Why Do I Bother With Penalty Cards?
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html
<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html</a>
8 NOV 2005 Bob Dancer CasinoGaming Column
This column is well written, but poorly named, IMO. A better title might be "If you're not a Pro, you're a loser and don't know anything about Video Poker", or even better - "If you can't defend your position, denigrate your opponent". The remarks about Paymar, even if accurate (and I have no comment about that), were particularly gratuitous. I think you get more respect if you sell your ideas on their merits rather than attacking your competitors. Moreover, once you start getting into attack mode, you have no complaints coming when you are on the other end.
The penalty card/no penalty card discussion can be argued without this.
Skip
vpFREE Administrator wrote:
···
Why Do I Bother With Penalty Cards?
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html
<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html</a>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com
Usually Bob Dancer is logical, but this column essentially says that if you don't take the time Bob did to study every penalty card situation, you can't play in the top percentiles. That is nonsense. A person can learn a strategy that is only slightly less than perfect and still be a winner. You can follow a perfect strategy without really understanding VP well, too.
It's tough to spend years learning something perfectly and then have something else come along that works just as well with much less effort. There are lots of examples in engineering. Someone spends lots of time learning detailed assembly language programming and later tools come along that allow someone to do the same job without the same effort. I spent a lot of time learning the slide rule, but calculators work better and faster with less effort. Bob needs to get over it.
Skip Hughes wrote:
···
This column is well written, but poorly named, IMO. A better title
might be "If you're not a Pro, you're a loser and don't know anything
about Video Poker", or even better - "If you can't defend your position,
denigrate your opponent". The remarks about Paymar, even if accurate
(and I have no comment about that), were particularly gratuitous. I
think you get more respect if you sell your ideas on their merits rather
than attacking your competitors. Moreover, once you start getting into
attack mode, you have no complaints coming when you are on the other end.
The penalty card/no penalty card discussion can be argued without this.
SkipvpFREE Administrator wrote:
Why Do I Bother With Penalty Cards?
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html
<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html</a>
I agree with the comments below, and would add the following. The
top "vp winners" are probably those whom have been able to
successfully "game" the system, by figuring-out which promotions are
most advantageous, and how to take advantage of those situations.
I'm sure all advantage players make some adjustment for common
penalty card situations.
thymos_one
Casino Comps
New Group Dedicated to Tracking Casino Comps and Promotions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/casino_comps/
Usually Bob Dancer is logical, but this column essentially says
that if you
don't take the time Bob did to study every penalty card situation,
you can't
play in the top percentiles. That is nonsense. A person can learn
a
strategy that is only slightly less than perfect and still be a
winner. You
can follow a perfect strategy without really understanding VP well,
too.
It's tough to spend years learning something perfectly and then
have
something else come along that works just as well with much less
effort.
There are lots of examples in engineering. Someone spends lots of
time
learning detailed assembly language programming and later tools
come along
that allow someone to do the same job without the same effort. I
spent a
lot of time learning the slide rule, but calculators work better
and faster
with less effort. Bob needs to get over it.
Skip Hughes wrote:
> This column is well written, but poorly named, IMO. A better
title
> might be "If you're not a Pro, you're a loser and don't know
anything
> about Video Poker", or even better - "If you can't defend your
position,
> denigrate your opponent". The remarks about Paymar, even if
accurate
> (and I have no comment about that), were particularly gratuitous.
I
> think you get more respect if you sell your ideas on their merits
rather
> than attacking your competitors. Moreover, once you start getting
into
> attack mode, you have no complaints coming when you are on the
other end.
> The penalty card/no penalty card discussion can be argued without
this.
> Skip
>
> vpFREE Administrator wrote:
>
>>Why Do I Bother With Penalty Cards?
>>
>>http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html
>>
>><a
href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html">
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Dick Kalagher" <rkalagher@c...> wrote:
>>http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1108.html</a>
Bob makes an interesting point - thats basically true -->
"Is it possible to be in the upper 5% while ignoring penalty cards? Of course. But the players who can do it aren't talking. If and when they do, the parameters of what it takes to be in the top 5% will change again."
Top pros's have always been closed mouthed about the best plays, and have their own private network of sharing. This is the reason for the Skip Hughes group ! They hate us now - cause we spread the news. Your better off playing 102% plays at 99.90 accuracy than a 101 play at 99.95 accuracy anyday!
···
----- Original Message ----- From: "Skip Hughes" <skiphughes@earthlink.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] 8 NOV 2005 Bob Dancer CasinoGaming Column
This column is well written, but poorly named, IMO. A better title
might be "If you're not a Pro, you're a loser and don't know anything
about Video Poker", or even better - "If you can't defend your position,
denigrate your opponent". The remarks about Paymar, even if accurate
(and I have no comment about that), were particularly gratuitous. I
think you get more respect if you sell your ideas on their merits rather
than attacking your competitors. Moreover, once you start getting into
attack mode, you have no complaints coming when you are on the other end.
