I would like to post a question regarding style of play for different
types of players. I am statistically and mathematically challenged,
therefore, my question is based largely on instinct. Should someone who
only plays 3 or 4 weeks a year play a more aggressive strategy compared
to someone who has the opportunity to play daily? I am mainly looking
at this from a risk to bankroll aspect. I am of course describing my
own playing and am concerned that I am not properly utilizing my
limited playing time. Some background may be helpful. I am a low
roller, play 3 or 4 weeks a year in Vegas, play 6 to 8 hours a day when
there, exclusively play FP Deuces Wild and my accuracy rate averages
99.5% on WinPoker. My goal is to increase my bankroll so I can move
up to higher denominations (no suprise to anyone). I have done
moderately well in this regard but feel perhaps I could do more. Would
appreciate any thoughts in this regard.
Aggressive Strategy
llinqueen2000 wrote:
I would like to post a question regarding style of play for different
types of players. I am statistically and mathematically challenged,
therefore, my question is based largely on instinct. Should someone who
only plays 3 or 4 weeks a year play a more aggressive strategy compared
to someone who has the opportunity to play daily? I am mainly looking
at this from a risk to bankroll aspect. I am of course describing my
own playing and am concerned that I am not properly utilizing my
limited playing time. Some background may be helpful. I am a low
roller, play 3 or 4 weeks a year in Vegas, play 6 to 8 hours a day when
there, exclusively play FP Deuces Wild and my accuracy rate averages
99.5% on WinPoker. My goal is to increase my bankroll so I can move
up to higher denominations (no suprise to anyone). I have done
moderately well in this regard but feel perhaps I could do more. Would
appreciate any thoughts in this regard.
Assuming you're neither going to add to your bankroll with outside
income nor subtract from it for expenses, and only try to build it up
from winnings, I'd regard how much you play as irrelevant. Unless
your bankroll "can't afford" to play aggressively, which is
theoretically possible on a few hands for which the play with the
second best expected value has enough less fluctuation than the draw
with the highest expected value, but practically rare if you're
adequately bankrolled to play the game in the first place, I would
just play in such a way as to maximize expected value on every hand.
Even if it's "better" in some cases to "fudge" a little and play
conservatively, which I do occasionally, always maximizing expected
value at least has the advantage of simplicity and, although it won't
technically be optimal, it won't be suboptimal to a significant
degree. Playing aggressively to maximize expected value is
conservative in that going too far in being too conservative with too
many hands runs the risk of being suboptimal by far more than
maximizing expected value can be.
allinqueen2000 wrote:
I would like to post a question regarding style of play for different
types of players. I am statistically and mathematically challenged,
therefore, my question is based largely on instinct. Should someone who
only plays 3 or 4 weeks a year play a more aggressive strategy compared
to someone who has the opportunity to play daily? I am mainly looking
at this from a risk to bankroll aspect. I am of course describing my
own playing and am concerned that I am not properly utilizing my
limited playing time. Some background may be helpful. I am a low
roller, play 3 or 4 weeks a year in Vegas, play 6 to 8 hours a day when
there, exclusively play FP Deuces Wild and my accuracy rate averages
99.5% on WinPoker. My goal is to increase my bankroll so I can move
up to higher denominations (no suprise to anyone). I have done
moderately well in this regard but feel perhaps I could do more. Would
appreciate any thoughts in this regard.
I think it all depends on what you really mean by aggressive strategy.
Are you suggesting that you would still play the same game but change
the strategy somewhat to go after more royals? Or going up in
denomination? Or changing to a more volitile game? Or taking more
trips, aggressively seeking good promotions? All of these could be
viewed as taking a more aggressive strategy.
And once you have the answers, you are probably the only one who knows
if you can deal with bigger swings or spend more time playing.
