vpFREE2 Forums

[acvpp] Old Grumpy Is Back

#41

> Perhaps this was a mistake and I should keep these comments to

myself.

***********************************************************************

No it wasnt & i am glad you brought the subject up. Too many
people ,including some of us on this board, think that just because we
play VP we cant lose. Any negative game no matter how low is a long
term loser & even playing nothing but positive plays is no gaurantee
that at this moment you are ahead.
I read once that it was "virtually impossible" to be behind after 1,000
hand of 17/10 loose deuces, 101.7% return,per the math ,but guess
what , plotting the bell curve shows you can still be behind at any
moment.
VP is still better than slots & easier than counting cards imnsho.

M J

.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ednar" <ednar@k...> wrote:

#42

Thank you Elliott for the clarification. I am glad to know, that you know, that I know the difference. I do truly appreciate that you did not intend to offend. Sometimes emails and web-posts create the sound of offense where none exists. Thank you again.

Typically I want at least 1% edge as well and that is how I make my decisions of what to play. Although I now include bounce back in my calculations. I am personally not too excited about playing progressives where the base game is less than 99.5% unless the edge is greater than 1%.

Actually I am still ahead for the year even with the dearth of Royals, so I think our game plan is working. I do not think my lack of Royals has anything to do with the percentage of the games I am playing. I think it is just life and part of what can and DOES happen.

Now I have played some progressives recently with less than my desired edge because of trying to reach a bounce back level. I am still debating the merits of that move. Time will tell but I am leaning to no. However as you stated, this has nothing to do with the lack of Royals.

We will keep hoping. I have had four to a Royal over 300 times with no completion. I quit counting a while back......

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Elliott L. Shapiro" <elliotts2345@earthlink.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

You are correct. There are a few 05c positive games around. But even
if you were playing at 102%, this would still not account for your
horrible experiences in not getting Royals.

Granting that you seek and play only those games that are positive, I
would suggest that you might try to find higher percentages.

An individual that I know plays 8/5 bonus over $1500. That is barely
0.25%. If he waited for $1800, he would not play as often but, when
playing, would earn 4 times as much. The lower percentage will cause
great bankroll fluctuations and often, many, many losing sessions.

Your experiences with the lack of royals are somewhat unique. To go
so long without has to be very discouraging.

I am well aware that you know the difference between positive and
negative. My comments, although directed to you, were really meant in
a generic way. My apologies, if I offended you.

I want a MINIMUM of 101% on quarter play, more on dollars. Perhaps
you should set your sights similarly.

#43

Thanks.

By the way I counted a whole deck of cards tonight and it had 52. It didn't seem that difficult. Of bad joke...

But I agree.
Never say never. There is no due. And anything can happen.

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "mklpryy24" <mklpryy24@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:37 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ednar" <ednar@k...> wrote:

> Perhaps this was a mistake and I should keep these comments to

myself.

***********************************************************************

No it wasnt & i am glad you brought the subject up. Too many
people ,including some of us on this board, think that just because we
play VP we cant lose. Any negative game no matter how low is a long
term loser & even playing nothing but positive plays is no gaurantee
that at this moment you are ahead.
I read once that it was "virtually impossible" to be behind after 1,000
hand of 17/10 loose deuces, 101.7% return,per the math ,but guess
what , plotting the bell curve shows you can still be behind at any
moment.
VP is still better than slots & easier than counting cards imnsho.

M J

#44

"Royals" are funny critters.
My wife has ALWAYS had more of them in any given time period than I
have had, and yet, she runs out of money faster than I do.

I have also had the experience of winning at quarters and losing at
dollars. That is another way to be frustrated with results, even if
the numbers come up correctly.

We all hope that your drought will end, and tht you will have to rent
an extra garage to store your winnings. Good luck.

···

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:16:00 -0700, you wrote:

Thank you Elliott for the clarification. I am glad to know, that you know,
that I know the difference. I do truly appreciate that you did not intend to
offend. Sometimes emails and web-posts create the sound of offense where
none exists. Thank you again.

Typically I want at least 1% edge as well and that is how I make my
decisions of what to play. Although I now include bounce back in my
calculations. I am personally not too excited about playing progressives
where the base game is less than 99.5% unless the edge is greater than 1%.

Actually I am still ahead for the year even with the dearth of Royals, so I
think our game plan is working. I do not think my lack of Royals has
anything to do with the percentage of the games I am playing. I think it is
just life and part of what can and DOES happen.