The penalty card/no penalty card discussion can be argued without this.
Skip
Usually Bob Dancer is logical, but this column essentially says
that if you don't take the time Bob did to study every penalty card
situation,
you can't play in the top percentiles. That is nonsense. A person can
learn
a strategy that is only slightly less than perfect and still be a
winner. You can follow a perfect strategy without really understanding
VP well,
too. . . Bob needs to get over it.
There have been numerous posts disagreeing with my recent column
for a variety of reasons. Some of those posts were moved to the
FREEvpFREE site. It will not be necessary to move this post there. The
above-response, though, is highly misstating my position.
My position is that if you wish to be in the top few percent of
players that you have to be a better player than the rest of the folks.
It's a tautological fact that only the top person out of twenty can be
in the highest 5%. People doing what most others do WILL NOT end up in
the top 5%. Following conventional wisdom will not allow you to rise to
the top.
For me, I use penalty cards to help me stay at that level. Can you
do it another way? Of course. If you're at that level and want to
explain how you do it, I'm sure that this forum would love to hear what
you have to say. There is one person I know of at that level other than
myself who regularly posts on this site (I'm not telling who) but I've
never seen him/her post on this subject. Perhaps others of you are that
level.
It's not the penalty cards themselves that are important. Playing
at 100% is not that much better than playing at the 99.98% level that is
possible with penalty-free strategies for a number of the easier games.
But the players who are striving to play at 100% learn the games A LOT
better than those who aren't. If you can learn a 99.98% strategy at the
100% level, you are likely capable of playing at the highest level. But
the vast number of players who aim for a 99.98% strategy seem content to
play that strategy at a 99% level. That is NOT the key to success.
The goal of my writing is to tell you how I do it. Some like that
path and others don't. Some find it too difficult. Many have no desire
to work hard enough to succeed at that level. That is fine with me. But
it's usually the people who AREN'T personally successful at this game
who claim my ways aren't necessary. In my mind this says more about them
and why they aren't successful than it says about me.
If someone credibly claims to have made $100,000 a year from video
poker (including slot clubs and related promotions) for at least five
separate years and believes that my methods aren't necessary, I'd like
to hear what they have to say about how they do it. (The column was
addressed, after all, about those wanting to be in the top 5%, and those
are the rewards these players receive.)
If your goals are to make $5,000 a year (which is higher than at
least one of the so-called gurus on this site averages), that's
certainly a respectable goal for a recreational player, but for players
like this, penalty cards are a waste of time. I'm not putting these
players down at all. But that wasn't what this particular column was all
about.
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]
I am going to tread carefully here as I respond to Bob's post. I am trying to discuss the message and not the messenger, although I will refer to Bob personally below - but in a very nice way!
I guess I thought (and perhaps others too) Bob was referring to the top 5% of VP players as being a "skill" level. If one person plays $5 machines, for example, and makes an average profit of $100,000 a year - and another one plays $1 machines and makes an average profit of $20,000 a year - and another one plays quarter machines and makes an average profit of $5000 - I feel that all three of them can be at the same skill level.
If being in the top 5% means how much money one makes from VP, I'm not in this contest and I bet most of you are with me in saying that we don't want to be. There are many reason to limit your play to lower denominations. Some people do not have the financial assets to go higher. Some do not have the psychological bankroll to endure large losses. Some people want to play lower denominations for long periods of time. Some (like us) like to play higher denominations but for shorter time periods. Some consider VP an occupation (God help them!) but most consider it a fun hobby that has the potential to be profitable. So many personal differences and goals, most of which do not reflect someone's skill or ability.
Actually we make a lot more money playing VP than most people would guess, but Brad and I prefer not to talk about specifics in this area. For one thing statistics like this can not be "proven" - no one is showing their tax returns so one has to take all of these figures on "faith." And one could pick two different periods of time - or have two "years" start and stop at some arbitrary point and results could vary say from $50,000 up to $50,000 down, a huge range. The second reason why we personally do not give our win statistics is that it would seem like bragging and I am already coming under some fairly heavy fire from frugal fans for straying from my "low roller" roots.
I'm going to have to write a FF article about this one of these days. And what I will say is that we stayed at the quarter level for MANY years, plugging away with a high level of skill, using the slot club and comp programs to the max, chasing promotions and coupons like crazy people. Our initial goal was just to have fun free vacations away from Indy-No-Place, but my over-achiever (anal?) tendencies surprised us with their great financial success.