- John
allinqueen2000 wrote:
>
> I would like to post a question regarding style of play for
different
> types of players. I am statistically and mathematically
challenged,
> therefore, my question is based largely on instinct. Should
someone who
> only plays 3 or 4 weeks a year play a more aggressive strategy
compared
> to someone who has the opportunity to play daily? I am mainly
looking
> at this from a risk to bankroll aspect. I am of course
describing my
> own playing and am concerned that I am not properly utilizing my
> limited playing time. Some background may be helpful. I am a
low
> roller, play 3 or 4 weeks a year in Vegas, play 6 to 8 hours a
day when
> there, exclusively play FP Deuces Wild and my accuracy rate
averages
> 99.5% on WinPoker. My goal is to increase my bankroll so I can
move
> up to higher denominations (no suprise to anyone). I have done
> moderately well in this regard but feel perhaps I could do more.
Would
> appreciate any thoughts in this regard.
>I think it all depends on what you really mean by aggressive
strategy.
Are you suggesting that you would still play the same game but
change
the strategy somewhat to go after more royals? Or going up in
denomination? Or changing to a more volitile game? Or taking more
trips, aggressively seeking good promotions? All of these could be
viewed as taking a more aggressive strategy.And once you have the answers, you are probably the only one who
knows
if you can deal with bigger swings or spend more time playing.
- John
My thoughts were that perhaps going up in demonination or choosing a
more volatile game might allow me in the short term to increase my
bankroll at a faster rate. I also understand that I could lose my
bankroll at a faster rate. I add to my bankroll all the time outside
of my gamling sessions and certainly would not put my whole bankroll
at risk but thought I would take a portion of it and give it a
shot. I don't know which way (going up in demonination or more
volatile game) is the least risky. I can't spend any more time
playing so perhaps I am just being impatient and impractical.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "murphyfields" <jkludge@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@...>
wrote:
llinqueen2000 wrote:
>I would like to post a question regarding style of play for
different
>types of players. I am statistically and mathematically
challenged,
>therefore, my question is based largely on instinct. Should
someone who
>only plays 3 or 4 weeks a year play a more aggressive strategy
compared
>to someone who has the opportunity to play daily? I am mainly
looking
>at this from a risk to bankroll aspect. I am of course
describing my
>own playing and am concerned that I am not properly utilizing my
>limited playing time. Some background may be helpful. I am a low
>roller, play 3 or 4 weeks a year in Vegas, play 6 to 8 hours a
day when
>there, exclusively play FP Deuces Wild and my accuracy rate
averages
>99.5% on WinPoker. My goal is to increase my bankroll so I can
move
>up to higher denominations (no suprise to anyone). I have done
>moderately well in this regard but feel perhaps I could do more.
Would
>appreciate any thoughts in this regard.
Assuming you're neither going to add to your bankroll with outside
income nor subtract from it for expenses, and only try to build it
up
from winnings, I'd regard how much you play as irrelevant. Unless
your bankroll "can't afford" to play aggressively, which is
theoretically possible on a few hands for which the play with the
second best expected value has enough less fluctuation than the
draw
with the highest expected value, but practically rare if you're
adequately bankrolled to play the game in the first place, I would
just play in such a way as to maximize expected value on every
hand.
Even if it's "better" in some cases to "fudge" a little and play
conservatively, which I do occasionally, always maximizing expected
value at least has the advantage of simplicity and, although it
won't
technically be optimal, it won't be suboptimal to a significant
degree. Playing aggressively to maximize expected value is
conservative in that going too far in being too conservative with
too
many hands runs the risk of being suboptimal by far more than
maximizing expected value can be.
Tom, Regarding,
Even if it's "better" in some cases to "fudge" a little and play
conservatively, which I do occasionally, always maximizing expected
value at least has the advantage of simplicity and, although it
won't
technically be optimal, it won't be suboptimal to a significant
degree.
