Dan's Asked Me To Give It My Best Shot

[Bob_Dancer1]

I am surprised that Dan welcomed a chance to identify his
errors. But he did, and he deserves a response. He invited me to "give
it my best shot", and I intend to do that. Had he not made such an
invitation, I would not have written this.

  He says he didn't start this thread. Fair enough, but I didn't
either. Someone else suggested that the reason I started writing about
video poker is because opportunities were drying up, and I responded,
truthfully, that the reason I started writing about video poker was that
the current writers weren't very accurate. Dan said that the reason my
Reports were so accurate was that I copied them from him. That is
inaccurate and highly offensive. Had he not said that, this thread would
not have started.

  I am getting chastised on vpFREE for picking on Dan. In my
opinion, he asked for it by accusing me of copying his work. I have
stated many times that Dan's work is extremely sloppy and that people
using it are making a large number of mistakes. I was not going to keep
harping on that, but when Dan starts up and accuses me of plagiarism,
he's asking for it, in my opinion.

  Dan suggested that his Precision Play for Jacks or Better was
certified to be within 0.01% by Jazbo. I responded that this slandered
Jazbo. I can't believe that Jazbo is so inaccurate that he would make
such a miscalculation. I've always believed the error was considerably
larger than that, but I never calculated it until tonight. My
calculation tonight (shown below) shows that the error is actually
0.0136% --- although I was only working with 4-place numbers so that
number might be off a bit. This is 40¢ an hour for the
600-hands-per-hour dollar player. Since I was planning on moving up to
$5, I couldn't see playing a strategy that would cost me $2 an hour.
This was hopelessly inaccurate for my purposes. If you count the error
made by EITHER the Precision Rules or Table 2 in the back (they are NOT
the same at all), the error is closer to .015%.

  I completed the following table in about an hour. I did figure
out an error overnight (in counting the hands including "KT", a flush
penalty, and a 9 penalty, I forgot to subtract out hands like "KT8"97,
which is a 4-card straight and is handled correctly by Dan. It's
possible that more errors exist. But it should be pretty close. And if I
were going to publish this in a book, it would be checked three or four
times. If anyone doesn't understand how a certain number was derived,
feel free to ask.

  Dan's Precision Play strategy misplays 22,500 different hands,
listed below. (With a number like this it may appear to be rounded. But
it's not. That's the number of hands I counted.) This is approximately 1
in 115 hands. The Advanced strategy I published in my reports misplays
zero hands. It's hard to imagine how he figures I copied his work. If I
had copied his work, I would have the same errors he did.

  Each of the hands has a number next to it showing the number of
occurrences. To show an example of how this number was calculated, look
at the first row. (This error in particular is one that Dan never
attempted to play correctly. I'll discuss later which hands were because
there were penalty cards and which ones were due to sloppiness. The
explanation here is how the 288 figure is derived.)

  This hand occurs when "AKT", "AQT", or "AJT" is combined with a
card of the same suit in the range 2-9. Further this must be accompanied
by an off-suit ten. There are four suits. So we multiply 4 (for the
number of suits) * 3 (for the number of 3-card royals in the category) *
8 (number of different cards in the range 2-9) * 3 (number of suits
possible for the off-suit ten). This comes out to 288.

  The next column over is the size of error if you are playing
five coins on a $1 machine. The error here of 0.0046 represents slightly
less than a half-cent. (This number is five times as large as the 1-coin
EV figure that Dan prefers to use. We each have our reasons for using
the particular EV sizes we do, but there is a 1-to-1 correspondence
between them and either can be used to do calculations.) There are
several errors on this list in excess of 40¢.

  The last column is an "extension" --- that is, the product of
the previous two columns. I needed to do this in order to calculate the
size of the total error.

  There are more notes below the chart.

