vpFREE2 Forums

8 NOV 2005 Bob Dancer CasinoGaming Column

strategies will return about 100.00% (or around 99.995%-99.999%) of the
max return.>>>

Just one more turn of the screw on this topic. Even for "pros" penalty
card considerations made very well be counter-productive. The brief
time it takes to consider and make the correct penalty card play may
not reward the player as much as the extra hands the quicker non-
penalty player gets by playing slightly faster. There can't really be
any debate that consideration of penalty cards would have some dilatory
impact on play.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@e...> wrote:
  

>

Again, for most games, I actually claim that penalty free

Originally Bob Dancer wrote in a message and I quote:

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

====================================
Skip answered:
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.

==============================
Hi Skip,
I am only an amateur VP player but I am disturbed by the fact that you and Bob Dancer, two video poker icons in Las Vegas, are rubbing each other.

The way I interpret your writings, you both have a point.

Bob says that you can not ignore penalty cards. I agree with him fully because some casinos are downgrading their machines to such an extent that only by playing as close as possible to perfect play, and that includes considering penalty cards, do you have a chance against the casinos. I know we are talking only about a small fraction of a percent, but still.

Of course, as long as you have the opportunity to play on machines which are 100 % plus, like Full Pay Deuces, it does not matter very much if you ignore penalties because the theoretical win is actual greater by playing more hands per hour, and that is where you come in.

There we go, I make it easy for myself and say: you are both right. And for good measure we include Jean Scott and now everybody is right. Basta. (I hope I am right too)

Helmut

Now that would be video poker news...

Chandler

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Helmut Wolf
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 8:31 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re:To Skip from Helmut

Hi Skip,
I am only an amateur VP player but I am disturbed by the fact that you and
Bob Dancer, two video poker icons in Las Vegas, are rubbing each other.

thymos_one wrote:

There can't really be any debate that consideration of penalty
cards would have some dilatory impact on play.

I'll lay you big odds on a large bet that such a debate could
occur. If you insist on making a bet that I can't cover, I'm sure
that I can lay off some of it with Bob Dancer.

vpFae

thymos wrote: There can't really be any debate that consideration of
penalty cards would have some dilatory impact on play.

No debate from me on this --- except when you know the strategy
(including penalty cards) cold --- which is my goal. I try to study
enough beforehand that by the time I get to the casino I can play
accurate strategy very rapidly. It takes me no more effort to play A
"QT5" 4 and A "QT" 54 differently in 9/6 Jacks than it would be for me
to play them both by a compromise strategy. If you HAVEN'T been
studying, you have to slow down and think about AK"QT8" and AJ"QT8" in
this game whether your strategy is penalty-free or not. These are
rare-enough combinations that most players don't have the answer on
their fingertips. A major point in my argument is that people who've
learned penalty cards KNOW the difference between these hands. For those
of you who play 9/6 Jacks and have learned a penalty-free strategy, ask
yourself whether you're sure of the correct penalty-free strategy on
both of those hands. Many of you do NOT know --- although everyone who
has mastered penalty cards in this game does. You only get to 99.995%
(or whatever other number one wants to bandy about) if you play each of
these hands correctly according to the strategy. That's an extremely
heroic assumption.

It's been noted that I assert that players who try very hard to learn
the complete strategy make fewer mistakes than those who are satisfied
with a lesser strategy. It's been commented by a few that I have no
statistics to prove this. I agree. I have no such statistics. But I
strongly believe it nonetheless. I have watched thousands of players
play and have my conclusions. I have taught tens of thousands of
students in my classes, and several dozen one-on-one. Your conclusions
might be different, but at a minimum mine are based on extensive
experience that nobody denies.

For beginner's, I believe that the 99.98% (or maybe it's 99.995% --- to
my mind this is not an important distinction to my argument) strategies
are too difficult --- let alone the ones with penalty cards. In the
Dancer/Daily system, we have four strategy levels --- Beginner,
Recreational, Basic, and Advanced. Our Basic Strategy is comparable to
FVP's or Skip's penalty free strategy (different games are better in one
system or the other). But in the classes I teach, the early class is
Recreational Level --- which is much simpler --- and even that is too
difficult for many beginners. As Harry noted, I certainly do not
recommend beginners try penalty cards. My column was talking about being
highly successful --- not about starting out.

        As an example, in 9/6 Jacks, Recreational strategy says that two
unsuited high cards are better than a suited high-card-ten in the same
hand (never hold "AT"). That is a relatively simple rule that is usually
correct --- although not always.

        Basic strategy says that the order is (using quotes to indicate
suited cards)
            QJ
            "JT"
            KQ, KJ
            "QT"
            AK, AQ, AJ
            "KT"

        Although FVP presents it slightly differently (as does Dancer
Daily because that type-face and bold/not bold doesn't translate well
over the Internet --- and certain abbreviations require a longer
explanation than is appropriate here), the strategies are identical in
this area.