Now I have played some progressives recently with less than my desired edge
because of trying to reach a bounce back level. I am still debating the
merits of that move. Time will tell but I am leaning to no. However as you
stated, this has nothing to do with the lack of Royals.

We will keep hoping. I have had four to a Royal over 300 times with no
completion. I quit counting a while back......

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliott L. Shapiro" <elliotts2345@earthlink.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

You are correct. There are a few 05c positive games around. But even
if you were playing at 102%, this would still not account for your
horrible experiences in not getting Royals.

Granting that you seek and play only those games that are positive, I
would suggest that you might try to find higher percentages.

An individual that I know plays 8/5 bonus over $1500. That is barely
0.25%. If he waited for $1800, he would not play as often but, when
playing, would earn 4 times as much. The lower percentage will cause
great bankroll fluctuations and often, many, many losing sessions.

Your experiences with the lack of royals are somewhat unique. To go
so long without has to be very discouraging.

I am well aware that you know the difference between positive and
negative. My comments, although directed to you, were really meant in
a generic way. My apologies, if I offended you.

I want a MINIMUM of 101% on quarter play, more on dollars. Perhaps
you should set your sights similarly.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#45

Even with the RNG(L) Royals Not Good Lately, you should be able to
get out of it IF YOU REALLY WANT TO by playing those 50-Play or 100-
Play machines. 5-Play and 10-Play machines let me hit the Royals
faster too, if I really want to hit a Royal. Try it on WinPoker and
you'll see! :>>

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott L. Shapiro <elliotts2345@e...>
wrote:

"Royals" are funny critters.
My wife has ALWAYS had more of them in any given time period than I
have had, and yet, she runs out of money faster than I do.

I have also had the experience of winning at quarters and losing at
dollars. That is another way to be frustrated with results, even if
the numbers come up correctly.

We all hope that your drought will end, and tht you will have to

rent

an extra garage to store your winnings. Good luck.

>Thank you Elliott for the clarification. I am glad to know, that

you know,

>that I know the difference. I do truly appreciate that you did not

intend to

>offend. Sometimes emails and web-posts create the sound of offense

where

>none exists. Thank you again.
>
>Typically I want at least 1% edge as well and that is how I make

my

>decisions of what to play. Although I now include bounce back in

my

>calculations. I am personally not too excited about playing

progressives

>where the base game is less than 99.5% unless the edge is greater

than 1%.

>
>Actually I am still ahead for the year even with the dearth of

Royals, so I

>think our game plan is working. I do not think my lack of Royals

has

>anything to do with the percentage of the games I am playing. I

think it is

>just life and part of what can and DOES happen.
>
>Now I have played some progressives recently with less than my

desired edge

>because of trying to reach a bounce back level. I am still

debating the

>merits of that move. Time will tell but I am leaning to no.

However as you

>stated, this has nothing to do with the lack of Royals.
>
>We will keep hoping. I have had four to a Royal over 300 times

with no

>completion. I quit counting a while back......
>
>
>From: "Elliott L. Shapiro" <elliotts2345@e...>
>To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:36 AM
>Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought
>
>
>> You are correct. There are a few 05c positive games around.

But even

>> if you were playing at 102%, this would still not account for

your

>> horrible experiences in not getting Royals.
>>
>> Granting that you seek and play only those games that are

positive, I

>> would suggest that you might try to find higher percentages.
>>
>> An individual that I know plays 8/5 bonus over $1500. That is

barely

>> 0.25%. If he waited for $1800, he would not play as often but,

when

>> playing, would earn 4 times as much. The lower percentage will

cause

>> great bankroll fluctuations and often, many, many losing

sessions.

>>
>> Your experiences with the lack of royals are somewhat unique.

To go

>> so long without has to be very discouraging.
>>
>> I am well aware that you know the difference between positive and
>> negative. My comments, although directed to you, were really

meant in

>> a generic way. My apologies, if I offended you.
>>
>> I want a MINIMUM of 101% on quarter play, more on dollars.

Perhaps

···

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:16:00 -0700, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>> you should set your sights similarly.
>>
>
>
>
>
>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

#46

I will go out shopping for garages this afternoon.... :slight_smile:

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Elliott L. Shapiro" <elliotts2345@earthlink.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

"Royals" are funny critters.
My wife has ALWAYS had more of them in any given time period than I
have had, and yet, she runs out of money faster than I do.