Would this refer to hand in deuces such as 222JJ. I would normally
take this but if I understand what you are saying I would instead
just take the deuces? Or perhaps a hand in triple double bonus
where you get 3 Aces w a kicker and instead of keeping the kicker
you just keep the 3 Aces? These examples may not be the right hands
but am I getting the jist of what your saying?
allinqueen2000 wrote:
My thoughts were that perhaps going up in demonination or choosing a
more volatile game might allow me in the short term to increase my
bankroll at a faster rate. I also understand that I could lose my
bankroll at a faster rate. I add to my bankroll all the time outside
of my gamling sessions and certainly would not put my whole bankroll
at risk but thought I would take a portion of it and give it a
shot. I don't know which way (going up in demonination or more
volatile game) is the least risky. I can't spend any more time
playing so perhaps I am just being impatient and impractical.
I think I have the same problem...I have a quarter budget, a nickle
tolerance for losing, and dollar dreams. To get a feel for what I can
handle, I play VP on my computer and imagine I am playing a different
denomination (drop the number of credits I start with) or try a more
volitile game. If I lose it all, I try to imagine how I would feel if
it were for real. If I win, I try to forget the feeling, because it
is too easy for me to get addicted to the wins.
Then I take a small portion of my budget and play something different.
I usually lose it pretty quickly ($20 goes quickly on a dollar
machine regardless of type) and realize I should have stuck with my
original goals.
As your budget increases, you might try putting a little more towards
the higher denoms or multi-plays and justify it as some sort of Kelly
betting system, but in reality, you just need to find you own comfort
zone. Just keep pushing and prodding it a little until you feel just
a little uncomfortable and the adrenalin kicks in.
As for adjusting your strategy to go for more royals or quads, that is
generally a good way to decrease your bankroll rather than increase
it. However, you might want to look through the sections on
alternative strategies
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_S.htm#WS
just to see if something appeals to you. But the generally
recommended approach is to always stick with the max EV strategy
unless you have a good reason to switch.
- John
One of the biggest problem in going up in denomination is that you often have to switch to a game with a lower EV. This is especially true if you are playing quarter FPDW, which is not available at the dollar level. So if you switch to dollar NSUD's, for example, you won't need just 4 times the bankroll but much much more because of the lower EV, a full 1% lower.
If you want to go up in denomination, one option, if available, is to go to multi-line in your original paytable and denomination. But be careful here and figure your bankroll need carefully. I have a whole chapter in "Frugal Video Poker" about multi-line, including the positives and the negatives - and the DANGERS!!!!
By the way, "Frugal Video Poker" is at the printers now and is expected back the middle of September. The pre-pub discount on the book will be available on my Web site below until about September 9.
···
________________________________________
Jean $�ott
"FRUGAL VIDEO POKER" - Pre-pub
orders for this new book now taken at
http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
allinqueen2000 wrote:
>
>
> My thoughts were that perhaps going up in demonination or
choosing a
> more volatile game might allow me in the short term to increase
my
> bankroll at a faster rate. I also understand that I could lose
my
> bankroll at a faster rate. I add to my bankroll all the time
outside
> of my gamling sessions and certainly would not put my whole
bankroll
> at risk but thought I would take a portion of it and give it a
> shot. I don't know which way (going up in demonination or more
> volatile game) is the least risky. I can't spend any more time
> playing so perhaps I am just being impatient and impractical.
>I think I have the same problem...I have a quarter budget, a nickle
tolerance for losing, and dollar dreams. To get a feel for what I
can
handle, I play VP on my computer and imagine I am playing a
different
denomination (drop the number of credits I start with) or try a
more
volitile game. If I lose it all, I try to imagine how I would
feel if
it were for real. If I win, I try to forget the feeling, because
it
is too easy for me to get addicted to the wins.
Then I take a small portion of my budget and play something
different.
I usually lose it pretty quickly ($20 goes quickly on a dollar
machine regardless of type) and realize I should have stuck with my
original goals.As your budget increases, you might try putting a little more
towards
the higher denoms or multi-plays and justify it as some sort of
Kelly
betting system, but in reality, you just need to find you own
comfort
zone. Just keep pushing and prodding it a little until you feel
just
a little uncomfortable and the adrenalin kicks in.
