This is not intended to be a criticism because I know how much effort Bob puts into his work. My question is, how many players who do not play many hours every day or week would ever, in 10/6 DDB, 9/6, or even 12/7 if they had such a game, hold a suited AKT5 over a suited AKT ? I know DDB perfectly, and even if I'm playing 8/5 DDB -- which I do on occasion -- I ALWAYS hold 3-to-the-royal unless another meaningful goal is in sight. I even find it hard to believe that an everyday player would hold a suited 4 cards over 3-to-the-royal. Remember, the question assumes you're in a casino playing, and not sitting at home analyzing what's what over the long term. I'm not looking for a discussion on my style play. Anyone care to input?
Bob Dancer's latest article.
Rob,
I could not agree with you more. There is no way I would have gone for a flush either. Isn't the whole point of playing VP to go for the Royal? Isn't that what makes it a positve expectation game?
I just started to play VP seriously (as in actually caring about and studying what the right play is) and I can understand why Bob said what he did. But I think you are right, that is a play that comes from computer analyzation and not practical application.
Good call.
Mole
···
Rob Singer <rsinger1111@cox.net> wrote:
This is not intended to be a criticism because I know how much effort Bob puts into his work. My question is, how many players who do not play many hours every day or week would ever, in 10/6 DDB, 9/6, or even 12/7 if they had such a game, hold a suited AKT5 over a suited AKT ? I know DDB perfectly, and even if I'm playing 8/5 DDB -- which I do on occasion -- I ALWAYS hold 3-to-the-royal unless another meaningful goal is in sight. I even find it hard to believe that an everyday player would hold a suited 4 cards over 3-to-the-royal. Remember, the question assumes you're in a casino playing, and not sitting at home analyzing what's what over the long term. I'm not looking for a discussion on my style play. Anyone care to input?
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi,
You bring an important consideration, I think. There are people that
try to play by the strategy rules, and there are people that want to
have a winning evening. I will bring up a more familiar hand in a
more familiar game, Jacks or Better. There if you have four flush
with three to a Royal that contains a ten and an ace and the fifth
card is an unmatched high card of different suit or a ten, you play
the four to a flush. People playing the correct strategy will play
that to get the advantage. I will play the three to a Royal to see if
I get the Royal. As a matter of fact, in Jacks or Better if I get a
high pair and three to a Royal and I'm ahead that evening, I play the
three to a Royal over the high pair. I'm giving up return in the very
long term, sure. I have analyzed this modification of the rules in
Frugal and it costs me something like 0.1%, but once on a real casino
on a high denomination machine I kept the high pair and there came
the two cards I needed for the Royal. I decided then and there that I
will always go for the Royal if not about to go to the poor house.
Having said all the above, I still think it is educational,
insturctional and fun to know the correct rules, and thus the book
should be interesting. Even if I don't play by the rules, I like to
know when that is. I will do as you, play three to a Royal in the
hand you mentioned. I believe most times I will play suited JQK in
DDB above a pair of Aces. As I said, when I do this thing I want to
know how much I'm losing long term so if my modifications work and I
get a Royal I can sing 'Long Live the Short Term', LOL.
Regards,
E
This is not intended to be a criticism because I know how much
effort Bob puts into his work. My question is, how many players who
do not play many hours every day or week would ever, in 10/6 DDB,
9/6, or even 12/7 if they had such a game, hold a suited AKT5 over a
suited AKT ? I know DDB perfectly, and even if I'm playing 8/5 DDB --
which I do on occasion -- I ALWAYS hold 3-to-the-royal unless
another meaningful goal is in sight. I even find it hard to believe
that an everyday player would hold a suited 4 cards over 3-to-the-
royal. Remember, the question assumes you're in a casino playing, and
not sitting at home analyzing what's what over the long term. I'm not
looking for a discussion on my style play. Anyone care to input?
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Singer" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:
Absolutely not. The playing strategy that gives the best chance of hitting
a royal will hit abouit twice as many royals as the strategy that maximizes
EV. But, it loses money very quickly.
The optimal strategy is strictly about money. The emotional thrill of hitting
a royal isn't part of the equation.
···
On Tuesday 16 September 2003 09:54 pm, Brian Lindemuth wrote:
Rob,
I could not agree with you more. There is no way I would have gone for a
flush either. Isn't the whole point of playing VP to go for the Royal?