        Advanced strategy includes the cases where AQ > "QT"; KJ > "JT";
and K > "KT" (plus others in different areas of the strategy). FVP does
not have an advanced strategy --- nor will the new computer software
that's coming out early next year.

        Until you've been playing for awhile, the penalty free list
above is far too complicated. It takes time, repetition, and correction
from compuer software to be fluent in these things.

        Part of this discussion that hasn't been explicitly addressed is
that one reason I learn the strategy to the nth degree is because I get
paid to produce articles and books teaching others to succeed at video
poker. While this is an extra incentive for me that most of you don't
share, it is my strong belief that the additional study is an extremely
strong component of my success at the game. It would be time well spent
for me even if I didn't get paid for writing about it or teaching it. I
have numerous articles about some games that are too complicated to
publish in any current column I have but helped me to play a game
better.

        I have suggested to many of my students that they write an
article explaining all the penalty cards in Double Double Bonus, or
whatever game they are studying. And then I critique what they've
written --- not for grammar and the like (that's not my strong point)
but for video poker content. Even though their article will likely never
be published, the act of writing it down forces them to learn it cold.
Every time a student has done this, their results have improved. It's an
entirely different level of knowledge required to be able to write
things down. And if they haven't played the game for six months or so, I
recommend they write the article again and compare it to what they wrote
before. And then again in another six months. Players who do this will
see their results improving. --- not because 100% > 99.995% but because
they have mastered whatever strategy they are using.

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]

    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 I was the one who made the statement let me emphasize that the
key difference I was pointing out was that the best teachers did not
require substantial SUCCESS in their field. Of course, they must have
knowledge as I clearly indicated in my post.

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.

The discussion at hand was focused on being in the top 5% in monetary
success. In the VP arena individuals may have considerable "success"
and still not be in the top 5% of total winnings. The best teachers
have a eye (or in the example I was responding to) and ear for
recognizing the talent being taught. Some of the absolute best
teachers (including Butch Harmon in golf and Nick Boliteri in tennis)
never reached the top rung as players in their respective fields.
This is also true for many other sports, academia and business as
well.

With a little effort understanding VP is really quite simple in
comparison to understanding techniques in most complex athletic
sports. IMO describing what "perfect play" means and the value of
penalty cards is not that all that complex compared to teaching
someone how to hit a good backhand. Although, in both cases, it may
be inmpossible to teach some individuals to be highly skilled.

    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

Challenging other players has nothing to do with the topic of what it
takes to be a good teacher. Teaching is a skill that requires
learning a particular field and passing along that information to
others. Being the "best" teacher often requires watching those who
have been successful and discerning the attributes that made them
successful rather than being successful themselves and, finally,
being able to transfer that knowledge on to their students (often
overlooked).

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@c...> wrote:

Or not ... If the difference is only .001%, I can't see how this would
have anthing to do with the top 5%. In fact, I will assert that if you
eliminate all other factors from the discussion (eg. finding the best
plays, luck, etc.) then I suspect the #1 skill required to be on top is
elimination of basic errors at a high playing speeds. This is as much
of a physical skill as it is a mental skill (really a combination)
requiring great hand/eye coordination and quick mental reflexes and
concentration. I suspect Bob is very good at this skill and may or may
not recognize this ability gives him an advantage.

Personally, if I were "competing" with others in a "top 5%"
competition, I would prefer the other competitors spend their time on
learning all the penalty card situations rather than actual "playing"
skills.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:

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.

<<I am disturbed by the fact that you and Bob Dancer, two video poker icons
in Las Vegas, are rubbing each other.>>

I'm not disturbed but I would like the video rights.

Cogno

Oh, good! We're back to last weeks subject of inverted/perverted
gamblers!
-Babe-

···

---------------------------------------------------
Helmut wrote:
I am disturbed by the fact that you and Bob Dancer, two video poker
icons in Las Vegas, are rubbing each other.>>
----------------------------------------------------
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@
I'm not disturbed but I would like the video rights.
Cogno

I believe that a parallel can be made to blackjack.

Blackjack indices are number which a blackjack counter memorizes. At
a certain count, the strategy changes. The indices are the count
numbers at which the strategy changes.

There are hundreds of indices that can be calculated.
Perhaps ten or so years ago, one author came up with what he
called "The Illustrious 18".
He pointed out that these 18 index numbers provide the bulk of the
profit derived from strategy changes, and that it was not worth the
effort to memorize and make changes beyond these numbers.