We could have stayed at the quarter level forever - we were having loads of fun and making all the money we needed - but, Bob, it is all your fault we didn't - you convinced us that a certain promotion at the 4 Queens was so lucrative we just HAD to go up to the dollar level. We said we hadn't really brought enough money with us on that trip to play dollars, but you said you would loan us whatever we needed. As it happened I got 2 royals within the first couple of hours we played - we didn't need to borrow from Bob and we have slowly advanced in denomination ever since.
We have made money at every level and every year (except one where we were only 2 royals down) for 16 years of VP play. The one good thing for us in having played at many different levels, I have personal experience with the plus and minuses at each level and therefore I think I can write helpful information that can be helpful to a large range of players. But, as I have written about before, there is a big disadvantage we have because we still play at many levels today. It takes much longer to smooth out the win/loss balance sheet when you are winning at the lower levels and losing at the higher ones. However, we have been doing this for so long, the overall results are pretty consistent with the theoretical EV, although the roller coaster ride is terrifically heart-stopping at times!!!!!
Thank goodness for diversity!
···
________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
> Usually Bob Dancer is logical, but this column essentially says
that if you don't take the time Bob did to study every penalty card
situation,
you can't play in the top percentiles. That is nonsense. A person
can
learn
a strategy that is only slightly less than perfect and still be a
winner. You can follow a perfect strategy without really
understanding
VP well,
too. . . Bob needs to get over it.
>There have been numerous posts disagreeing with my recent
column
for a variety of reasons. Some of those posts were moved to the
FREEvpFREE site. It will not be necessary to move this post there.
The
above-response, though, is highly misstating my position.
My position is that if you wish to be in the top few percent
of
players that you have to be a better player than the rest of the
folks.
Being successful at VP requires several abilities. You could play the
game as perfectly as a computer and not do as well as someone who
understands how to find and milk the most out of promotions. Or, are
you stating this skill is no longer valuable?
It's a tautological fact that only the top person out of twenty can
be
in the highest 5%. People doing what most others do WILL NOT end up
in
the top 5%. Following conventional wisdom will not allow you to
rise to
the top.
No argument here. But, this is not what your column stated. You
specifically indicated that understanding penalty cards was required
or, if there was another method, "the players who can do it aren't
talking".
For me, I use penalty cards to help me stay at that level.
Can you
do it another way? Of course. If you're at that level and want to
explain how you do it, I'm sure that this forum would love to hear
what
you have to say. There is one person I know of at that level other
than
myself who regularly posts on this site (I'm not telling who) but
I've
never seen him/her post on this subject. Perhaps others of you are
that
level.
This still follows the theme of ... the only way to be in the top 5%
is to know and understand all penalty card situations.
It's not the penalty cards themselves that are important.
Playing
at 100% is not that much better than playing at the 99.98% level
that is
possible with penalty-free strategies for a number of the easier
games.
But the players who are striving to play at 100% learn the games A
LOT
better than those who aren't. If you can learn a 99.98% strategy at
the
100% level, you are likely capable of playing at the highest level.
But
the vast number of players who aim for a 99.98% strategy seem
content to
play that strategy at a 99% level. That is NOT the key to success.
I find this to be a very poor argument. In fact, I think the 80-20
rule applies very well to penalty cards. 80% of the benefit of
learning penalty card situations can be derived from 20% of the
effort. Using the other 80% of the time to find lucrative promotions
or find even better games is arguably more productive.
This also tends to be very personal in nature. Each individual
retains different amounts of information. Each needs to choose the
degree of accuracy that gives them the best results. If someone ends
up confusing themselves with too much information then they are, in
fact, reducing the liklihood of "success". As in most endeavors,
the "key to success" is to first understand your own strengths and
weaknesses and then play to your strengths. Clearly, you have
accomplished this task. However, to imply that the approach that
works best for you is the only approach seems a little strong.
The goal of my writing is to tell you how I do it. Some like
that
path and others don't. Some find it too difficult. Many have no
desire
to work hard enough to succeed at that level. That is fine with me.
But
it's usually the people who AREN'T personally successful at this
game
who claim my ways aren't necessary.
This also seems a little strong. In addition, success may mean
something entirely different to others.
In my mind this says more about them
and why they aren't successful than it says about me.
Or, it may simply say their definition of success is different than
yours.
If someone credibly claims to have made $100,000 a year from
video
poker (including slot clubs and related promotions) for at least
five
separate years and believes that my methods aren't necessary, I'd
like
to hear what they have to say about how they do it. (The column was
addressed, after all, about those wanting to be in the top 5%, and
those
are the rewards these players receive.)