1 Ah Kh Th 2h Ts 288 0.0046 1.3248
2 Ah Kh Th 2h Js 576 0.0370 21.3120
3 As Ks 2h 3h 5h 108 0.3454 37.3032
4 As Ks 3h 4h 6h 288 0.2814 81.0432
5 As Js 7h 8h Th 24 0.3256 7.8144
6 As Qs 7h 8h Th 48 0.2516 12.0768
7 Ks Qs 2d 3d 5d 264 0.3627 95.7528
8 Ks Js 7d 8d Td 24 0.3972 9.5328
9 Ks Qs 7d 8d Td 24 0.3232 7.7568
10 Qs Js 2d 3d 5d 84 0.4539 38.1276
11 Qs Js 5d 6d 8d 24 0.4352 10.4448
12 Qs Js 6d 7d 9d 12 0.4145 4.9740
13 Qs Js 6d 8d 9d 12 0.3997 4.7964
14 Qs Js 7d 8d Td 12 0.4539 5.4468
15 Ah Js Qd Td 8d 48 0.0463 2.2224
16 As Ks Qh Jh 9d 144 0.0114 1.6416
17 As Ks Qh Jh 2h 288 0.0601 17.3088
18 Ah Js Ts 2d 3d 1008 0.1520 153.2160
19 Ah Js Ts 2d 7d 540 0.1323 71.4420
20 Ah Js Ts 2d 8d 540 0.1125 60.7500
21 Ah Js Ts 2d 9d 540 0.0928 50.1120
22 Ah Js Ts 2s 3d 720 0.0490 35.2800
23 Ah Js Ts 2s 7d 180 0.0095 1.7100
24 Ah Js Ts 2s 8d 180 0.0295 5.3100
25 Ah Js Ts 2s 9d 180 0.0095 1.7100
26 Ah Js Ts 8d 7d 108 0.0977 10.5516
27 Ah Js Ts 8d 7d 108 0.0780 8.4240
28 Kh Js Ts 2d 3d 1080 0.0731 78.9480
29 Kh Js Ts 2d 7d 540 0.0533 28.7820
30 Kh Js Ts 2d 8d 540 0.0336 18.1440
31 Kh Js Ts 2d 9d 540 0.0336 18.1440
32 Kh Js Ts 7d 8d 108 0.0188 2.0304
33 Kh Js Ts 7d 9d 108 0.0188 2.0304
34 Ah Qs Ts 2d 3d 1548 0.0607 93.9636
35 Ah Qs Ts 2d 8d 648 0.0410 26.5680
36 Ah Qs Ts 2d 9d 648 0.0212 13.7376
37 Ah Qs Ts 8d 9d 108 0.0064 0.6912
38 Kh Th 2h 9s 3d 1440 0.0077 11.0880
38 Jh Th 2h 3s 4d 972 0.1461 142.0092
40 Jh Th 2h 3s 7d 720 0.1317 94.8240
41 Jh Th 2h 3s 8d 720 0.1174 84.5280
42 Jh Th 2h 3s 9d 720 0.1031 74.2320
43 Jh Th 2h 7s 8d 180 0.1066 19.1880
44 Jh Th 2h 7s 9d 180 0.0923 16.6140
45 Qh Th 2h 3s 4d 2052 0.0764 156.7728
46 Qh Th 2h 3s 8d 1080 0.0620 66.9600
47 Qh Th 2h 3s 9d 1080 0.0476 51.4080
48 Qh Th 2h 8s 9d 36 0.0369 1.3284
49 Kh Th 2h 3s 5d 1080 0.0066 7.1280
           22500 1766.5044

  Rows 1 and 2 are legitimately omitted by someone developing a
penalty-free strategy, although that wasn't part of the terminology in
those days. I do not fault Dan for these particular errors, but many of
Dan's errors were because he used the penalty card concept incorrectly.
This wasn't understood by most players until my Reports came out ---
which is one reason I find it so offensive that Dan keeps repeating that
my Reports were basically a rehash of his Precision Play rules.

  Rows 3-14 are all cases where we have two suited high cards
combined with a 3-card straight flush with no high cards and one inside.
This was sloppy. This is hardly "optimal".