Isn't that what makes it a positve expectation game?
Steve: Your input here is of course mathematically sound, but I question your statement that going for the RF in this situation will "lose money very quickly". The play doesn't come up that often, and I play DDB probably more than most. Therefore, hitting even one royal in this non-optimal long-term manner of play (as one respondent said he did, and I have hit a number of them) more than mitigates your concerns -- at least for the 2 of us. Others may not have been so fortunate--which is why I asked the question. And I assure you, this play is all about the money.
Absolutely not. The playing strategy that gives the best chance of hitting
a royal will hit abouit twice as many royals as the strategy that maximizes
EV. But, it loses money very quickly.
The optimal strategy is strictly about money. The emotional thrill of hitting
a royal isn't part of the equation.
(...Question regarding holding 4 flush vs. 3 card royal...)
I play a lot of All American VP. In this game, there are many cases
where it is correct to hold a 4 card flush over a 3 card royal. When
these hands come up I will hold the 4 card flush when it is the
mathematically correct play.
I do agree with you that among recreational players, probably fewer
than 1 out of 100 players would choose the 4 card flush, even if
someone was there to tell them that it was the better play.
EE
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Singer" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Brian Lindemuth <iamnotthemole@y...>
wrote:
Rob,
I could not agree with you more. There is no way I would have gone
for a flush either. Isn't the whole point of playing VP to go for
the Royal? Isn't that what makes it a positve expectation game?
I just started to play VP seriously (as in actually caring about
and studying what the right play is) and I can understand why Bob
said what he did. But I think you are right, that is a play that
comes from computer analyzation and not practical application.
Good call.
Mole
Well, sure ... this makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Rather than
playing for the hand that has the highest average return, why not
just play for the hand with the biggest return (royal, bonus quad
etc.)? Since you're always playing in the short-term, doing this
repeatedly is obviously going to make you a lot more money.
But that should be good "luck" ... not good "call."
2-W
Great idea. Keep it up. This will surely help casinos justify
providing full pay games for the rest of us 
Thanks again, Dick
Hi,
You bring an important consideration, I think. There are people
that
try to play by the strategy rules, and there are people that want
to
have a winning evening. I will bring up a more familiar hand in a
more familiar game, Jacks or Better. There if you have four flush
with three to a Royal that contains a ten and an ace and the fifth
card is an unmatched high card of different suit or a ten, you play
the four to a flush. People playing the correct strategy will play
that to get the advantage. I will play the three to a Royal to see
if
I get the Royal. As a matter of fact, in Jacks or Better if I get a
high pair and three to a Royal and I'm ahead that evening, I play
the
three to a Royal over the high pair. I'm giving up return in the
very
long term, sure. I have analyzed this modification of the rules in
Frugal and it costs me something like 0.1%, but once on a real
casino
on a high denomination machine I kept the high pair and there came
the two cards I needed for the Royal. I decided then and there that
I
will always go for the Royal if not about to go to the poor house.
Having said all the above, I still think it is educational,
insturctional and fun to know the correct rules, and thus the book
should be interesting. Even if I don't play by the rules, I like to
know when that is. I will do as you, play three to a Royal in the
hand you mentioned. I believe most times I will play suited JQK in
DDB above a pair of Aces. As I said, when I do this thing I want to
know how much I'm losing long term so if my modifications work and
I
get a Royal I can sing 'Long Live the Short Term', LOL.
Regards,
E
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Singer" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:
>
>
> This is not intended to be a criticism because I know how much
effort Bob puts into his work. My question is, how many players who
do not play many hours every day or week would ever, in 10/6 DDB,
9/6, or even 12/7 if they had such a game, hold a suited AKT5 over
a
suited AKT ? I know DDB perfectly, and even if I'm playing 8/5
DDB --
which I do on occasion -- I ALWAYS hold 3-to-the-royal unless
another meaningful goal is in sight. I even find it hard to believe
that an everyday player would hold a suited 4 cards over 3-to-the-
royal. Remember, the question assumes you're in a casino playing,
and
not sitting at home analyzing what's what over the long term. I'm
not
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mubowor" <erchalb@c...> wrote:
looking for a discussion on my style play. Anyone care to input?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Brian Lindemuth <iamnotthemole@y...>
wrote:
Rob,
I could not agree with you more. There is no way I would have gone
for a flush either. Isn't the whole point of playing VP to go for
the Royal? Isn't that what makes it a positve expectation game?
