a
second thought (amost anything you do will have a much greater
impact). Meanwhile the RF cycle is shortened to about 34K.
Shortening the RF cycle will reduce the chances of long royal
droughts and increase the chances of royal hot streaks. I think this
is the basis for the concept that this type of strategy change may
actually reduce risk. To pay for that, you are increasing the drain
in between royals by about .35%.
Your post was a valuable prod, Skip. It's often that I read and post
in some haste just before stepping out the door -- was the case here.
I gave Steve a bit of short shrift.
On a quick pass I didn't think a strategy shift pushing more royals
was consistent with "min-loss" (reduced loss between royals) strategy
because I usually associate min-loss with positive game play,
particularly progressives.
In a positive play situation min-loss strategy will deemphasize
royals. However, in the case of a negative game such as JB, min-loss
will look to reduce the royal cycle to cut the inherent drain of the
negative game.
(Just to clarify a contradiction that may appear on the surface
between that statement and your final sentence -- the drain for each
hand between royals is increased by about .35% in the min-loss
strategy, but because the royal cycle is shortened the total loss
between royals is reduced.)
Note that when you're playing with cash benefits that turn JB to a
positive prospect, "min-loss" will again deemphasize royal shots (hi
pair is "restored" to being favored over 3RF, e.g.)
btw, my concern with "deviation from max-ER" discussions lies in the
realm of thinking vp strategy for the average player should "keep it
simple". I certainly grasp and support the idea that if a change only
involves a minimal ER hit there's little reason not to go for it if it
suits you. But there are other complications introduced that sway me
to think it's best to steer clear in general discussion.
- Harry