  Row 15 are cases where a 3-card straight flush with 1 high card
and two insides is less valuable than a 4-card inside straight with
three high cards. This is a case where there are an equal number of
cases where the straight flush is better than the inside straight as
there are where an inside straight is better than the straight flush.
Any simplified strategy has to pick one way or the other. If you pick
the way Dan did, all the errors are 4.6¢. If you pick the opposite way,
the same number of errors are 2.8¢ apiece. This is hardly "optimal".

  Row 16-17 are cases where AKQJ are superior to a suited "QJ".
These are reasonable things to omit in a simplified strategy. I do not
fault him for this.

  Rows 18-27 are cases where he said an unsuited AJ is superior to
a suited "JT". This is NEVER true in 9/6 Jacks. This is hardly
"optimal".

  Rows 28-33 are cases where he said an unsuited KJ is superior to
a suited "JT". This is a case where errors were inevitable, whether he
said
KJ > "JT" or he said "JT" > KJ --- because sometimes it's one way and
sometimes it's the other. This is something strategy-makers need to
accept if they are going to produce a simplified strategy.
Unfortunately, Dan chose the wrong one. "JT" > KJ is the better choice,
with fewer (and smaller) errors resulting. This is hardly "optimal".

  Rows 34-37 are cases where he said an unsuited AQ is superior to
a suited "QT". The exact comments from the previous paragraph apply
here, and again, Dan chose the wrong one. Again, he misuses the claim
"optimal"

  Row 38 is a highly penalized case that Dan willingly accepted. I
do not fault him for this.

  Rows 39-49 are just plain sloppiness. His rule 10 said "Keep a
suited ten when you have only one of A, K, Q, or J and no discard of the
same suit . . ." This is an extremely sloppy penalty card rule. He's
talking about flush penalties here, and there is only one case in 9/6
Jacks where this matters --- and it needs a straight penalty to boot.
(That's the case listed in row 38.) Here again, his claim for "optimal"
is misplaced.

  Both the number of errors and extension were summed. To get the
percentage error, I divided the sum of the error by ($5 * 2,598,960),
which is the total amount of money spent when each of the possible hands
are played for the stakes I'm talking about.

  Dan's Table 2 is what I would call an Appendix. It is a hand
listing for the same game. It corrects several of the errors Dan made in
his Precision Play rules but makes some others. His note m says " . . .
and don't hold a 10 with any honor if any discard is the same suit or a
straight card."

  I'm assuming that he means this to mean what is today referred
to as a flush penalty and a straight penalty. In rows 39-49 above, we've
already shown the quantity and size of his "flush penalty" misstatement.
There are NO cases where a straight penalty affects whether to hold to a
KT, QT, or JT except the aforementioned case on row 38 where we have
BOTH a flush penalty and a straight penalty.

  This would include the following cases: "JT"9, "JT"8, "JT"7,
"QT"9, "QT"8, and "KT"9 (where the last two cards are lower, and there
is no pair, 4-card straight, or 3-card straight flush in the hand), all
of which are misplayed by the rule. The reason I didn't count them all
is because I don't know when he says one penalty OR the other does he
really mean one penalty AND/OR the other. (Both interpretations are
wrong.)

  As sloppy and as "unoptimal" Dan's Jacks or Better strategy is,
his Joker Wild strategy is considerably worse.

  One of my problems with Dan's writing is that since he defined
Precision Play rules as "Optimal," as being, then the definition of
"Optimal," basically, is whatever he said it was. He says he didn't
change the strategies between editions 1-8 (I have no reason to doubt
this), but I know he changed them in each subsequent edition --- each
time changing the definition of "optimal". A far better definition of
"Optimal" is "the best possible strategy with using penalty cards".
Dancer/Daily Level 3 strategy, or the identical-except-for-format
version produced by Frugal VP offer good example of this. Jazbo's
strategies (which I last saw about five years ago) would meet this
definition. Paymar's rules are sadly lacking.

  I do owe Paymar two big thank yous. First, if his work hadn't
been so bad, I wouldn't have ever begun this career. Second, although he
used the term incorrectly and very sloppily, I didn't start thinking
about penalty cards until I saw his reference to it.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...>
wrote:

  I am surprised that Dan welcomed a chance to identify his
errors. But he did, and he deserves a response. He invited me

to "give

it my best shot", and I intend to do that. Had he not made such an
invitation, I would not have written this.