I just started to play VP seriously (as in actually caring about
and studying what the right play is) and I can understand why Bob
said what he did. But I think you are right, that is a play that
comes from computer analyzation and not practical application.
Good call.
Mole
Rob Singer <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:
This is not intended to be a criticism because I know how much
effort Bob puts into his work. My question is, how many players who
do not play many hours every day or week would ever, in 10/6 DDB,
9/6, or even 12/7 if they had such a game, hold a suited AKT5 over a
suited AKT ? I know DDB perfectly, and even if I'm playing 8/5 DDB --
which I do on occasion -- I ALWAYS hold 3-to-the-royal unless
another meaningful goal is in sight. I even find it hard to believe
that an everyday player would hold a suited 4 cards over 3-to-the-
royal. Remember, the question assumes you're in a casino playing, and
not sitting at home analyzing what's what over the long term. I'm not
looking for a discussion on my style play. Anyone care to input?
You both bring up excellent points. Personally, whenever I play DDB,
I always go for the royal. Isn't that what were here for? Last
year, I had Ah Kh Th 6h 3h. Sure I could have held the flush, but
that's only worth 25 coins (I know...I could have found a machine for
30 coins, but I never win on those machines.) So I dropped the 6h
and 3h and I got the Qh and Jh for $4000. Take that, Bob Dancer!
Now, I always go for the royal. 3-card royals are a given, but 2-
card royals are very underrated. I've gotten more that one royal
from holding only 2 cards, so it would kill me if that's what cost me
my royal. Imagine getting dealt Ah Th Tc 4d 3d. I bet Dancer would
say to hold the tens, but it's not like that hand is a winner, anyway
(I mean, I get dealt pairs all the time, but they never seem to turn
into quads). So I hold the Ah and Th (especially if the machine
seems hot). I mean, if I held the tens, and I got Kh Qh Jh, I would
just die, so I'm not taking that chance.
Last month, I threw away all five cards and got a royal flush on the
redraw. And that reminded me that 0-card royal flush draws can work
also. So I used to hold hands like 9h 8h 7h cause Dancer's
stupid "perfect computer" said so. But think about it... you can't
get a royal flush that way, you can't even get four of a kind. And
if we're playing DDB, you don't get any bonuses for straight flushes
or regular flushes. So now I throw away all 5 cards and put my royal
chances in the hands of fate. This is what the game is about, after
all!
Glad to see people that see things the same way I do. You go, Rob!
I hope I'm not being too presumptuous by suggesting that perhaps you
are overdoing the quest for a Royal.
I made a mistake on a post of mine and said I held suited JQK above a
pair of aces, but I meant to say when the progressive was
sufficiently high -thinking this was a progressive. The cost of my
rule variation would just be too high for a DDB machine with the
normal 4,000 coin Royal.
When to break the rules to go for the Royal? The answer to this is up
to the individual. I guess someone that plays Video Poker every day
and counts on it to make a long term income would do best by
observing all the rules all the time. The occasional visitor will not
lose much return in Jacks or Better by holding the three to a Royal
on Th Jh Ah 5h Ts instead of the four flush. WinPoker and Frugal are
useful to find out how much return you lose on a given hands. Some of
the hands you recommend to get a Royal are just too costly, so costly
that even an occasional visitor playing for three days or so might
suffer. Sure, your idea of just holding cards to go for Royals, even
dumping three to a Straight Flush to get a Royal, will often get you
a Royal, but when the Royal does not appear very soon after you start
playing, you might lose a fortune playing that way. The exact numbers
of how much more money you lose with your modifications of rules you
can find in the softwares. Video Poker is not too easy. You want to
make money, but you want that jackpot right away. Was it the Rolling
Stones? "You can't always get what you want"? Regards,
E
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar"
<tooncessnl@h...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Brian Lindemuth <iamnotthemole@y...>
wrote:
Personally, whenever I play DDB,
I always go for the royal. Isn't that what were here for? Last
year, I had Ah Kh Th 6h 3h. Sure I could have held the flush, but
that's only worth 25 coins (I know...I could have found a machine
for
30 coins, but I never win on those machines.) So I dropped the 6h
and 3h and I got the Qh and Jh for $4000. Take that, Bob Dancer!Now, I always go for the royal. 3-card royals are a given, but 2-
card royals are very underrated. I've gotten more that one royal
from holding only 2 cards, so it would kill me if that's what cost
me
my royal. Imagine getting dealt Ah Th Tc 4d 3d. I bet Dancer
would
say to hold the tens, but it's not like that hand is a winner,
anyway
(I mean, I get dealt pairs all the time, but they never seem to
turn
into quads). So I hold the Ah and Th (especially if the machine
seems hot). I mean, if I held the tens, and I got Kh Qh Jh, I
would
just die, so I'm not taking that chance.