As for adjusting your strategy to go for more royals or quads,
that is
generally a good way to decrease your bankroll rather than increase
it. However, you might want to look through the sections on
alternative strategieshttp://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_S.htm#WS
just to see if something appeals to you. But the generally
recommended approach is to always stick with the max EV strategy
unless you have a good reason to switch.- John
think I have the same problem...I have a quarter budget, a nickle
tolerance for losing, and dollar dreams.
Thank you John I believe you hit my problem right on the head. Your
advice is well taken and timely. I am going to Vegas next week.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "murphyfields" <jkludge@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@...>
wrote:llinqueen2000 wrote:
>I would like to post a question regarding style of play for
different
>types of players. I am statistically and mathematically
challenged,
>therefore, my question is based largely on instinct. Should
someone who
>only plays 3 or 4 weeks a year play a more aggressive strategy
compared
>to someone who has the opportunity to play daily? I am mainly
looking
>at this from a risk to bankroll aspect. I am of course
describing my
>own playing and am concerned that I am not properly utilizing my
>limited playing time. Some background may be helpful. I am a low
>roller, play 3 or 4 weeks a year in Vegas, play 6 to 8 hours aday when
>there, exclusively play FP Deuces Wild and my accuracy rate
averages
>99.5% on WinPoker. My goal is to increase my bankroll so I can
move
>up to higher denominations (no suprise to anyone). I have done
>moderately well in this regard but feel perhaps I could do more.Would
>appreciate any thoughts in this regard.
Assuming you're neither going to add to your bankroll with outside
income nor subtract from it for expenses, and only try to build itup
from winnings, I'd regard how much you play as irrelevant. Unless
your bankroll "can't afford" to play aggressively, which is
theoretically possible on a few hands for which the play with the
second best expected value has enough less fluctuation than thedraw
with the highest expected value, but practically rare if you're
adequately bankrolled to play the game in the first place, I would
just play in such a way as to maximize expected value on everyhand.
Even if it's "better" in some cases to "fudge" a little and play
conservatively, which I do occasionally, always maximizing expected
value at least has the advantage of simplicity and, although itwon't
technically be optimal, it won't be suboptimal to a significant
degree. Playing aggressively to maximize expected value is
conservative in that going too far in being too conservative withtoo
many hands runs the risk of being suboptimal by far more than
maximizing expected value can be.Tom, Regarding,
Even if it's "better" in some cases to "fudge" a little and play
conservatively, which I do occasionally, always maximizing expected
value at least has the advantage of simplicity and, although itwon't
technically be optimal, it won't be suboptimal to a significant
degree.
Would this refer to hand in deuces such as 222JJ. I would normally
take this but if I understand what you are saying I would instead
just take the deuces? Or perhaps a hand in triple double bonus
where you get 3 Aces w a kicker and instead of keeping the kicker
you just keep the 3 Aces? These examples may not be the right hands
but am I getting the jist of what your saying?
Yes, that's the idea. What to do with aces full in Double Bonus is
another example. It's always at least theoretically possible to have
a bankroll to afford a game as a whole but not to make some plays in
that game which maximize expected value.
But, from the other responses to your question, it sounds like you
meant more to ask what other games you should play or what higher
denominations you should play, whereas I took "strategy" to mean,
given a particular game and denomination, how might you play hands in
a way that would accomplish your goal better. But my answer would be
the same. Unless you have some unusual, short-term goal, I can't
imagine it being advisory to play a more volatile game which also has
less expected value. It may be boring, but I always assume that
fluctuation is a cost and seek to reduce it unless doing so reduces
expected value by too much.
