vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's LVA - 29 JUL 2014

#1

Albert Pearson

wrote (snip):

  I had a very long career at IBM mainly

working on computer programs that constantly required changes. You
are correct about testing but are clearly wrong about programs
being static. I think you [Bob] used a poor comparison.
I agree with you completely, Albert. I’ve been programming computers
since 1957, and I’ve never seen a program that was widely used that
was static. Things change in the world of video poker, and so
Optimum Video Poker keeps changing and growing, adding requested
features.

Dan
··· 
-- Dan Paymar, developer of "Optimum Video Poker" software
Visit my web site at "Chance favors the prepared mind" ~ Louis Pasteur

http://www.OptimumPlay.com

#2

Albert Pearson

wrote (snip):

  I had a very long career at IBM mainly

working on computer programs that constantly required changes. You
are correct about testing but are clearly wrong about programs
being static. I think you [Bob] used a poor comparison.

Dan Paymar added:

I agree with you completely, Albert. I've been programming computers

since 1957, and I’ve never seen a program that was widely used that
was static. Things change in the world of video poker, and so
Optimum Video Poker keeps changing and growing, adding requested
features.

···

In general Albert and Dan are correct about computer programs evolving over time.

However, from the context of the article, the “computer program” metaphor I was talking about consisted of playing NSU Deuces Wild (or other video poker game) completely accurately.

And that has NOT CHANGED.

I am not talking about Paymar’s Optimum Play strategies. Those changed regularly with each edition of his book — and every time he swore that his latest strategy was the best possible for players to use. I was talking about perfect strategy. That has not changed.

Anybody who still uses WinPoker (including me) is using a program that hasn’t been altered in 15 years or so (other than adapting to newer versions of Windows). It worked well 15 years ago. It works well today.

.

#3

Bob: I have a couple of questions for you .

What percentage of your reading public do you think aim to get to the level of accuracy that you do ?

What kind of feedback do you get on your columns when you get into the very fine points of playing individual hands ?

My own strategy is to be as close to perfect as I can be on the game that I play the most 9/6 JoB and play very solid basic strategy on all the other games that I dabble in. I’m
one of those players that does not play for a living. My objective is to go to a casino, have fun, get all my rooms and meals picked up by the casino, the odd bit of entertainment, and with free play and cash back go home with the money I came with. I’ve been accomplishing this for a lot of years.

If I worked at playing the game like you it would be like having a job. OOPS I forgot that is your job. When I worked I sought perfection, it was a job requirement. Now I am retired, this is a job that I am really good at. If you ever
retire look me up and I will give you advice on how to enjoy retirement.

Like I said in my initial post some of your writing is for a very small portion of your readership. I like to read all of your columns, but as soon as you go into one of your lectures on the finest small points of how to play specific hands, I stop reading.

Winpoker works as well today as always. It just doesn’t cover anywhere near as many games as there are out there now.

A proper business that had Winpoker as it’s main product would be putting out yearly updates to handle the newer games.

Would you think Winpoker was a good
training platform for Quick Quads?

Thanks

A.P.

···

From: “Bob Dancer bobdance…@…com [vpFREE]” <vpF…@…com>
To: “vpf…@…com” <vpf…@…com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 8:11:23 PM
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer’s LVA - 29 JUL 2014

Albert Pearson

wrote (snip):

  I had a very long career at IBM mainly

working on computer programs that constantly required changes. You
are correct about testing but are clearly wrong about programs
being static. I think you [Bob] used a poor comparison.

Dan Paymar added:

I agree with you completely, Albert. I've been programming computers

since 1957, and I’ve never seen a program that was widely used that
was static. Things change in the world of video poker, and so
Optimum Video Poker keeps changing and growing, adding requested
features.

In general Albert and Dan are correct about computer programs evolving over time.

However, from the context of the article, the “computer program” metaphor I was talking about consisted of playing NSU Deuces Wild (or other video poker game) completely accurately.

And that has NOT CHANGED.

I am not talking about Paymar’s Optimum Play strategies. Those changed regularly with each edition of his book — and every time he swore that his latest strategy was the best possible for players to use. I was talking about perfect strategy. That has not changed.

Anybody who still uses
WinPoker (including me) is using a program that hasn’t been altered in 15 years or so (other than adapting to newer versions of Windows). It worked well 15 years ago. It works well today.

.

#4

Albert Pearson writes:

<< My own strategy is to be as close to perfect as I can be on the game that I play the most 9/6 JoB and play very solid basic strategy on all the other games that I dabble in. I’m one of those players that does not
play for a living. My objective is to go to a casino, have fun, get all
my rooms and meals picked up by the casino, the odd bit of entertainment, and with free play and cash back go home with the money I
came with. I’ve been accomplishing this for a lot of years. >>

Although my objective is different–I AM mainly looking for profitable opportunities–my approach is similar. Not being a VP specialist, I can’t justify putting in the time to learn every game perfectly. As a general rule, I have no interest in grinding out a profit from long hours of play. It’s quite rare these days for a grind to be a significantly profitable play, even taking into account points into play. Either the stakes are too small to interest me, or the edge is so small that the wisdom of playing for higher stakes is questionable, given the bankroll that I’m willing to risk. Like most APs, I’m more interested in generating a profit from relatively short hit and run plays, aimed at producing bounceback or other benefits. And since the edge on such plays is pretty large and the total coin in required is limited, there’s frankly not a lot of value to playing every game perfectly. A good enough strategy is, well, good enough.

Jacks or Better being the most common game, and being a sort of baseline for a lot of other games, it’s the one game that I’ve tried to learn to play absolutely perfectly, and fast. (Fast according to my personal definition, while remaining accurate; I don’t want to get into a contest with any of the true speed demons.) Fortunately, Jacks or Better has probably the simplest strategy of any game.

The software and publications out there, including Bob Dancer’s, typically present a range of strategies for a game, from simpler to more complex, and show the expectation for each. The simplest or close to the simplest is nearly always just fine for my purposes. It’s rare (though there are exceptions for more exotic games) for further refinements to improve expectation by more than a couple of hundredths of a percent.

Having Jacks or Better strategy down cold, all I need to study for most other games are the differences from JOB strategy. JOB strategy without changes actually suffices for several other games. Then there’s NSUD, for which the strategy is totally unrelated, of course. And pseudo-NSUD or Illinois-Airport Deuces, for which NSUD strategy is very close. I essentially never find other deuces games that interest me. There are a couple of places where I’ll play Joker Poker 2 Pair, which again is a totally unrelated strategy. But that’s about it!

What’s important to me is to be fast and accurate, not to be perfect.