Last month, I threw away all five cards and got a royal flush on
the
redraw. And that reminded me that 0-card royal flush draws can
work
also. So I used to hold hands like 9h 8h 7h cause Dancer's
stupid "perfect computer" said so. But think about it... you can't
get a royal flush that way, you can't even get four of a kind. And
if we're playing DDB, you don't get any bonuses for straight
flushes
or regular flushes. So now I throw away all 5 cards and put my
royal
chances in the hands of fate. This is what the game is about,
after
···
all!
Glad to see people that see things the same way I do. You go, Rob!
<<I hope I'm not being too presumptuous by suggesting that perhaps you
are overdoing the quest for a Royal.>>
tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar: I just knew someone would write this post in response to yours - and be serious. I've got to quit laughing - I have work to do today which I can't do doubled over.
···
____________________
Jean $cott - "The Frugal Gambler"
MORE FRUGAL GAMBLING can NOW
be ordered, autographed, at a pre-pub
discount, at http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mrs. Scott,
I love a hearty sense of humor and I'm glad you are amused. Perhaps
you will be a little more amused to find out that some of the
modifications on my play lately are due to playing around with
Frugal. Let me give you an example. Maybe if you find that I'm
outrageously wrong you will comment on it.
In Jacks or Better the payback with perfect strategy is 99.54%.
Played with perfect strategy, the Royal cycle is 40,390.5 games. Let
us assume I go to Las Vegas for a few days and recycle through a JB
machine $100,000. If I'm playing dollars, this is 20,000 games. Now,
fooling around with Frugal I found out that if I make the slight
modification in strategy and I always hold three to a Royal instead
of a high pair, the theoretical return I obtain is 99.47%, but the
Royal cycle is now 34,375.9. How much return am I losing? 0.07% In
dollars and cents, for that $100,000, I'm giving up $70 by my change
of strategy.
Is the extra $70 risked important? Here is where the individual
decision comes. I have made many simulations in Frugal with both the
correct strategy and the modification. The change in Royal cycle from
40,390.5 to 34,375.9 is quite significant and it does show on those
simulations, on the charts. Now, we all know Royals don't come after
a cycle on the dot, but distribute themselves in a random way. Still,
with the strategy change, the, let us call it, density of Royals
increases. If on a trip one plays only 20,000 games, certainly one
has more of a real expectation to get a Royal with the modified
strategy than with perfect strategy. I choose to hold three to a
Royal over a high pair knowing it would cost me on the order of $70
on the trip, for the chance of getting a fun $4,000. Gambling is
gambling, so the old tautology goes. I understand perfectly that if I
were going to live in Las Vegas, and play many hours, and set as a
goal extracting the maximum amount of money from the JB machine, then
I better hold that high pair instead of three to a Royal if I'm not
in a progressive machine. I don't want to give up thousands of
dollars after millions of games if I set that goal for myself. Since
that is not my goal, and a $4,000 jackpot would "make my trip", to
nearly paraphrase a former mayor of Carmel, then on the few times I
get to choose during the trip among three to a Royal and a high pair,
I take a sip of my drink and go for the Royal!
Regards,
E
P.S.: I hope the numbers in Frugal are right. I believe they are.
