vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's Latest Article.

#1

It is interesting that the differences of opinion on this topic do
not have to do with math, but with psychology. Some of us give more
importance to a jackpot than others. The degree of importance we give
the different aspects of the game will determine a great variety of
styles.

Take this situation again. You are playing a $25 9/6 non progressive
Jacks or Better machine and you get 5h Tc Th Qh Ah. There are people
that will play the four card flush and not bat an eye if they get a
fourth card to a Royal. I just could not in this example, even if it
is the correct play, hold the four flush and maybe get $750 and pass
a one in a thousand chance for $100,000. The knowledge that if I play
this hand correctly on the $25 machine many, many thousands of times
I would be making money is not pertinent to me. I hardly ever play
$25 machines, and the long term in this situation will never happen
in my lifetime, unless I win Megabucks, LOL.

The concept of the short term is sort of elusive. The shortest short
term is one play, and it is impossible to get back 99.54% of your
money there, even if you play a $1,000 machine, should there be one.
You get back absolutely nothing with a probability higher than 1/2.
If one were to play an expensive machine just once and one really
wants some money back, the best strategy would be to maximize the
probability of winning something, and I believe in the above hand one
would agree that this is met by holding the four flush. This is the
shortest of the short term and I can't imagine anyone playing this
but, who knows?, maybe a homeless person collects enough cans, trades
them for $500 and decides to play a $100 VP machine just for one game
one time in his life. It can work. Isn't there a homeless person that
won Megabucks just this way? What would this homeless person do in
this situation? I think, again, it depends on the individual homeless
person.

We know what the long term is. Strictly speaking it is infinite. In
practical terms, playing a few million hands one can be reasonably
confident to get a return near 99.54% in JB, but there are no
assurances.

What then can be considered the short term in the hunt for a Royal?
To me a few days trip to Las Vegas is the short term. Roughly, one is
dealt three cards to a Royal every 100 hands. Let us assume on a few
days trip one plays 20,000 hands. This means one expects to be dealt
three to a Royal roughly some 200 times. When one holds three to a
Royal, one has roughly a one in a thousand chance to complete the
sought after hand. The above numbers are not too bad. For 200
opportunities to have a one in a thousand chance to get a Royal, I'm
willing to give up 0.07% in return. 20,000 hands is not the shortest
of the short term, but it is short, and I'm willing to sacrifice some
long term return for that Royal and hence play the three to a Royal
all the time.

The problem of not getting Royals can affect even a player playing
millions of hands, as I have read happens in practice. Playing x
millions of hands is no guarantee for hitting x two-dozen Royals.

I wish there was a secret to make sure one gets a Royal in a
reasonable situation, but I don't know any.

E

#2

mubowor wrote:

<snip>

Hey, Mubowor, I think we're pretty close on most of this, but:

The concept of the short term is sort of elusive.

Yes, it certainly is! Especially in the last couple of years.
<snip>

We know what the long term is. Strictly speaking it is infinite.

No, I can't really agree with that*.

To me a few days trip to Las Vegas is the short term. For 200
opportunities to have a one in a thousand chance to get a Royal, I'm
willing to give up 0.07% in return. 20,000 hands is not the shortest
of the short term, but it is short, and I'm willing to sacrifice some
long term return

But it's not (only) long term return (whatever that is) you are
sacrificing. You are sacrificing return, period.

*The reason that I put "short term" and "long term" in quotes all the
time is that I believe that these terms have been misused so much that
people might misunderstand the way they have traditionally and
accurately been used. They have been and I believe should be, used for
comparison. They are relative terms.

I think we can all agree that the longer you play the better the chance
that the results will conform to the average. This effect can be shown
in just a few thousand hands. May people here are familiar with the
charts Jazbo Burns, Dean Zamzow and Tim Sefton have provided us over the
years showing this effect. But that doesn't mean that your play over the
next two weeks is unaffected by the fairly simple** mathematical
concepts used to determine strategy. It is. You can't get away from the
odds. Deviating seriously from strategy will (on average) show up very
quickly in results.

**If I can understand the math, it's fairly simple<g>.

Whatever your long term is (you can choose your lifetime play if you
wish), your play right now is part of those long-term statistics. There
is just no way around that. It is also part of any shorter term you wish
to define, a trip, a day, an hour, whatever. No way around that either.

So getting back to the examples, one can alter one's play to change the
expectations for a visit or a day. For those who wish to keep playing
and want to minimize risk (I know this has been the subject of another
interesting thread here), going for 4 card flushes rather than a 3 card
royal could be a component of a reasonable plan. This certainly is a
"short-term" strategy that will theoretically allow you better chances
to stay in the game during a particular stay, while sacrificing some
overall (longer term, if you like) EV. Staying in the game doesn't just
mean more time you can spend playing VP but more comps and maybe a
higher player rating. This is not a real good plan for locals who play
every week, though.

On the other hand, playing for jackpots instead of lower variance hands
will sacrifice both shorter term expectations and longer term
expectations, in return for the chance to hit big jackpots, whether it's
a RF, aces, or aces w/kicker. There's no free lunch in VP expectations.
This is an even worse plan for local everyday players. Taken to an
extreme (which you don't) it turns video poker into little more than a
slot machine.

I also know that many people will choose a lower hourly return on a
dollar game over a higher hourly return on a quarter game, so that they
have a chance to hit a $4,000 royal instead of a $1,000 royal. And folks
will choose a lower return multiplay over a higher return single play,
because they will have a better chance of hitting a royal. People like
to hit royals. I know that. You know what - I like to hit 'em too! And a
Royal Flush Rush is practically nirvana.