If your goals are to make $5,000 a year (which is higher than at
least one of the so-called gurus on this site averages), that's
certainly a respectable goal for a recreational player, but for
players
like this, penalty cards are a waste of time.
Once again I disagree. Flat statements like this seem to be a bit
condescending. Reasonably applied, penalty cards can be useful to
folks at every denomination. To many recreational players the
enjoyment factor is enhanced by understanding penalty cards. VP games
can be quite boring to some individuals and they may find additional
pleasure by recognizing and applying penalty card techniques. As I
said before, it's an individuals' choice and needs to be applied to
meet their goals.
I'm not putting these
players down at all. But that wasn't what this particular column
was all
about.
Your column never stated directly that the top 5% meant dollar value
only. When I first read it I thought you were talking about skill
level and maximizing ones' profitability (% gain). It didn't occur to
me you would write a column for such a small audience (Top 5% of the
high denom players) and when you stated "the lowest 2/3 of the
players supported the party", that you were still only referring to
high denom players.
Dick
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@c...> wrote:
Bob Dancer wrote:
My position is that if you wish to be in the top few percent of
players that you have to be a better player than the rest of the folks.
It's a tautological fact that only the top person out of twenty can be
in the highest 5%. People doing what most others do WILL NOT end up in
the top 5%. Following conventional wisdom will not allow you to rise to
the top.For me, I use penalty cards to help me stay at that level. Can you
do it another way? Of course. If you're at that level and want to
explain how you do it, I'm sure that this forum would love to hear what
you have to say. There is one person I know of at that level other than
myself who regularly posts on this site (I'm not telling who) but I've
never seen him/her post on this subject. Perhaps others of you are that
level.It's not the penalty cards themselves that are important. Playing
at 100% is not that much better than playing at the 99.98% level that is
possible with penalty-free strategies for a number of the easier games.
But the players who are striving to play at 100% learn the games A LOT
better than those who aren't. If you can learn a 99.98% strategy at the
100% level, you are likely capable of playing at the highest level. But
the vast number of players who aim for a 99.98% strategy seem content to
play that strategy at a 99% level. That is NOT the key to success.
I'm not clear what the "99%" means. If it means that one's mistakes
cost an average of 1% of one's action, I agree. If it means that, in
unclear situations, one makes the right play 99% of the time, then I
disagree.
When I first started gambling, I was playing blackjack. I wasn't
particularly concerned about playing "perfectly" until I met someone
who used side counts of many different cards. So I spent weeks
developing my own method of keeping side counts, far more for the
pride of being better than this friend than for the added value it
would give me. When I discovered video poker, I applied the same
emphasis on perfection. But by now, especially with the mushrooming
variety of machines, I've relaxed considerably. When I realize that
ignoring all penalty cards costs no more than about .02% of one's
overall action, it doesn't seem very important. One disadvantage to
trying to play "perfectly" is that, when the type of hand that arises
for which the "right" play depends on what penalty cards there are,
every such hand must be analyzed, but only a minority of hands will
turn out to be exceptions to the rule. By definition, the time spent
trying to figure out how penalty cards affect the "right" play will be
wasted most of the time and one of the characteristics of hands for
which the "right" play depends on penalty cards is that any "mistake"
won't be very costly.
On the other hand, playing "perfectly" is safer and more conservative,
in a way. The one who allows imperfection risks the "slippery slope"
of mistakes that Bob referred to. Where do you draw the line? How do
you know that you're not allowing so many mistakes in your game, for
the sake of simplifying your strategy, that they'll entirely eliminate
any advantage you have? The "perfect" player doesn't face that
decision, which is why I only relax my standards a little. How fast
to play, in general and not just in penalty card situations, faces the
same issue. If you play so slowly that you never make a mistake, you
cost yourself the value of playing more hands. If you play so fast
that you make many mistakes, you risk eliminating all advantage you
had, or worse. I believe a middle ground is ideal. Approaching
perfection, but stopping short in cases where the cost outweighs the
benefit, is where I strive to be. Learn which hands matter and how
much reduction in overall value a simpler approach will cost. To some
extent, it's a personal decision. Someone with a sharp mind who can
learn penalty situations quickly and whose play won't be slowed down
very much by analyzing them should take more care than people who are
more challenged by them should. I see other pros take inordinate
amounts of time while they're playing trying to determine the
"perfect" play. In the meantime, long after I've told them I don't
even know what the "right" play is in the hand they're trying to
figure out, I've played several hands that gave me far more value than
"perfect" play on the hand the other pros are still agonizing about
gave them.
The truest professional is one who maximizes one's value (to ignore
the consideration of risk for the sake of simplicity), more per time
than per hand, which means simplifying strategy and not playing
"perfectly" to some, but not too much, extent. Being in the top
echelon of people in terms of quality of play for the sake of pride is
a costly luxury in the same way that a nice car (or writing e-mails
while I could be playing video poker) might be.