<<I hope I'm not being too presumptuous by suggesting that perhaps
you
are overdoing the quest for a Royal.>>
tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar: I just knew someone would write
this post in response to yours - and be serious. I've got to quit
laughing - I have work to do today which I can't do doubled over.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...> wrote:
____________________
Jean $cott - "The Frugal Gambler"
MORE FRUGAL GAMBLING can NOW
be ordered, autographed, at a pre-pub
discount, at http://www.FrugalGambler.biz[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
mubowor wrote:
I'm giving up return in the very
long term, sure. <snip>
Several contributors to this thread have said something similar to this
and it's exactly backward. When faced with a close decision between a
four card flush and a three card royal, the flush is obviously the
"short-term" play. You will hit on average 9 flushes out of for every 47
hands just a little less than 1 out of 5. These kind of odds will
approach the average in a fairly short period of time. The RF draw on
the other hand, will produce a royal once every 1081 hands, on average.
Obviously that is a long-term play. Of course there are many other hands
that will be made on an RF3 draw but the RF is the biggest part of the
return - and it will take many, many, more of these hands (compared to
the flush draw) before the certainty of hitting that average is as high.
As Steve Jacobs pointed out, optimizing your play for royals will
increase the drain immediately. During the "short term".
When the difference is very close and the hold of the flush is the
exception (as in mubowor's
"Th Jh Ah 5h Ts instead of the four flush") JB example,) I have no
problem at all with this. As many people know, I prefer simplified
strategies that still have a close to maximum return (I realize "close
is subjective - I'm generally speaking of three decimal places). My
strategy cards show the RF3 draw as always better than a flush4 for
instance. In Double Bonus, the choice between RF3 and flush4 is much
more complicated. But if you remove the penalty card considerations it
can be simplified fairly well. Taking just any RF3 over a flush4
(especially with 3 high cards) is a more serious mistake.
The problem is, these hands occur fairly often. If one takes a shot at
it once in a while, it's not likely to impact the return to much, but
it's also not going to increase your royals too much, so why bother?
And finally, is the point of video poker to hit jackpots? For many
people it is. Altering strategies to do that will cost them money (in
the "short term", "long term" and "in between-term"). But that's their
choice as long and as they have the facts going in, I respect that.
Players have many different goals.
Skip
···
--
Skip Hughes
www.vphomepage.com
mubowor:
I was only laughing at the fact that you didn't realize tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar was using exaggeration to point out the danger in straying from strategy. If you read his past posts, you would know he didn't really believe that stuff he wrote.
Actually, I am glad you posted your calculations, however - I didn't check them because I leave that to the math heads. And of course I am glad you used FVP!!!! But I really applaud your technique of checking out what your strategy modifications really cost you.
I have no problem with casual/not-so-often gamblers not sticking to the exact strategy. Actually I have no problem with anyone playing any old way they want. My only goal in my writing is to show people there are other ways to play, ways that perhaps will make them more money in the long term or have them lose less than they are in their present mode of play. Many people do not know there are other possibilities to the way they play. My job is to give them knowledge about the math so they can make more informed choices. I (and many of you) give the information; it's everyone's free choice which facts, if any, they wish to put into practice.
The biggest dangers I see for many people who know the exact strategies and then deviate from them is 1) they have never been truthful with themselves and figured out how much they are losing based on the number of hours they play - many people play more hours than they think they do - and 2) once they start deviating in one "little" case, they are tempted to deviate more and more frequently in other "little" cases until they aren't playing much better than the uninformed.
I just hate to see anyone not get value for their money. If you find value/personal pleasure in leaving basic strategy and "going for" more royals even though you are going to lose more in the long term than these royals will make up, then that is a valid personal decision. However, I don't spend much time writing about things like that - people seem to have that concept down pat and don't need me to encourage them. I use my time better, I think, to show the facts that are "harder," but perhaps more rewarding.
···
____________________
Jean $cott - "The Frugal Gambler"
MORE FRUGAL GAMBLING can NOW
be ordered, autographed, at a pre-pub
discount, at http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This one has me stumped. Which of the following is most likely?
(1) This person has a great sense of humor, with an extremely well
developed sense of sarcasm.
(2) This person is a greedy misanthropist. He/she intends to suck in
all the newbies so that the casinos will keep good vp alive.
(3) This person owns a casino.
Mr. Administrator: should we commission a poll? 
Brian
Personally, whenever I play
DDB, I always go for the royal. Isn't that what were here for?
Last year, I had Ah Kh Th 6h 3h. Sure I could have held the
flush, but that's only worth 25 coins (I know...I could have
found a machine for 30 coins, but I never win on those machines.)