allinqueen2000 wrote:
My thoughts were that perhaps going up in demonination or choosing a
more volatile game might allow me in the short term to increase my
bankroll at a faster rate. I also understand that I could lose my
bankroll at a faster rate. I add to my bankroll all the time outside
of my gamling sessions and certainly would not put my whole bankroll
at risk but thought I would take a portion of it and give it a
shot. I don't know which way (going up in demonination or more
volatile game) is the least risky. I can't spend any more time
playing so perhaps I am just being impatient and impractical.I think I have the same problem...I have a quarter budget, a nickle
tolerance for losing, and dollar dreams. To get a feel for what I can
handle, I play VP on my computer and imagine I am playing a different
denomination (drop the number of credits I start with) or try a more
volitile game. If I lose it all, I try to imagine how I would feel if
it were for real. If I win, I try to forget the feeling, because it
is too easy for me to get addicted to the wins.Then I take a small portion of my budget and play something different.
I usually lose it pretty quickly ($20 goes quickly on a dollar
machine regardless of type) and realize I should have stuck with my
original goals.As your budget increases, you might try putting a little more towards
the higher denoms or multi-plays and justify it as some sort of Kelly
betting system, but in reality, you just need to find you own comfort
zone. Just keep pushing and prodding it a little until you feel just
a little uncomfortable and the adrenalin kicks in.As for adjusting your strategy to go for more royals or quads, that is
generally a good way to decrease your bankroll rather than increase
it. However, you might want to look through the sections on
alternative strategieshttp://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_S.htm#WS
just to see if something appeals to you. But the generally
recommended approach is to always stick with the max EV strategy
unless you have a good reason to switch.- John
This is pretty much how I feel about it. I once dabbled in
calculating how I should play if it were strictly according to the
Kelly Criterion and, besides some impracticalities, I was shocked at
how much more aggressively it indicated I should play than I would
have felt comfortable with. But maybe that just means my "real"
bankroll, the money I was actually willing to lose, was much smaller
than I thought it was.
You answer was exactly what I was originally looking for, other
options occurred to me in the meantime. However, I agree that a
more volatile game would be too unnerving as the swings would be
something I don't think I could handle well. Trying an alternative
strategy or moving up in denomination seems more plausible to me.
Jean suggested multi-line as another alternative and I know it would
certainly be more enjoyable but as you said I perhaps should stick
with "boring" for the time being until my bankroll can tolerate
larger swings. Thank you for taking the time to educate me it is
greatly appreciated.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@...>
wrote:
>--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@>
>wrote:
>>
>> llinqueen2000 wrote:
>>
>> >I would like to post a question regarding style of play for
>different
>> >types of players. I am statistically and mathematically
>challenged,
>> >therefore, my question is based largely on instinct. Should
>someone who
>> >only plays 3 or 4 weeks a year play a more aggressive strategy
>compared
>> >to someone who has the opportunity to play daily? I am mainly
>looking
>> >at this from a risk to bankroll aspect. I am of course
>describing my
>> >own playing and am concerned that I am not properly utilizing
my
>> >limited playing time. Some background may be helpful. I am a
low
>> >roller, play 3 or 4 weeks a year in Vegas, play 6 to 8 hours a
>day when
>> >there, exclusively play FP Deuces Wild and my accuracy rate
>averages
>> >99.5% on WinPoker. My goal is to increase my bankroll so I
can
>move
>> >up to higher denominations (no suprise to anyone). I have
done
>> >moderately well in this regard but feel perhaps I could do
more.
>Would
>> >appreciate any thoughts in this regard.
>>
>> Assuming you're neither going to add to your bankroll with
outside
>> income nor subtract from it for expenses, and only try to build
it
>up
>> from winnings, I'd regard how much you play as irrelevant.
Unless
>> your bankroll "can't afford" to play aggressively, which is
>> theoretically possible on a few hands for which the play with
the
>> second best expected value has enough less fluctuation than the
>draw
>> with the highest expected value, but practically rare if you're
>> adequately bankrolled to play the game in the first place, I
would
>> just play in such a way as to maximize expected value on every
>hand.