But the players who are striving to play at 100% learn the games A
A LOT better than those who aren't. If you can learn a 99.98% strategy
at the 100% level, you are likely capable of playing at the highest
level. But the vast number of players who aim for a 99.98% strategy
seem content to play that strategy at a 99% level. That is NOT the key
to success.>>>>
I find this to be a very poor argument. In fact, I think the 80-20
rule applies very well to penalty cards. 80% of the benefit of
learning penalty card situations can be derived from 20% of the
effort. Using the other 80% of the time to find lucrative promotions
or find even better games is arguably more productive.
It might even be the special 90-10 case of the 80-20 rule. There is
also an "art" to the promotion side of the analysis, which is the part
that mostly like separates the top x% from the rest. If someone is
particularly good at estimating what percentage of a drawing they can
cover,i.e. I estimate by playing $500k I can "earn" 1/2% of the tickets
in the drawing, the benefits can be enormous over the long term.
Some promotions are more complicated to calculate their e.v., like the
promotion Trump ran in Chicago last month, which was nicely positive.
That promotion added over 0.6%, that's a lot of penalty cards!
thymos_one
Casino Comps
New Group Dedicated to Tracking Casino Comps and Promotions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/casino_comps/
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@c...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@c...>
wrote:
>>>> But the players who are striving to play at 100% learn the
games A
A LOT better than those who aren't. If you can learn a 99.98%
strategy
at the 100% level, you are likely capable of playing at the highest
level. But the vast number of players who aim for a 99.98% strategy
seem content to play that strategy at a 99% level. That is NOT the
key
to success.>>>>
> I find this to be a very poor argument. In fact, I think the 80-
20
> rule applies very well to penalty cards. 80% of the benefit of
> learning penalty card situations can be derived from 20% of the
> effort. Using the other 80% of the time to find lucrative
promotions
> or find even better games is arguably more productive.
>It might even be the special 90-10 case of the 80-20 rule. There is
also an "art" to the promotion side of the analysis, which is the
part
that mostly like separates the top x% from the rest.
Interestly, I almost parenthetically added (maybe even 90-10), but I
thought I would get my point across without it. From Bobs' previous
writings I know he understands the value of promotions and I suspect
he does a good job of sorting out the good ones from the others. This
makes one wonder what motivated his latest column. Does he really
believe playing a few hundredth of a percent better is more important
then finding a really good promotion as your example indicated?
Dick
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "thymos_one" <thymos_one@y...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
Mroejacks wrote: "Does he [meaning Bob Dancer] really believe playing a
few hundredth of a percent better is more important then finding a
really good promotion"
No I don't. Paying attention to slot clubs is important, promotions are
important, playing when you are at your best is important, and there are
other things as well. Jean Scott is an excellent example of someone who
works the system very well --- and has good results to show for it.
Taking advantage of promotions pays off well. In her case, her "key to
success" seems to be being well connected with both players and casino
promotion information, and being exceptionally-well organized. She also
has Brad to do a large percentage of the playing in their "two-person
team" while she spends more of her time organizing. In many respects, it
appears that Brad is the soldier and Jean is the General. Anybody who
thinks there is one ounce of "put down" in this paragraph, go back and
read it again.
In Shirley's and my "two-person team", we organize things differently.
Video poker wise, I am both the primary soldier and the General. It
takes a different game plan for us to fight the battle than it does for
Jean and Brad. Your situation is likely different from either one of
these.
As I have said, penalty cards are the tool that I use to gain an edge.
Being exceptionally well organizes is a tool that Jean uses. (In my
view, learning to use penalty cards like I do is easier than being as
organized as she. Your mileage may vary.) Every person has to choose
which tools to put in his or her toolbox. And the tools you use should
be based on your particular strengths and weaknesses. Finding (or being)
a good "general" in your battles against the casino is critical.
What I do, though, is find the best promotions I can and play the most
accurately I can. This is not "penalty cards is better than promotions."
This is "promotions work better if you also play perfectly."
In a different post in this thread, Tom Robertson queried whether my
earlier statement concerning using a 99.98% strategy at a 99% level was
about being correct 99% of the time or having my net play being worth
99% of the value. He said if I was saying the latter that he agreed with
me. And that is exactly what I meant.
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]
Bob Dancer wrote:
It's not the penalty cards themselves that are important. Playing
at 100% is not that much better than playing at the 99.98% level that is
possible with penalty-free strategies for a number of the easier games.