So I dropped the 6h and 3h and I got the Qh and Jh for $4000.
Take that, Bob Dancer!Now, I always go for the royal. 3-card royals are a given, but 2-
card royals are very underrated. I've gotten more that one royal
from holding only 2 cards, so it would kill me if that's what cost
me my royal. Imagine getting dealt Ah Th Tc 4d 3d. I bet Dancer
would say to hold the tens, but it's not like that hand is a
winner,
anyway (I mean, I get dealt pairs all the time, but they never seem
to turn into quads). So I hold the Ah and Th (especially if the
machine seems hot). I mean, if I held the tens, and I got Kh Qh
Jh, I would just die, so I'm not taking that chance.Last month, I threw away all five cards and got a royal flush on
the redraw. And that reminded me that 0-card royal flush draws
can
···
--- tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar <tooncessnl@hotmail.com> wrote:
work also. So I used to hold hands like 9h 8h 7h cause Dancer's
stupid "perfect computer" said so. But think about it... you can't
get a royal flush that way, you can't even get four of a kind. And
if we're playing DDB, you don't get any bonuses for straight
flushes or regular flushes. So now I throw away all 5 cards and
put my royal chances in the hands of fate. This is what the
game is about, after all!Glad to see people that see things the same way I do. You go, Rob!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Mrs. Scott,
I love a hearty sense of humor and I'm glad you are amused. Perhaps
you will be a little more amused to find out that some of the
modifications on my play lately are due to playing around with
Frugal. Let me give you an example. Maybe if you find that I'm
outrageously wrong you will comment on it.In Jacks or Better the payback with perfect strategy is 99.54%.
Played with perfect strategy, the Royal cycle is 40,390.5 games.
Let
us assume I go to Las Vegas for a few days and recycle through a JB
machine $100,000. If I'm playing dollars, this is 20,000 games.
Now,
fooling around with Frugal I found out that if I make the slight
modification in strategy and I always hold three to a Royal instead
of a high pair, the theoretical return I obtain is 99.47%, but the
Royal cycle is now 34,375.9. How much return am I losing? 0.07% In
dollars and cents, for that $100,000, I'm giving up $70 by my
change
of strategy.
Assuming you did not hit a royal, you gave up more than just $70 (on
average) in cash ... you gave up the opportunity for $70 worth of
additional hands ... and their potential winning hands ... hands that
might have yielded even more opportunities to connect for a royal.
Obviously if your goal is a royal, you're more likely to get one if
you have more opportunities.
There are solid principles (truths) forming the foundation for
successful VP play, but plenty of room for individual styles of play
depending on goals and perspectives. One does need to keep in mind
that deviations from "proper" play have a cost ... a cost that may
not be obvious or fully appreciated.
There is an additional cost ... I wonder if anyone else spotted it.
2-W
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mubowor" <erchalb@c...> wrote:
Brian, you can't be serious ... unless you're not familiar with TC (I
prefer Top Cat) postings. It's pure humor and sarcasm (and very
clever).
Then again, maybe I missed YOUR sense of humor! <g>
2-W
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Brian Lavoie <blavoie46@y...> wrote:
This one has me stumped. Which of the following is most likely?
(1) This person has a great sense of humor, with an extremely well
developed sense of sarcasm.(2) This person is a greedy misanthropist. He/she intends to suck in
all the newbies so that the casinos will keep good vp alive.(3) This person owns a casino.
Mr. Administrator: should we commission a poll?
Brian
First of all, it is true...Jean blew my cover...I am a math geek (and
thanks for the nice words, btw)
But the argument from your example below of "I'm giving up only $70
in EV for an extra chance at a $4000 royal", is like betting $100
on "00" on the roulette wheel, arguing "I'm giving up only $7 in EV
for a 1 in 38 chance at $3500". While it is true that the loss of EV
is $7, and also true that you have a 1 in 38 chance to win $3500, to
combine them into one sentence makes the play sound like a really
good opportunity when it isn't.
The proper way to think about it is to consider the "true cost" of
not hitting the big hand. In my example, it should read "It only
costs me $100 for a 1 in 38 chance at $3500" (suddenly sounding not
so good). And in the case of going the the royal, the "true cost"
would be determined by figuring out the cost of not hitting the royal
(or not getting any more royals than you would otherwise).