OK.

  He says he didn't start this thread. Fair enough, but I didn't
either. Someone else suggested that the reason I started writing

about

video poker is because opportunities were drying up, and I

responded,

truthfully, that the reason I started writing about video poker was

that

the current writers weren't very accurate. Dan said that the reason

my

Reports were so accurate was that I copied them from him. That is
inaccurate and highly offensive. Had he not said that, this thread

would

not have started.

I think it would be more accurate to state if you had not slandered
Dan first this thread would not have started. You do realize you
brought up his name first? Now, Dan stated that your format was
similar to his (was it?). If not, then all you need do is state what
was different that makes it obvious his was not copied.

  I am getting chastised on vpFREE for picking on Dan. In my
opinion, he asked for it by accusing me of copying his work. I have
stated many times that Dan's work is extremely sloppy and that

people

using it are making a large number of mistakes. I was not going to

keep

harping on that, but when Dan starts up and accuses me of

plagiarism,

he's asking for it, in my opinion.

What did you expect from Dan after your comments? Instead, of boring
us with the reasons why you're writing this note, why don't you say
something concrete.

  Dan suggested that his Precision Play for Jacks or Better was
certified to be within 0.01% by Jazbo. I responded that this

slandered

Jazbo. I can't believe that Jazbo is so inaccurate that he would

make

such a miscalculation. I've always believed the error was

considerably

larger than that, but I never calculated it until tonight. My
calculation tonight (shown below) shows that the error is actually
0.0136% ---

.01% is the correct ROUNDED two digit value for .0136% are you
suggesting Dan's statement is wrong? If not, what is are you trying
to say?

although I was only working with 4-place numbers so that
number might be off a bit. This is 40¢ an hour for the
600-hands-per-hour dollar player. Since I was planning on moving up

to

$5, I couldn't see playing a strategy that would cost me $2 an hour.
This was hopelessly inaccurate for my purposes. If you count the

error

made by EITHER the Precision Rules or Table 2 in the back (they are

NOT

the same at all), the error is closer to .015%.

Pick one. And, to be fair, you must add in the impact of a more
complicated strategy. Can't do this? I didn't think so. If you worked
for a major corporation you would do usability studies to determine
the impact of complexity. By the way, did you know most end-user
computer manuals are targeted to an eigth grade education?

  I completed the following table in about an hour. I did figure
out an error overnight (in counting the hands including "KT", a

flush

penalty, and a 9 penalty, I forgot to subtract out hands

like "KT8"97,

which is a 4-card straight and is handled correctly by Dan. It's
possible that more errors exist. But it should be pretty close. And

if I

were going to publish this in a book, it would be checked three or

four

times. If anyone doesn't understand how a certain number was

derived,

feel free to ask.

  Dan's Precision Play strategy misplays 22,500 different hands,
listed below. (With a number like this it may appear to be rounded.

But

it's not. That's the number of hands I counted.) This is

approximately 1

in 115 hands. The Advanced strategy I published in my reports

misplays

zero hands. It's hard to imagine how he figures I copied his work.

If I

had copied his work, I would have the same errors he did.

It was my impression that Dan claimed you copied the format (set of
rules) of his work. You need to answer THAT question since that is
what Dan is claiming. Answering a different question is a waste of
time.

  Each of the hands has a number next to it showing the number

of

occurrences. To show an example of how this number was calculated,

look

at the first row. (This error in particular is one that Dan never
attempted to play correctly. I'll discuss later which hands were

because

there were penalty cards and which ones were due to sloppiness. The
explanation here is how the 288 figure is derived.)

  This hand occurs when "AKT", "AQT", or "AJT" is combined with

a

card of the same suit in the range 2-9. Further this must be

accompanied

by an off-suit ten. There are four suits. So we multiply 4 (for the
number of suits) * 3 (for the number of 3-card royals in the

category) *

8 (number of different cards in the range 2-9) * 3 (number of suits
possible for the off-suit ten). This comes out to 288.