This number is way off. I think Bob got the decimal place wrong,
because the actual difference is about a 100 times smaller. To recap
the information I have posted here before, here are the actual
differences (rounded to three decimal places):
Game - "perfect" - no penalty - difference
JB - 99.544% - 99.543% - .001%
BP - 99.166% - 99.164% - .002%
A/A - 100.722% - 100.718% - .002% (is that a surprise?)
SA - 99.939% - 99.937% - .002%
DDB - 100.067% - 100.065% - .002%
NSU - 99.728% - 99.726% - .003%
DW - 100.762% - 100.758% - .0004%
DB - 100.173% - 100.167% - .006% (Actually .0051%)
KBJW - 100.646% - 100.633% - .013%
In other words, for two decimal places, the pen free player is usually playing 100.00%, (or 99.99% for KBJW), not 99.8% as Bob claims.
It's possible Bob thought his number were correct, because before FVP, almost nobody knew how insignificant the differnces were. (Jazbo did, as he had his own software). Now anyone who owns FVP can check this out.
If anyone needs a measure of how tiny those differences are, just
compare the returns from the above games. Or consider this: The
difference in cashback at any Coast casino on double point days and
regular days is 330 times the difference between perfect and regular
strategy for JB! And the difference in regular CB between Suncoast and
Rampart (there's a choice a lot of people frequently make) is about 50
times the JB difference, or 17 times the difference between "perfect" or
penalty-free NSU. A very fast (1,000 hands an hour) dollar player playing JB or DB or NSU will be giving up about 10 - 15 cent an hour. Check the carpet, there's bound to be a dime laying around somewhere.
Next Bob says:
"But the players who are striving to play at 100% learn the games A LOT
better than those who aren't. If you can learn a 99.98% strategy at the
100% level, you are likely capable of playing at the highest level. But
the vast number of players who aim for a 99.98% strategy seem content to
play that strategy at a 99% level."
Of course, he has no basis for this whatsoever. Has he done a study of 1,000 penalty free devotees versus 1,000 penalty card advocates? I missed the report, I guess. In fact, it's strictly his opinion. It's certainly true (and this is probably what he alludes to), that a pro will play a strategy more accurately than an recreational player, and most pros will try to learn the game he plays most, perfectly. Why not - it's their job!
But most people are not pros and many of those very same pros when faced with an opporunity on a game he doesn't know well, and a limited time to learn it, will often choose to ignore penalty cards when practicing. For the recreational player, practice time is likely to be limited all the time and there is no reason for a recreation player to be concerned about the microscopic difference penalty cards make, unless they just have a real desire to learn them. My opinion is that most recreational players will actually play at a higher percentage with a penalty free strategy than with a "perfect" strategy because they will learn it accurately. That's why I put "perfect" in quotes, BTW.
But my big complaint about Bob's column, wasn't that he thinks he's better because he uses penalty cards. That's fine. It's that he feels he needs to attack his competitors to prove his point. He alludes to this again (although not as explicity as in his column), when he says "But it's usually the people who AREN'T personally successful at this game who claim my ways aren't necessary. In my mind this says more about them and why they aren't successful than it says about me."
Actually, I think it says a lot about Bob. It says he knows that (because of the numbers) he has to make his case based on a slight veiled personal attack - his perceived "success" and his perception of his competitors lack of success. All that is certainly subject to debate (which we won't have here, and rightly so), and quite irrelevant.
Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com
Skip Hughes wrote:
This number is way off. I think Bob got the decimal place wrong,
because the actual difference is about a 100 times smaller.
I should have said 10 times smaller.
···
--
Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com
Skip has asserted a couple of times that he disagrees with my stance
that someone's success as a player is a reflection on that person's
qualification to offer good how-to-play advice.
It is probably clear to all why I would argue the way I do. It may
be equally clear why Skip doesn't like that conclusion. I think we are
destined to disagree. Civilly, I hope.
Someone else argued that being a successful teacher requires
different skills than merely having the knowledge. I agree. Being a good
teacher requires ADDITIONAL skills. But you have to have the knowledge
to start with. Since video poker knowledge translates rather directly
into success as a player (given you're talking about several years of
results and not just a short period of time), lack of success translates
into lack of knowledge --- or at least lack of ability to apply your
knowledge successfully.
If someone wants to argue that they know enough to teach others to
play even though they haven't been successful themselves as a player,
I'd like to hear that justification.
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]
Bob Dancer wrote:
Skip has asserted a couple of times that he disagrees with my stance
that someone's success as a player is a reflection on that person's
qualification to offer good how-to-play advice.It is probably clear to all why I would argue the way I do. It may
be equally clear why Skip doesn't like that conclusion. I think we are
destined to disagree.