When you made the modification in FVP, it is true that the EV only
dropped from 99.54% to 99.47%. But also, the "% contribution of the
royal" increased, from 1.98% to 2.33%. That means that the loss per
unit when you don't hit the royal increased from 2.44% to 2.86%.
I did an analysis of 20,000 hands of $1 9/6 Jacks, assuming .5% CB,
with and without the single strategy change you suggested (playing 3-
card royals over high pairs):
# of RF % likelihood in 20K hands Average results in that case
Dancer Go4Royal Dancer Go4Royal
0 60.9% 55.9% -1937 -2358
1 30.2% 32.5% +2063 +1642
2 7.5% 9.5% +6063 +5642
3 1.2% 1.8% +10063 +9642
4 0.2% 0.3% +14063 +13642
Weighed Avg. +41 -37
Notice that there is about a 95% chance that by trying for royals,
you will in fact not get any more royals over 20,000 hands. In that
case, you will lose, on average, $420 more than you would have
otherwise (or win $420 less). The other 5% of the time, you will get
1 or 2 additional royals. In that case, you will win an additional
$3500 or possibly $7500 than you would otherwise. The net result is
the $70 (in this example, $78) that you mentioned.
As Jean mentioned, there's nothing inherently "bad" about wanting to
go for the royal. But using the more meaningful number, $420,
instead of $70, will prevent you from tricking yourself with
misleading figures.
Mrs. Scott,
I love a hearty sense of humor and I'm glad you are amused. Perhaps
you will be a little more amused to find out that some of the
modifications on my play lately are due to playing around with
Frugal. Let me give you an example. Maybe if you find that I'm
outrageously wrong you will comment on it.In Jacks or Better the payback with perfect strategy is 99.54%.
Played with perfect strategy, the Royal cycle is 40,390.5 games.
Let
us assume I go to Las Vegas for a few days and recycle through a JB
machine $100,000. If I'm playing dollars, this is 20,000 games.
Now,
fooling around with Frugal I found out that if I make the slight
modification in strategy and I always hold three to a Royal instead
of a high pair, the theoretical return I obtain is 99.47%, but the
Royal cycle is now 34,375.9. How much return am I losing? 0.07% In
dollars and cents, for that $100,000, I'm giving up $70 by my
change
of strategy.
Is the extra $70 risked important? Here is where the individual
decision comes. I have made many simulations in Frugal with both
the
correct strategy and the modification. The change in Royal cycle
from
40,390.5 to 34,375.9 is quite significant and it does show on those
simulations, on the charts. Now, we all know Royals don't come
after
a cycle on the dot, but distribute themselves in a random way.
Still,
with the strategy change, the, let us call it, density of Royals
increases. If on a trip one plays only 20,000 games, certainly one
has more of a real expectation to get a Royal with the modified
strategy than with perfect strategy. I choose to hold three to a
Royal over a high pair knowing it would cost me on the order of $70
on the trip, for the chance of getting a fun $4,000. Gambling is
gambling, so the old tautology goes. I understand perfectly that if
I
were going to live in Las Vegas, and play many hours, and set as a
goal extracting the maximum amount of money from the JB machine,
then
I better hold that high pair instead of three to a Royal if I'm not
in a progressive machine. I don't want to give up thousands of
dollars after millions of games if I set that goal for myself.
Since
that is not my goal, and a $4,000 jackpot would "make my trip", to
nearly paraphrase a former mayor of Carmel, then on the few times I
get to choose during the trip among three to a Royal and a high
pair,
I take a sip of my drink and go for the Royal!
Regards,
E
P.S.: I hope the numbers in Frugal are right. I believe they are.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...>
wrote:
> <<I hope I'm not being too presumptuous by suggesting that
perhaps
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mubowor" <erchalb@c...> wrote:
you
> are overdoing the quest for a Royal.>>
>
> tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar: I just knew someone would write
this post in response to yours - and be serious. I've got to quit
laughing - I have work to do today which I can't do doubled over.
>
>
>
>
> ____________________
> Jean $cott - "The Frugal Gambler"
> MORE FRUGAL GAMBLING can NOW
> be ordered, autographed, at a pre-pub
> discount, at http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]