vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 27 NOV 2007

#1

I first want to thank Bob for the great articles. I neglected to do so in my previous response to the NSU article.

I have a similar comment about the DB article that I did to the NSU one:

Bob wrote:

Q4: When is a 3-card straight flush preferred to a low pair?
A4: 'QJ9' is preferred to low pairs in the range of 55-99. 'JT9' is preferred to low pairs in the range of 55-TT. (On the hand 'QJ9'TT, you prefer QJT9 so if you included TT in the list of low pairs that are inferior to 'QJ9', that's a wrong answer.)

While omitting 'TT' here is in fact correct and a more complete rule, I don't think it's necessary to address in strategy charts since 4-card outside straights are higher on the strategy chart and are assumed to be selected first if present.

By the same token, if you're going to omit 'TT' when discussing 'QJ9', '88' should not be included in the rule for 'JT9', since 'JT98' is superior to both 'JT9' and '88'. So the rule would have to say 'JT9' is preferred to low pairs in the range of 55-77 and 99-TT, which, while accurate, makes the rule more complicated.

My point is this: for strategy charts, I believe it's unnecessary to exclude rules higher in the strategy chart when defining each rule. This makes for better simplicity in strategy charts as a whole. However, this does not take away from discussing the finer details in an article like this. It's always interesting to note such exceptions to avoid making mistakes.

JD

···

----- Original Message ----
From: vpFae <vpFae@Cox.net>
To: vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:28:31 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 27 NOV 2007

Playing Better 10/7 Double Bonus Poker --- Part I of II

http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2007/1127.html

<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2007/1127.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2007/1127.html</a>

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

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

#2

John Douglass wrote: My point is this: for strategy charts, I believe
it's unnecessary to exclude rules higher in the strategy chart when
defining each rule. This makes for better simplicity in strategy charts
as a whole. However, this does not take away from discussing the finer
details in an article like this. It's always interesting to note such
exceptions to avoid making mistakes.

I agree completely --- and use the technique John espouses in my
strategy cards. The particular "quiz" in question, however, was not (at
least to my mind) about strategy cards. It was about strategy. And for
purposes of that quiz, I stand by the answer given there.

Let me extend this discussion well beyond John's original post. In my
Jacks or Better classes, one of the rules is an unsuited KQJT is better
than a low pair. I ask the class what low pairs is the rule talking
about. Usually a number of students define low pair as 22-TT and I
indicate that is not the answer I'm looking for. Eventually someone
notices that TT is the only low pair that can be in the same 5-card hand
as KQJT.

One of the problems with "clever" simplifications in video poker
strategy is that relatively few players are able to understand these
simplifications without handholding. Understanding a strategy and using
it well requires a lot more intelligence and study than is normally
assumed. Players with genius IQ who apply themselves at video poker
likely have a success rate of 30% or higher. Players with an average IQ
who apply themselves at video poker likely have a success rate of less
than 1%. (The exact percentages depend on the definition of "success
rate," which is by necessity individually defined. Keep in mind that the
total percentage of players who succeed will necessarily be low because
every casino out there is trying to make a profit.)
  
John's post overall was quite complimentary, and for that I thank him.

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

#3

So bob because i play video poker at less than 100% optimum, , l am I mentally retarded or am I just a normal person that is a slow learner?

Bob Dancer <bdancer@compdance.com> wrote:

John Douglass wrote: My point is this: for strategy charts, I believe
it's unnecessary to exclude rules higher in the strategy chart when
defining each rule. This makes for better simplicity in strategy charts
as a whole. However, this does not take away from discussing the finer
details in an article like this. It's always interesting to note such
exceptions to avoid making mistakes.

I agree completely --- and use the technique John espouses in my
strategy cards. The particular "quiz" in question, however, was not (at
least to my mind) about strategy cards. It was about strategy. And for
purposes of that quiz, I stand by the answer given there.