>> Even if it's "better" in some cases to "fudge" a little and play
>> conservatively, which I do occasionally, always maximizing
expected
>> value at least has the advantage of simplicity and, although it
>won't
>> technically be optimal, it won't be suboptimal to a significant
>> degree. Playing aggressively to maximize expected value is
>> conservative in that going too far in being too conservative
with
>too
>> many hands runs the risk of being suboptimal by far more than
>> maximizing expected value can be.
>
>Tom, Regarding,
>>
>Even if it's "better" in some cases to "fudge" a little and play
>> conservatively, which I do occasionally, always maximizing
expected
>> value at least has the advantage of simplicity and, although it
>won't
>> technically be optimal, it won't be suboptimal to a significant
> degree.
>
>Would this refer to hand in deuces such as 222JJ. I would
normally
>take this but if I understand what you are saying I would instead
>just take the deuces? Or perhaps a hand in triple double bonus
>where you get 3 Aces w a kicker and instead of keeping the kicker
>you just keep the 3 Aces? These examples may not be the right
hands
>but am I getting the jist of what your saying?
Yes, that's the idea. What to do with aces full in Double Bonus is
another example. It's always at least theoretically possible to
have
a bankroll to afford a game as a whole but not to make some plays
in
that game which maximize expected value.
But, from the other responses to your question, it sounds like you
meant more to ask what other games you should play or what higher
denominations you should play, whereas I took "strategy" to mean,
given a particular game and denomination, how might you play hands
in
a way that would accomplish your goal better. But my answer would
be
the same. Unless you have some unusual, short-term goal, I can't
imagine it being advisory to play a more volatile game which also
has
···
less expected value. It may be boring, but I always assume that
fluctuation is a cost and seek to reduce it unless doing so reduces
expected value by too much.
Multi-line is certainly terrific to play and something I hope to be
able to do in the near future. At the moment I don't think my
bankroll or my nerves could handle the swings so I must satisfy
myself by playing multi-line on my computer. Also, it seems to me
that there is no multi-line FPDW anywhere to be had. I expect if I
was to move to multi-play I would have to choose another game and it
appears that the multi-play games are less than 100%. I have not
been very dilligent in utilizing cash back and comps to my best
advantage but I had better start doing my homework if I want to play
multi-line.
I have already ordered your new book and look forward to reading it.
Your #1 fan.
One of the biggest problem in going up in denomination is that you
often
have to switch to a game with a lower EV. This is especially
true if you
are playing quarter FPDW, which is not available at the dollar
level. So if
you switch to dollar NSUD's, for example, you won't need just 4
times the
bankroll but much much more because of the lower EV, a full 1%
lower.
If you want to go up in denomination, one option, if available,
is to go
to multi-line in your original paytable and denomination. But be
careful
here and figure your bankroll need carefully. I have a whole
chapter in
"Frugal Video Poker" about multi-line, including the positives and
the
negatives - and the DANGERS!!!!
By the way, "Frugal Video Poker" is at the printers now and is
expected back
the middle of September. The pre-pub discount on the book will
be
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@...> wrote:
available on my Web site below until about September 9.
________________________________________
Jean $¢ott
"FRUGAL VIDEO POKER" - Pre-pub
orders for this new book now taken at
http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
You get Kelly strategy by ranking according to certainty equivalence:
http://www.google.com/search?q=certainty+equivalence
certainty equivalance = EV - Variance/(2 x bankroll)
You can see that if your bankroll is infinite, the certainty
equivalance is equal to EV and hence Kelly strategy equals maxEV
strategy, for infinite bankroll. For those without a direct link to
Fort Knox, your results may vary.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@...> wrote:
Yes, that's the idea. What to do with aces full in Double Bonus is
another example. It's always at least theoretically possible to have
a bankroll to afford a game as a whole but not to make some plays in
that game which maximize expected value.