I have also had the experience of winning at quarters and losing at
dollars. That is another way to be frustrated with results, even if
the numbers come up correctly.

We all hope that your drought will end, and tht you will have to rent
an extra garage to store your winnings. Good luck.

#47

If there were .25 Multiline machines with positive paytables then your suggestion would be a good one. (Assuming that the bankroll is sufficient to handle the game.) One thing I have found interesting in Las Vegas is that mulitline paytables are (usually) absolutely terrible at most places. We had better (sometimes much better options) elsewhere in the US.

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

Even with the RNG(L) Royals Not Good Lately, you should be able to
get out of it IF YOU REALLY WANT TO by playing those 50-Play or 100-
Play machines. 5-Play and 10-Play machines let me hit the Royals
faster too, if I really want to hit a Royal. Try it on WinPoker and
you'll see! :>>

#48

What about playing single coin at a higher coin level, to lower the variance (and the
amount of time your bankroll lasted)? I know all of the discussion, but the object is to
make your money last long enough to make the proper level. The ER would be much
lower, but, maybe, the lower variance, and the "comp level" would make up for that.

Just asking...not advocating.

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ednar" <ednar@k...> wrote:

If there were .25 Multiline machines with positive paytables then your
suggestion would be a good one. (Assuming that the bankroll is sufficient to
handle the game.) One thing I have found interesting in Las Vegas is that
mulitline paytables are (usually) absolutely terrible at most places. We had
better (sometimes much better options) elsewhere in the US.

----- Original Message -----
From: "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@y...>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

> Even with the RNG(L) Royals Not Good Lately, you should be able to
> get out of it IF YOU REALLY WANT TO by playing those 50-Play or 100-
> Play machines. 5-Play and 10-Play machines let me hit the Royals
> faster too, if I really want to hit a Royal. Try it on WinPoker and
> you'll see! :>>

#49

In my experience, playing short coin practically *guarantees* a royal -- and hitting a top-line payout with short coin makes me want to put my head in the oven. :wink:

If it were on a high denom machine, it'd be that much worse....

···

On Aug 17, 2005, at 2:23 PM, bornloser1537 wrote:

What about playing single coin at a higher coin level, to lower the variance (and the
amount of time your bankroll lasted)? I know all of the discussion, but the object is to
make your money last long enough to make the proper level. The ER would be much
lower, but, maybe, the lower variance, and the "comp level" would make up for that.

Just asking...not advocating.

#50

I understand, but I was specifically referring to making the "diamond" level.

I was just wondering if the short coin and the modified strategy (and the resulting lower
variance) would "guarantee" more "coin through", which is the purpose of this exercise,
not so much "making money"

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Thomas <jfthomas3@c...> wrote:

In my experience, playing short coin practically *guarantees* a royal
-- and hitting a top-line payout with short coin makes me want to put
my head in the oven. :wink:

If it were on a high denom machine, it'd be that much worse....

On Aug 17, 2005, at 2:23 PM, bornloser1537 wrote:

> What about playing single coin at a higher coin level, to lower the
> variance (and the
> amount of time your bankroll lasted)? I know all of the
> discussion, but the object is to
> make your money last long enough to make the proper level. The ER
> would be much
> lower, but, maybe, the lower variance, and the "comp level" would
> make up for that.
>
> Just asking...not advocating.

#51

You can come up with strategies to increase the chance that a short bankroll lasts a long time. Shorting the payouts, however, will not help your money last longer. You can play a "slower bleed between big hands" strategy (I believe Steve Jacobs calls ths a min cost strategy) without shorting the pays. Playing single coin at higher denomination is shorting the pay on yourself.

Harrah's Laughlin has some positive plays at the $1 level, so in answer to a question posed earlier, I wouldn't choose JoB for diamond(platinum) in a day, but then again I'm comfortable playing at the $1 level.

···

From: "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@yahoo.com>

I understand, but I was specifically referring to making the "diamond" level.

I was just wondering if the short coin and the modified strategy (and the resulting lower
variance) would "guarantee" more "coin through", which is the purpose of this exercise,
not so much "making money"

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

#52

Not to prolong this more than necessary. Of course, the single coin strategy only affects
the Royal. The modified strategy puts more weight on the "smaller" hands and you are
trying for a greater number of small winners. If you end up playing much less that 20,000
or 30,000 hands, you probbaly (and I use the term statistically) have not missed a Royal,
but did end up with more coin though, because of the lower variance.