Let me extend this discussion well beyond John's original post. In my
Jacks or Better classes, one of the rules is an unsuited KQJT is better
than a low pair. I ask the class what low pairs is the rule talking
about. Usually a number of students define low pair as 22-TT and I
indicate that is not the answer I'm looking for. Eventually someone
notices that TT is the only low pair that can be in the same 5-card hand
as KQJT.

One of the problems with "clever" simplifications in video poker
strategy is that relatively few players are able to understand these
simplifications without handholding. Understanding a strategy and using
it well requires a lot more intelligence and study than is normally
assumed. Players with genius IQ who apply themselves at video poker
likely have a success rate of 30% or higher. Players with an average IQ
who apply themselves at video poker likely have a success rate of less
than 1%. (The exact percentages depend on the definition of "success
rate," which is by necessity individually defined. Keep in mind that the
total percentage of players who succeed will necessarily be low because
every casino out there is trying to make a profit.)
   
John's post overall was quite complimentary, and for that I thank him.

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

···

---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

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

#4

One of the problems with "clever" simplifications in video poker
strategy is that relatively few players are able to understand these
simplifications without handholding. Understanding a strategy and

using

it well requires a lot more intelligence and study than is normally
assumed. Players with genius IQ who apply themselves at video poker
likely have a success rate of 30% or higher. Players with an

average IQ

who apply themselves at video poker likely have a success rate of

less

than 1%.

Interesting numbers ... could you quote your source?

Like most jobs I would pick a set of attributes if I was hiring
someone to be a "successful VP player". I would test the potential
candidiates for good memory, moderate math skills, ability to stay
focused for long hours, etc. that would be required. While IQ might
be a useful metric, I doubt it would be the best approach to
saying "you're hired".

It seems to me that one of the biggest reasons for failing at being a
successful VP player is knowing the "big picture". Learning good
strategy is only one of many puzzle pieces. People with higher IQs
will generally be better at solving this puzzle although IQ would fit
more into the "sufficient" category than the "necessary" one.

Dick

Interesting quotes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ

"It is well known that it is possible to increase one's IQ score by
training, for example by regularly playing puzzle games, or strategy
games like Chess. Musical training in childhood also increases IQ.
Recent studies have shown that training in using one's working memory
may increase IQ."

"The Flynn effect (aka the "Lynn-Flynn effect") was discovered by
Richard Lynn in 1982, but is named after James R. Flynn, a New
Zealand based political scientist. Flynn showed that IQ scores
worldwide appear to be slowly rising at a rate of around three IQ
points per decade."

"Among the most controversial issues related to the study of
intelligence is the observation that intelligence measures such as IQ
scores vary between populations. While there is little scholarly
debate about the existence of some of these differences, the reasons
remain highly controversial both within academia and in the public
sphere."

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bdancer@...> wrote:

#5

Chris asked: So bob because i play video poker at less than 100%
optimum, , l am I mentally retarded or am I just a normal person that is
a slow learner?

I know nothing about you, so I certainly have no reason to believe you
are not BOTH mentally retarded AND a slow learner! If you're trying to
show you're neither, perhaps you should consider capitalizing and
spacing words appropriately, and not putting an extraneous " , 1" in the
middle of your question.

As for my earlier post, I said nothing about playing perfectly. I talked
about being successful. As I noted, the definition of success is
nebulous and needs to be personally defined. I wouldn't consider a full
time video poker player successful unless he/she averaged $30,000 or
more a year for several years --- although many have different
definitions --- and most players aren't full time. Some people consider
themselves successful if they can get a cheaper-than-retail Vegas
vacation. So be it. Each person creates his own definiton.

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

#6

I could talk for hours about what it takes to be successful at VP. In fact I have talked for years about this and put hundreds of thousands ideas on this subject in my books.

However, being at the end of a month and trying to make up a workable January calendar, I would definitely say that it takes someone who is a "details person." If I kept track of the time I spend planning our VP play, I am sure it would be more hours than we actually sit at a VP machine. It takes a VERY organized person. Many IQ giants would be a failure because they aren't organized!!

···

________________
Jean $�ott
The much-expanded new edition of my tax book,
including a new chapter on poker, is now available
to order at my Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.