Since Bob insista on continuing this line of discussion I will. The point is that Bob doesn't KNOW how successful Dan Paymar, Jean Scott, Jazbo Burns or myself (all of us promote penalty-free strategies in some form) are at playing video poker, because (1) he doesn't know what our goals are and (2) he doesn't know how successful we have been at attaining them. That are the only real definition of success. I can tell you that I have been very successful in attaining my goals for video poker.
On the other hand, we don't really know how successful Bob is as a video poker player, either. We all know he has had some big hits playing high limit that he has written about, but we don't actually know whether he is a net winner or loser, just what he claims in his writings. He certainly is succssful in his non-playing activities, in marketing his products, and his casino consulting especially. That has obviously generated a nice large (well into the six-figures for sure) bankroll for him to draw on. But do we know what his personal net from playing is? I don't, and I don't care. But I do agree that Bob is a roaring success overall because he is doing what he wants to do and he is doing it well. Too bad he can't just enjoy that and refrain from attacks on his competitors.
I wouldn't have gone so far as to even speculate about any of that but Bob seems to be determined to force this issue. This whole discussion (or attack) is reflected in Bob's comment to one of his VP students who questioned the value of penalty cards. Bob told him "Skip Hughes went broke playing video poker and I'm a millionaire!" I'm not making that up, I have the e-mail and Bob has in fact admitted to it in direct e-mail (and I have that one too). I won't mention the fellow's reaction to Bob's comments except to say that it was not a compliment to Mr. Dancer. Of course the statement (at least the part about me going broke playing VP) was a total fabrication. Whether he's a millionaire or not, and how he got the money, I have no idea. If it's true, then good for him. But that slander of me (and I'm sure it's not the only one), along with his smear of Dan Paymar in his column, is disturbing to me. I would prefer he just quit it, but I'm not going to sit back and take it.
Skip
Please excuse all the typos in this - it's a sign of irritation, I
guess. <g>
Bob Dancer wrote:
> Skip has asserted a couple of times that he disagrees with my
stance
>that someone's success as a player is a reflection on that person's
>qualification to offer good how-to-play advice.
>
> It is probably clear to all why I would argue the way I do. It may
>be equally clear why Skip doesn't like that conclusion. I think we are
>destined to disagree.
>
>
Since Bob insista on continuing this line of discussion I will. The
point is that Bob doesn't KNOW how successful Dan Paymar, Jean Scott,
Jazbo Burns or myself (all of us promote penalty-free strategies in
some form) are at playing video poker, because (1) he doesn't know what
our goals are and (2) he doesn't know how successful we have been at
attaining them. That are the only real definition of success. I can
tell you that I have been very successful in attaining my goals for
video poker.On the other hand, we don't really know how successful Bob is as a
video poker player, either. We all know he has had some big hits
playing
high limit that he has written about, but we don't actually know
whether
he is a net winner or loser, just what he claims in his writings. He
certainly is succssful in his non-playing activities, in marketing his
products, and his casino consulting especially. That has obviously
generated a nice large (well into the six-figures for sure) bankroll
for
him to draw on. But do we know what his personal net from playing is? I
don't, and I don't care. But I do agree that Bob is a roaring success
overall because he is doing what he wants to do and he is doing it
well. Too bad he can't just enjoy that and refrain from attacks on his
competitors.I wouldn't have gone so far as to even speculate about any of that but
Bob seems to be determined to force this issue. This whole discussion
(or attack) is reflected in Bob's comment to one of his VP students who
questioned the value of penalty cards. Bob told him "Skip Hughes went
broke playing video poker and I'm a millionaire!" I'm not making that
up, I have the e-mail and Bob has in fact admitted to it in direct
e-mail (and I have that one too). I won't mention the fellow's
reaction
to Bob's comments except to say that it was not a compliment to Mr.
Dancer. Of course the statement (at least the part about me going
broke
playing VP) was a total fabrication. Whether he's a millionaire or not,
and how he got the money, I have no idea. If it's true, then good for
him. But that slander of me (and I'm sure it's not the only one), along
with his smear of Dan Paymar in his column, is disturbing to me. I
would
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@e...> wrote:
prefer he just quit it, but I'm not going to sit back and take it.
Skip
I'm under no illusion ... anytime I should choose to enter a
discussion between those who possess far greater knowledge, experience
and intellect than myself, I'm prone to discharge little more than a
bag of hot air.
But, in many respects there's a vast middle ground between the views
being expressed - in particular by Bob and Skip - and I think it bears
some definition.
···
------
As far as Dancer's column goes, were it not for content that's
peripheral to his message (and largely unnecessary in making his
point), I think the gist of it is a "no brainer".
He asserts that "one of the ways" to get to the very top of the game
is to play advanced strategies that factor the influence of penalty
cards. It's clear from the article that he views it a critical
"success factor" in reaching the pinacle.