I am winging this, of course, with no mathematical "proof". This is just a "gut" "thought
experiment". LOL

After all, one does modify the single line strategy, when playing Multi-Strike, to increase
the chance of moving up a level as opposed to taking the best chance of winning the most
money (at a given line below the 4th).

Sometimes you have a goal other than maximizing the money you win (like maximizing
coin through).

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Part Timer" <PartTimeVP@h...> wrote:

>From: "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>
>
>I understand, but I was specifically referring to making the "diamond"
>level.
>
>I was just wondering if the short coin and the modified strategy (and the
>resulting lower
>variance) would "guarantee" more "coin through", which is the purpose of
>this exercise,
>not so much "making money"

You can come up with strategies to increase the chance that a short bankroll
lasts a long time. Shorting the payouts, however, will not help your money
last longer. You can play a "slower bleed between big hands" strategy (I
believe Steve Jacobs calls ths a min cost strategy) without shorting the
pays. Playing single coin at higher denomination is shorting the pay on
yourself.

Harrah's Laughlin has some positive plays at the $1 level, so in answer to a
question posed earlier, I wouldn't choose JoB for diamond(platinum) in a
day, but then again I'm comfortable playing at the $1 level.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

#53

bornloser1537 wrote:

I understand, but I was specifically referring to making the

< "diamond" level.

I was just wondering if the short coin and the modified strategy
(and the resulting lower variance) would "guarantee" more "coin
"through", which is the purpose of this exercise, not so much
"making money"

Anyone looking to go at Diamond in a day by pursuing a play above
their comfortable denomination or variance tolerance is looking for a
case of gambler's remorse.

There is no modified strategy that will reduce loss risk to an extent
that converts an "uncomfortable" play to comfortable one ... a
"little-less-uncomfortable" is as good as it gets.

There's nothing about Diamond that warrants undertaking a significant
risk of a $1500+ loss in one day unless this already characterizes
your play.

If a low-denom multi-play strong ER option is available, it's perhaps
the ideal route to go if you're not generally a $1 player othrewise..

- Harry

#54

No. I do not think that would work. I know you are not advocating this, you are just asking. I will answer from my perspective.

First I have no desire to play short coin which lowers my EV and will make me want to kill myself when I hit the Royal. If I cannot afford to play full-coin at the higher denomination then I have no business playing it short coin. (From my standpoint)

Second I do not need anymore comps. I get tons more than I use even at the .25 level.

When we first started playing VP MANY years ago we had a very small bankroll and we played short coin triple play quarters. We had studied strategy cards (we actually had full and short coin strategies). We would incrementally raise and lower our bet. We thought it helped us make our money last longer and at the time we had to play x amount of coin in to get a VIP card at the place we were playing. We were able to play the required amount and did it at a minimal cost.... HOWEVER we also hit 6 or 7 short coin Royals in about 3 months and that was a mentally brutal experience. I want to make it clear however that even though what we did worked (sort of) I do not recommend it.

I know some people do play short coin and I am not arguing with them. Perhaps that is all they can afford. They just need to recognize that the math does not support their approach at least for the game.

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:23 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

What about playing single coin at a higher coin level, to lower the variance (and the
amount of time your bankroll lasted)? I know all of the discussion, but the object is to
make your money last long enough to make the proper level. The ER would be much
lower, but, maybe, the lower variance, and the "comp level" would make up for that.

Just asking...not advocating.

.....bl

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ednar" <ednar@k...> wrote:

If there were .25 Multiline machines with positive paytables then your
suggestion would be a good one. (Assuming that the bankroll is sufficient to
handle the game.) One thing I have found interesting in Las Vegas is that
mulitline paytables are (usually) absolutely terrible at most places. We had
better (sometimes much better options) elsewhere in the US.

----- Original Message ----- From: "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@y...>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

> Even with the RNG(L) Royals Not Good Lately, you should be able to
> get out of it IF YOU REALLY WANT TO by playing those 50-Play or 100-
> Play machines. 5-Play and 10-Play machines let me hit the Royals
> faster too, if I really want to hit a Royal. Try it on WinPoker and
> you'll see! :>>

#55

I have read Steve's verbal explanation of the strategies. Has he printed anything showing the difference in plays?

SNIP.....
You can play a "slower bleed between big hands" strategy (I

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Part Timer" <PartTimeVP@hotmail.com>

believe Steve Jacobs calls ths a min cost strategy) without shorting the
pays. Playing single coin at higher denomination is shorting the pay on
yourself.