Again, I think if someone is informed and consciously chooses that
style of play that's their prerogative. It's gambling! Fire Away! I hope
anyone who does this gets lucky and hits a ton of royals! I don't
personally recommend it, but we're all (hopefully) adults here. Also, as
I mentioned some of these plays are pretty much inconsequential,
EV-wise. I'm not talking about those.
Thanks,
Skip

···

--
Skip Hughes
www.vphomepage.com

#3

Your post reads like a happy post, seems you are celebrating. Did you
hit a Royal? LOL.

You know, I seem to remember a Bob Dancer article where he talks
about just the hand I have been mentioning, the four card flush with
the three to a Royal including the ten and the ace, and he was on a
$25 machine, and he did the correct move and got the fourth card to a
Royal. If I remember the article correctly, his machine neighbor made
some remark or gesture, but BD did not give it much importance. He
was absolutely confident he had done the right thing and in the "long
term" -I'm not sure he used this term, maybe he just said he used the
highest EV hand so it was the right play- he would win more this way.

This is interesting because you say you would keep the three to a
Royal. I know the advantage in EV in keeping the four card flush in a
hand like this is something of the order of 0.005, but I find it
curious that you would just disregard it, and BD would not. I wish I
could find the old article where BD narrates this anecdote. There is
a definite difference of opinion between you and BD on this hand, and
it is not the math, it is psychological. Well, it is partly the math,
I doubt you both would differ on your opinions about two holds with a
larger EV difference. I believe besides psychology, the "long term"
does enter into this. Think of a guy in his twenties that moves to
Las Vegas and decides to play VP every day until he gets tired of it
once he gets to be eighty-years-old. I can see for that guy that
0.005 EV difference in this hold would be very relevant.

When you do say some plays are inconsequential, you do have some time
frame in mind. These plays are only inconsequential if you don't play
long enough to make them significant.

On the other hand I do wonder what would BD do next time he is on a
$25 or a $100 machine and gets a similar hand. Will he just play the
four flush without batting an eye?

I agree we essentially don't disagree. I agree some modifications of
strategy that are larger than that in the hand discussed above can
show in your return very quickly. If I were that guy that moved to
Las Vegas in his twenties, I would try to improve my speed, and know
all the penalty holds of the games I play, and respect those.

Sorry, I guess us visitors are sloppy gamblers. We like to have a
drink and celebrate a $4,000 royal regardless of our "long term"
or "lifetime" VP balance. But some of us that read these message
groups and get the softwares, don't want to overdo it since overdoing
the quest for a Royal can be very, very costly.

What can I tell you? I wish I had a magic wand and walk through a
casino and when the wand points to a machine, that's the machine that
will definitely give a Royal within half an hour. LOL.

Regards,

E

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skip-hughes@e...> wrote:

Also, as
I mentioned some of these plays are pretty much inconsequential,
EV-wise. I'm not talking about those.
Thanks,
Skip
--
Skip Hughes
www.vphomepage.com

#4

mubowor wrote:

Your post reads like a happy post, seems you are celebrating. Did you
hit a Royal? LOL.

Actually I am not the brightest light in town these days, but one needs
to keep his sense of humor.

I wish I
could find the old article where BD narrates this anecdote. There is
a definite difference of opinion between you and BD on this hand, and
it is not the math, it is psychological.

Bob and I have real differences of opinion on the importance of playing
a "perfect strategy". We actually carried on a series of columns about
it in Casino Player a couple of years back. It was a lot of fun.

I believe that a much simpler strategy that comes within, say .005% of
perfect, is plenty accurate. That last .005% is often achieved by
learning many esoteric penalty card situations. I thank that time is
better spent researching slot clubs, comps and promos which have a much
greater effect of return. Actually, finding change in the sofa has
bigger impact<g>. But again there's no one way that's right for
everyone. Some people get a great deal of satisfaction out of knowing
the perfect strategy. That's good for them.
Thanks,
Skip

···

--
Skip Hughes
www.vphomepage.com

#5

You know, I might have made a mistake about the anecdote in my post
with the hand I have been discussing. It might have been the little
anecdote BD relates in his book on Jacks or Better. The one that got
the fourth to a Royal in that hand where he held a flush with three
to a Royal was not him, but his machine neighbor. In any case, he
does recommend the play as the better one, and you don't. I used to
read Casino Player, even suscribed for a few years, but then got lazy
and stopped some five or six years ago, and just picked it up
occasionally since then. I must have missed those Casino Players with
the exchange of articles between you and Bob Dancer, but I will try
to find them. If it was a series of articles, there must be a lot
discussed on them. They sound like fun.

On one point of psychology I'm sure all of us here agree -well, maybe
one should not say all, but, say, 99...%, just to make sure- and that
is that a Royal is a nice way to brighten up a person's mood. Thanks,

E

mubowor wrote:
>
> Your post reads like a happy post, seems you are celebrating. Did

you

> hit a Royal? LOL.

Actually I am not the brightest light in town these days, but one

needs

to keep his sense of humor.

>
> I wish I
> could find the old article where BD narrates this anecdote. There

is

> a definite difference of opinion between you and BD on this hand,

and

> it is not the math, it is psychological.

Bob and I have real differences of opinion on the importance of

playing

a "perfect strategy". We actually carried on a series of columns

about

it in Casino Player a couple of years back. It was a lot of fun.

I believe that a much simpler strategy that comes within,

say .005% of

perfect, is plenty accurate. That last .005% is often achieved by
learning many esoteric penalty card situations. I thank that time is
better spent researching slot clubs, comps and promos which have a

much

greater effect of return. Actually, finding change in the sofa has
bigger impact<g>. But again there's no one way that's right for
everyone. Some people get a great deal of satisfaction out of

knowing

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skip-hughes@e...> wrote:

the perfect strategy. That's good for them.
Thanks,
Skip
--
Skip Hughes
www.vphomepage.com