One premise is that to draw a signficant income from any competitive
profession it's necessary to rank among the best. I can see a basic
logic here ... as the average skill in the field improves with time,
the casino environment will necessarily become economically tougher.
It's going to take greater overall savvy to differentiate yourself
from the rest of the pack.
But the playing field is rapidly becoming leveled, even among the most
advanced players. I can't speak from experience here but, for
example, I have to think that the frequency with which a small subset
of players have a stranglehold on the best plays diminishes with each
passing year.
Play technique stands out as a means by which to differentiate
yourself from other players. Without touching on the actual magnitude
of that differentiation, I can fully accept that a player who doesn't
pursue advanced penalty-based strategies might find it difficult to
cross over the "5%" threshold that Bob discusses.
------
Now, being real here, there's an underlying implication in Bob's
column that if you don't make this 5% cut then it's unlikely that
you'll consistently draw a profit on the order of those who make it.
This goes to the heart of the dissent here. I don't care to comment
other than to observe that I can grasp why it would be difficult to
accept that merely factoring penalty cards into play could be such a
large discriminator when the math is clear that the difference is small.
I'd prefer to set aside a discussion that pertains to "pro" play and
leaves us mere "recreational" players on the sidelines. Bob has
overlooked a message that is pertinent to those of us who play at a
proficient, though hardly expert, level.
------
Skip asserts penalty-free strategy generally will return 99.99% of the
ER of an advanced penalty strategy (e.g. DB 100.167% vs. 100.173%).
Most players can find better ways of improving their casino return (I
think he's suggested "mining" for change as one).
But this overlooks a practical fact -- damned few players play a
penalty-free strategy "accurately". I'm extrapolating from my own
experience here, but I imagine damned few reasonably knowledgable
players play with an error cost of less than .2% for all but the most
simple games, such as Jacks -- and even then, that benchmark is likely
a stretch for most.
It's not a question of knowing strategy cold but instead of
confronting one of the greatest player challenges -- distractions and
inattention. They take their toll ... missed cards in scanning,
peripheral interruptions/bumps/annoyances and the ultimate fatigue
that sets in during any repetitive task.
It takes someone who's honed their skill to a fine edge in any
endeavor -- be it professional, sports, gambling, etc. -- to develop
the discipline to minimize the effect of this factor.
My experience is that the more I train myself to rapidly and
accurately pick up on the small nuances of hold penalties, while still
correctly evaluating the entire hand, the more accurate I am in play
overall. This has been key in taking a huge chunk out of error cost
in more complicated game practice -- one that's many times greater
than the pure ER improvement that an advanced strategy yields.
Obviously, I can't speak for others. But I'm loathe to dismiss the
value of an advanced penalty strategy in the manner that Skip does.
And I sense that underlying Bob's messages is the influence that fine
tuning a skill can have on the big picture.
- Harry
(I'm sure Bev will feel much more secure under the covers with me
tonight now 
Harry Porter wrote:
Skip asserts penalty-free strategy generally will return 99.99% of the
ER of an advanced penalty strategy
Again, for most games, I actually claim that penalty free strategies will return about 100.00% (or around 99.995%-99.999%) of the max return.
···
--
Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com
So it all boils down to this for me; 2 tenths of a % added for
perfect play taking into account penalty cards. Most of us knew that
and it's no big deal. The biggest enemy to player is mistakes due to
factors other than not knowing strategy. One missed pair can wipe out
profit for a couple hours play. A sticky button is murder. The real
player would play short sessions and take breaks in between. An
exception is a playable progressive. Ya gotta play till it's gone and
the longer you play the better it gets. Long sessions of play on
games like DB just can't make a profit for anyone. Mistakes creep in
as tiredness sets in. A slim play must be coupled with a good promo
or a good prog. My question is why does it take a week debate for
something so simple.
....Simple version.. Learn strategy and take into account penalty
cards if you desire. It's more profitable to find good promos and
progressives. Most important - - - don't play tired. Of course, what
do I know? I'm not a "pro".
My theory is: There are those who know how to play and play good.
There are those who know how to play and play bad. There are those
who just play bad. None of us will ever know who's who.
I think it's a rare case when the cash box in any machine doesn't
cover payouts. (I'm not talking short term) It's just that casinos
think they lose money when their overall win is less than 2% or there
about.
Cheers Jeep
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
I'm under no illusion ... anytime I should choose to enter a
discussion between those who possess far greater knowledge,
experience
and intellect than myself, I'm prone to discharge little more than a
bag of hot air.But, in many respects there's a vast middle ground between the views
being expressed - in particular by Bob and Skip - and I think it
bears
···
some definition.