Hi Folks,
Thanks for your replies to my which is the best software question, I
think I'll be getting Bob Dancer's. Here's another. I bought Bob's
Jack's or Better book and Full Pay Deuces Wild book along with the
straegy crds for both. I read somewhere here a poster saying don't buy
those cards. Any like/dislike them and why? Bob, I's also appreciate
a comment from you as to this. Thanks again. Paul
Best Strategy Cards???
Paul wrote about the Dancer/Daily strategy cards: I read somewhere here
a poster saying don't buy
those cards. Any like/dislike them and why? Bob, I's also appreciate a
comment from you as to this.
There are several advantages to the Dancer/Daily strategy cards. Most of
them have four strategy levels, from Beginner to Advanced. This allows
different players to use different strategies from other players.
Players vary in their abilities, experience, and desire for perfect
strategies, and for each individual player, other strategy cards on the
market are either too advanced or too elementary. Also, over time, as
players get better there is a natural tendency for some to progress to
more complex strategies. These cards allow you to do this.
The cards were proofed by two of us --- both highly skilled and
experienced players. Although there are a few errors that have been
pointed out to me (and are always fixed on subsequent printings), all
other cards on the market have far more errors. If I point out these
errors, I get severely criticized for "picking on" the other authors. So
most of them I don't point out, but they are definitely there.
These cards are the only ones that attempt to systematically cover all
the penalty card situations on the fourth level of strategy. (Paymar and
Boyd cover some of them --- sometimes correctly). The desire for this
level of information, and the ability to understand it, is somewhat
limited. If you do want this information, the Dancer/Daily cards are
mandatory as this is the only place to find this information.
There is a different notation system for 3-card straight flushes on the
Dancer/Daily cards. This system starts with the number zero, adds one
for every high card (a high card is one where you get your money back if
you get a pair of them), and subtracts one for every inside. This means
SF3 +1 is 'JT9' and 'QJ9' only, assuming it's a games based on getting
your money back for a pair of jacks or better. Other authors need to
list two entries, with a notation something like SF3 1h0i and SF3 2h1i
(there are variations in the exact notation. Paymar, for example, uses
"di" which stands for "double inside" rather than "2i", which stands for
the same thing.) SF3 +0 includes three different types of combinations
where the number of high card and the number of insides are equal. You
can have two of each (like 'QJ8'), one of each (like 'JT8'), or none of
each (like '456'). There are also two different types of combinations
for SF3 -1 and you can also find SF3 -2.
This notation system is confusing to some people --- and there is
definitely a learning curve involved. In my classes, after someone has
been to a few classes the system makes a lot of sense and a strategy
card is easier to read and follow with four entries for SF3 hands rather
than the eight entries every other strategy card creator is forced to
used. For people unwilling to go through the learning curve, the terms
can be confusing.
In the Video Poker for Winners software, it was 100% my choice which
notation to use, subject to the constraints of the software (such as not
being able to produce bold, italic type). I decided not to use the SF3
+1 type of notation and went back to the "standard" way of doing it.
Even though I believe the +1, +0, -1, -2 notation to be superior, it is
strange to enough people that I didn't want to product bashed for having
strategies that were too difficult to understand. I don't feel this
criticism would be warranted, but some people have it nonetheless.
On the Dancer/Daily cards we use bold italic type to indicate the cards
are suited --- while in VPW we use quote marks to indicate the same
thing. All other strategy card makers are forced to use the terms
"suited" or "unsuited" (or Tomski uses a small "s" to mean suited). The
reason Daily and I decided not to do this had to do with the typesize.
By the time people get old enough to have the assets to allow gambling,
most of us have failing eyesight of one sort or another. When we use
bold italic type rather than the words "suited" and "unsuited", it
allows us to use a slightly larger typeface and still fit it on the
card. This makes it easier to read.
We used certain notational shortcuts, such as the letter "H" for a high
card, lower than the first one indicated. So 'AH' can be either 'AK',
'AQ', or 'AJ', all of which have exactly the same value in most hands.
Again, this allows us to use a slightly larger typesize and makes the
strategy easier to memorize. Other authors sometimes choose to put these
items on different lines (check out the ones created by FVP for Jacks or
Better, for example) which is very confusing given that they all have
the same value. If you're trying to memorize a strategy (which most
experienced players end up doing, whether intentionally or not), it's
easier when there are easy-to-understand shorthands.
When JT suggested here that the Dancer/Daily strategy cards be avoided,
I assumed that he didn't like the +1, +0, -1, -2 notation, although
perhaps there might be other reasons for his opinion. I didn't want to
fight with him so I let his comment go. Since Paul specifically
requested I respond to it, I have.
Bob Dancer
For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com