vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's Multi-Strike Poker Analysis (long post plus math)

#1

Good Timing. I sent out the same thing as your email came into my inbox!

···

----- Original Message -----
From: tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 8/28/2003 2:20:27 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's Multi-Strike Poker Analysis (long post plus math)

> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:
> > Here is the math I did:
Hand Name Payout REAL Frequency Earnings x 5
ROYAL FLUSH 802 800 60.841077 243364.308
STRAIGHT FLUSH 52 50 197.50090 49375.225
4 OF A KIND 27 25 6158.7797 769847.4625
FULL HOUSE 11 9 30039.482 1351776.69
FLUSH 8 6 26692.694 800780.82
STRAIGHT 6 4 23057.326 461146.52
3 OF A KIND 5 3 194836.93 2922553.95
TWO PAIR 4 2 338805.12 3388051.2
JACKS OR BETTER 3 1 578474.37 2892371.85
      Sub-Total 1198323.043677 9986896.1755
NOTHING 0 1400637.0
      Total 2598960.043677 x 5 = 12994800.218385

As I suspected earlier, you made a calculation error that resulted in
the ridiculously low return for Tier 3. The sum of numbers on the
far right column is 12,879,219 not 9,986,896 which most likely left
off the earnings on a pair of Jacks-Aces.

Dividing the actual subtotal into the total hands results in a 99.11%
return at tier 3, which I would suspect gets you in the vicinity of
Dancer's result.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/a7ga

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#2

Howard Stern wrote:

Good Timing. I sent out the same thing as your email came into my inbox!

Thanks you, also, Howard. Finding this error has taught me several things:

First, no matter how sure I am that the math is correct, check it yet again when someone insists that there has to be an error in there somewhere;

Second, that MultiStrike is better than single-line, and except for possible volatility problems wreaking havoc on my bankroll, that's what I need to play when it is available; and

Third, that despite my math error, my methods for checking Bob's strategy were correct; this gives me a lot of confidence to check other things in a similar manner.

Cheers.

Bill Velek