Some counters may add some additional indices to their personal
memory bank.
But to date I have seen no professional blackjack player assert that
what puts them in the top 5% of bj players is that they have
memorized and play indices which will derive an extra 0.001 - 0.002%
in ev.

Likewise, there are different count systems for bj. Some systems
have a marginally higher ev than others.
But, like penalty cards, they are more difficult, and because of
this, can slow down even the best players, can cause errors
occasionally which a simpler system wouldn't, can put concentration
into the more difficult count system which could be put to other
more profitable uses, etc.

There is general agreement that one of the least important decisions
a bj counter has is what count system to use.
This despite the fact that there is more ev with the more
complicated systems.

I have yet to find anyone claiming that they are in the top 5% of bj
players because they have memorized one of the more complex count
systems.

As a final example, years ago pros such as Ken Uston used to
use "side counts". They would have an overall count for the deck,
but they would simultaneously keep a second count for Aces only.
Some would keep two side counts (counting a different card as well).

It is now acknowledged that this is wasted effort. This despite the
fact that the ev would be more than 0.001% if a player bothered with
this.

<<Brad is the soldier and Jean is the General>>

And Brad wouldn't have it any other way. He is very protective of his "laid-back" status.

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards.
  NEW - Blackjack Strategy Cards +
              Updated Second Edition of
             "The Frugal Gambler."

thymos wrote: There can't really be any debate that consideration of
penalty cards would have some dilatory impact on play.

"Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@c...> wrote:

No debate from me on this --- except when you know the strategy

(including penalty cards) cold --- which is my goal. I try to study
enough beforehand that by the time I get to the casino I can play
accurate strategy very rapidly. It takes me no more effort to play...
in 9/6 Jacks than it would be for me to play them both by a
compromise strategy.>>>

I would actually tend to agree with a fair amount of what you wrote
in your post, and what would be the purpose of discussing points of
agreement, there's no fun in that!

So let's focus in on this one small, but very important point. I
agree that you can probably play very rapidly using a penalty card
strategy, but, not quite as fast as with a simpler strategy. Using
Skip's numbers for the difference between penalty card and no penalty
card for JOB. Note that since percentages are actually decimals the
difference is in the 5th decimal not the third. (0.99544 versus
0.99543)

For an example let's assume your pace is slowed by 1/100th of a
second per hand when playing with the more complicated strategy, i.e.
you play 792 hands per hour instead of 800 hands per hour. To keep
things positive let's assume a 1% cash overlay on a $1 machine:

792 x .00544 x 5 = 21.5424 (798 = 21.7056; 799 = 21.7328)
800 x .00543 x 5 = 21.72
The faster/simpler strategy actually wins by $0.18.

The brain takes more time to analyze more complicated scenarios, even
if the difference is imperceptible. Could you really tell the
difference in 1/400th of a second. The key to the discussion is that
we are talking about numbers 5 decimals out, very small numbers.

I guess the next step would be to go a lab and hook you up with some
electrodes and test you against your genetically cloned twin Bob Sans
Penalty Cards Dancer. Note the electrodes are just for theatrical
effect, unless Dan or Skip are hooking them up, then I would be
worried!

P.S. Regardless of all, or perhaps because of some the heat that has
been generated since you joined vpFree, I would like to say I'm glad
you are a member of vpFree and hope you will continue to make regular
postings to the group.

Harry Porter wrote - "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."

Skip has provided the math analysis, and so far no one is arging
with that.

Can you be more specific?

Why are you loathe to dismiss a strategy which yields a paltry
0.001 - 0.002%?
What do you find worthwhile?

"And I sense that underlying Bob's messages is the influence that
fine tuning a skill can have on the big picture."

Again I'd be interested in any specifics you can offer.
What influence, and what effect on the big picture?

I'd be interested in how the above transcends the 0.001 - 0.002%
gain overall?

I believe that a parallel can be made to blackjack.

Blackjack indices are number which a blackjack counter memorizes.

At

a certain count, the strategy changes. The indices are the count
numbers at which the strategy changes.

There are hundreds of indices that can be calculated.
Perhaps ten or so years ago, one author came up with what he
called "The Illustrious 18".
He pointed out that these 18 index numbers provide the bulk of the
profit derived from strategy changes, and that it was not worth the
effort to memorize and make changes beyond these numbers.

JW,
I agree with the comparison, up to a point. Part of the reason to use
a limited number of indices is to allow more mental "downtime", which
lets the counter do his 'act' and convince the pit critters that
he/she is not counting.

In VP, there are no pit critters tracking your play and if you are
the persuasion that knowing every penatly card situation is the way
to go, then you are free to do so...without any "heat".

Personally, I am in between the two penalty card "factions"...I know
some of them...but certainly not all.

Don the Dentist

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jw776655" <jw776655@y...> wrote: