vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 2 OCT 2012

#1

Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 2 OCT 2012

"Power of the Pack"

http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/1002.cfm

<a href="http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/1002.cfm">
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/1002.cfm</a>

···

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

#2

From article: "An example from NSU is that from W 5♥ 6♣ 7♦ A♠ we draw five new cards while from W 5♥ 6♣ 7♦ T♠ we hold W 5♥ 6♣ 7♦. This is a Power of the Pack consideration because the A is far more extreme than the T."

Huh? On the first one, wouldn't W be held?

···

________________________________
From: vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@gmail.com>
To: (vpFREE) <vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 3:23 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 2 OCT 2012

Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 2 OCT 2012

"Power of the Pack"

http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/1002.cfm

<a href="http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/1002.cfm">
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/1002.cfm</a>

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

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

#3

From article: "An example from NSU is that from W 5♥ 6♣ 7♦ A♠ we draw five new cards while from W 5♥ 6♣ 7♦ T♠ we hold W 5♥ 6♣ 7♦. This is a Power of the Pack consideration because the A is far more extreme than the T."

Huh? On the first one, wouldn't W be held? Absolutely. My bad. Thanx for pointing it out. I'll get it fixed.
Bob
  
  .

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

#4

I'm surprised that in Bob's discussion of the "power of the pack", that the relationship to possible straights (incl SF's, and in the case of the DW 5K vs 3W hold, WRF's) that might be formed on the draw didn't enter into the picture.

In my mind, this cements exactly why when you're discarding extreme cards of the deck, the balance of the pack has "more power".

Knowing Bob, though, I wouldn't be surprised if he includes an exception to this in his concept.

- H.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@...> wrote:

Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 2 OCT 2012

"Power of the Pack"

http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/1002.cfm

<a href="http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/1002.cfm">
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/1002.cfm</a>

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

#5

Harry wrote: I'm surprised that in Bob's discussion of the "power of the pack", that the relationship to possible straights (incl SF's, and in the case of the DW 5K vs 3W hold, WRF's) that might be formed on the draw didn't enter into the picture.

Hmm . . . I thought I did (assuming it was your turn to mis-type when you spoke of straights including three deuces --- although I'm ahead because my mistake was bigger than your mistake!)My phrase of "(Even though it
doesn’t change the play, the value of drawing to three deuces is quite a bit
higher from W W W 3♥ 3♣ and W W W 6♥ 6♣). " was all about that very concept --- although by that time in the article I didn't think it was necessary to completely spell it out. While there will always be players whose eyes glaze over at this kind of article, I thought that anybody still following the discussion would be able to connect the dots by that point.Is this what you're talking about Harry or am I missing your point?Bob
  
  Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use.

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

#6

Looking to keep things simple, what I'll observe is that I find "power of the pack" tends to obfuscate what exactly is involved in a shift to hold strategy. In most all instances, the basic principal is that when you discard at the extremes of the deck (say, 2's, 3's, K's, A's in a non-wild game) you leave a larger number of potential straights (and related hands) to be formed on the draw than is typically the case ... and, thus, the value of drawing 5 new cards (or, in a wild card game, holding only wilds) rises to a maximal value -- one that's sufficient in some cases to elevate the redraw over other holds that normally prevail in value.

And, yes, one can certainly arrive at that conclusion by "connecting the dots". I simply find it worthy of outright statement.

- H.

···

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

Harry wrote: I'm surprised that in Bob's discussion of the "power of the pack", that the relationship to possible straights (incl SF's, and in the case of the DW 5K vs 3W hold, WRF's) that might be formed on the draw didn't enter into the picture.

Hmm . . . I thought I did (assuming it was your turn to mis-type when you spoke of straights including three deuces --- although I'm ahead because my mistake was bigger than your mistake!)My phrase of "(Even though it
doesn’t change the play, the value of drawing to three deuces is quite a bit
higher from W W W 3♥ 3♣ and W W W 6♥ 6♣). " was all about that very concept --- although by that time in the article I didn't think it was necessary to completely spell it out. While there will always be players whose eyes glaze over at this kind of article, I thought that anybody still following the discussion would be able to connect the dots by that point.Is this what you're talking about Harry or am I missing your point?Bob

#7

Harry wrote: Looking to keep things simple, what I'll observe is that I find "power of the pack" tends to obfuscate what exactly is involved in a shift to hold strategy. Just using the word "obfuscate" tends to obfuscate the matter Bob

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

#8

Really, Bob??

I never considered "obfuscate" to rest among the most arcane reaches of my, or most anyone else's, vocabulary.

I gonna guess that most who read the post got that I generally meant "make obscure". (And for those who didn't, if they googled a dictionary to learn a new word, I don't think that's such a bad thing.)

So why didn't I just say "obscure"? Because the primary implication of "obfuscate" is "to confuse", something that "obscure" doesn't directly communicate.

- H.

···

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

Harry wrote: Looking to keep things simple, what I'll observe is that I find "power of the pack" tends to obfuscate what exactly is involved in a shift to hold strategy. Just using the word "obfuscate" tends to obfuscate the matter Bob

#9

Harry wrote: Really, Bob?? I never considered "obfuscate" to rest among the most arcane reaches of my, or most anyone else's, vocabulary. While I suppose we could debate what percentage of vpFREE members could define this word, my comment was intended to be clever and smart-alecky. Apparently it didn't come across that way, at least to Harry, so I apologize to both him and the others here for my unsuccessful attempt at humor. Reading this thread, one could easily come to the conclusion that Harry and I are feuding with each other about the "Power of the Pack" definition. I don't think this is the case. We are friends and have mutual respect. It's a tough concept to explain --- and Harry and I have different preferences on the best way to simply that explanation. But neither of us are taking the position that the other guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Bob

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

#10

Well, I'll offer my own apology for a possible misreading and likely having come across a little thin skinned.

I didn't think a definition was in dispute ... I just expressed an opinion that the term "power of the pack" itself didn't shed a lot of insight into what's really at work. (By contrast, I find "penalty card" to get directly to the heart of what the term describes.) I also suggested that your article may have been lacking by citing examples, without providing a gut level generalization that cemented the concept.

But, that is, of course, a matter of opinion. I find it notable that no one else was prompted to weigh in on how strongly the term itself communicates the concept to them, or remark on the article. As such, it's probably a good idea to ditch the discussion.

- H.

···

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

Harry wrote: Really, Bob?? I never considered "obfuscate" to rest among the most arcane reaches of my, or most anyone else's, vocabulary. While I suppose we could debate what percentage of vpFREE members could define this word, my comment was intended to be clever and smart-alecky. Apparently it didn't come across that way, at least to Harry, so I apologize to both him and the others here for my unsuccessful attempt at humor. Reading this thread, one could easily come to the conclusion that Harry and I are feuding with each other about the "Power of the Pack" definition. I don't think this is the case. We are friends and have mutual respect. It's a tough concept to explain --- and Harry and I have different preferences on the best way to simply that explanation. But neither of us are taking the position that the other guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Bob

#11

Yes, that explanation has a sonorous chime, and indubitably apprehended !

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@verizon.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 2:39 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 2 OCT 2012

Well, I'll offer my own apology for a possible misreading and likely having come across a little thin skinned.

I didn't think a definition was in dispute ... I just expressed an opinion that the term "power of the pack" itself didn't shed a lot of insight into what's really at work. (By contrast, I find "penalty card" to get directly to the heart of what the term describes.) I also suggested that your article may have been lacking by citing examples, without providing a gut level generalization that cemented the concept.