#56

Indeed, you need to be very careful when playing short coin,
especially when comps come into play. When playing "for the long term"
it's often hard to justify playing short coin: if that's the best play
you can get, you should be playing somewhere else or not at all, or
you should expect disappointing long-term results.

Typically, there isn't any reason to play anything other than min and max coin.

JBQ

···

On 8/17/05, ednar <ednar@kconline.com> wrote:

No. I do not think that would work. I know you are not advocating this, you
are just asking. I will answer from my perspective.

First I have no desire to play short coin which lowers my EV and will make
me want to kill myself when I hit the Royal. If I cannot afford to play
full-coin at the higher denomination then I have no business playing it
short coin. (From my standpoint)

Second I do not need anymore comps. I get tons more than I use even at the
.25 level.

When we first started playing VP MANY years ago we had a very small bankroll
and we played short coin triple play quarters. We had studied strategy cards
(we actually had full and short coin strategies). We would incrementally
raise and lower our bet. We thought it helped us make our money last longer
and at the time we had to play x amount of coin in to get a VIP card at the
place we were playing. We were able to play the required amount and did it
at a minimal cost.... HOWEVER we also hit 6 or 7 short coin Royals in about
3 months and that was a mentally brutal experience. I want to make it clear
however that even though what we did worked (sort of) I do not recommend it.

I know some people do play short coin and I am not arguing with them.
Perhaps that is all they can afford. They just need to recognize that the
math does not support their approach at least for the game.

----- Original Message -----
From: "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:23 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

> What about playing single coin at a higher coin level, to lower the
> variance (and the
> amount of time your bankroll lasted)? I know all of the discussion, but
> the object is to
> make your money last long enough to make the proper level. The ER would
> be much
> lower, but, maybe, the lower variance, and the "comp level" would make up
> for that.
>
> Just asking...not advocating.
>
> .....bl
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ednar" <ednar@k...> wrote:
>> If there were .25 Multiline machines with positive paytables then your
>> suggestion would be a good one. (Assuming that the bankroll is sufficient
>> to
>> handle the game.) One thing I have found interesting in Las Vegas is that
>> mulitline paytables are (usually) absolutely terrible at most places. We
>> had
>> better (sometimes much better options) elsewhere in the US.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@y...>
>> To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:16 AM
>> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought
>>
>>
>> > Even with the RNG(L) Royals Not Good Lately, you should be able to
>> > get out of it IF YOU REALLY WANT TO by playing those 50-Play or 100-
>> > Play machines. 5-Play and 10-Play machines let me hit the Royals
>> > faster too, if I really want to hit a Royal. Try it on WinPoker and
>> > you'll see! :>>

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#57

Wynn casino has installed the machines with the paytables that Rob Singer said he would have them do.

10/7, FPDW, etc,etc Up to $1. I can see the lines forming at the ATM's already. :slight_smile:

Can the chorus begin now with "THANKS ROB!"

CF
You luck is bound to change if your money can hold out.

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

#58

Wow, can someone verify this? I'm staying at the Frontier next
month, but if they have $.25 FPDW at the Wynn too, you better
believe I'd park my butt in the swankier spot, all else equal.

Wynn casino has installed the machines with the paytables that

Rob Singer said he would have them do.

10/7, FPDW, etc,etc Up to $1. I can see the lines forming at the

ATM's already. :slight_smile:

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Cardfather@A... wrote:

Can the chorus begin now with "THANKS ROB!"

CF
You luck is bound to change if your money can hold out.

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

#59

THANKS ROB!

I'm sure that I'd never be the one to question either Rob or CF, but
since one is in aligator country (Hi CF) and the other wouldn't be
caught dead playing deuces wild (Hi ROB), I'd love to hear from
someone who knows the actual paytable for "FPDW".

Sure I trust 'em. But cut the cards for good luck.

Wynn casino has installed the machines with the paytables that Rob

Singer said he would have them do.

10/7, FPDW, etc,etc Up to $1. I can see the lines forming at the

ATM's already. :slight_smile:

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Cardfather@A... wrote:

Can the chorus begin now with "THANKS ROB!"

CF
You luck is bound to change if your money can hold out.

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

#60

There's comparative JoB data at the bottom of the VP Playing
Strategies page: <http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_S.htm>.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 17 Aug 2005 at 15:48, ednar wrote:

I have read Steve's verbal explanation of the strategies. Has he printed
anything showing the difference in plays?