  The next column over is the size of error if you are playing
five coins on a $1 machine. The error here of 0.0046 represents

slightly

less than a half-cent. (This number is five times as large as the 1-

coin

EV figure that Dan prefers to use. We each have our reasons for

using

the particular EV sizes we do, but there is a 1-to-1 correspondence
between them and either can be used to do calculations.) There are
several errors on this list in excess of 40¢.

  The last column is an "extension" --- that is, the product of
the previous two columns. I needed to do this in order to calculate

the

size of the total error.

  There are more notes below the chart.

1 Ah Kh Th 2h Ts 288 0.0046 1.3248
2 Ah Kh Th 2h Js 576 0.0370 21.3120
3 As Ks 2h 3h 5h 108 0.3454 37.3032
4 As Ks 3h 4h 6h 288 0.2814 81.0432
5 As Js 7h 8h Th 24 0.3256 7.8144
6 As Qs 7h 8h Th 48 0.2516 12.0768
7 Ks Qs 2d 3d 5d 264 0.3627 95.7528
8 Ks Js 7d 8d Td 24 0.3972 9.5328
9 Ks Qs 7d 8d Td 24 0.3232 7.7568
10 Qs Js 2d 3d 5d 84 0.4539 38.1276
11 Qs Js 5d 6d 8d 24 0.4352 10.4448
12 Qs Js 6d 7d 9d 12 0.4145 4.9740
13 Qs Js 6d 8d 9d 12 0.3997 4.7964
14 Qs Js 7d 8d Td 12 0.4539 5.4468
15 Ah Js Qd Td 8d 48 0.0463 2.2224
16 As Ks Qh Jh 9d 144 0.0114 1.6416
17 As Ks Qh Jh 2h 288 0.0601 17.3088
18 Ah Js Ts 2d 3d 1008 0.1520 153.2160
19 Ah Js Ts 2d 7d 540 0.1323 71.4420
20 Ah Js Ts 2d 8d 540 0.1125 60.7500
21 Ah Js Ts 2d 9d 540 0.0928 50.1120
22 Ah Js Ts 2s 3d 720 0.0490 35.2800
23 Ah Js Ts 2s 7d 180 0.0095 1.7100
24 Ah Js Ts 2s 8d 180 0.0295 5.3100
25 Ah Js Ts 2s 9d 180 0.0095 1.7100
26 Ah Js Ts 8d 7d 108 0.0977 10.5516
27 Ah Js Ts 8d 7d 108 0.0780 8.4240
28 Kh Js Ts 2d 3d 1080 0.0731 78.9480
29 Kh Js Ts 2d 7d 540 0.0533 28.7820
30 Kh Js Ts 2d 8d 540 0.0336 18.1440
31 Kh Js Ts 2d 9d 540 0.0336 18.1440
32 Kh Js Ts 7d 8d 108 0.0188 2.0304
33 Kh Js Ts 7d 9d 108 0.0188 2.0304
34 Ah Qs Ts 2d 3d 1548 0.0607 93.9636
35 Ah Qs Ts 2d 8d 648 0.0410 26.5680
36 Ah Qs Ts 2d 9d 648 0.0212 13.7376
37 Ah Qs Ts 8d 9d 108 0.0064 0.6912
38 Kh Th 2h 9s 3d 1440 0.0077 11.0880
38 Jh Th 2h 3s 4d 972 0.1461 142.0092
40 Jh Th 2h 3s 7d 720 0.1317 94.8240
41 Jh Th 2h 3s 8d 720 0.1174 84.5280
42 Jh Th 2h 3s 9d 720 0.1031 74.2320
43 Jh Th 2h 7s 8d 180 0.1066 19.1880
44 Jh Th 2h 7s 9d 180 0.0923 16.6140
45 Qh Th 2h 3s 4d 2052 0.0764 156.7728
46 Qh Th 2h 3s 8d 1080 0.0620 66.9600
47 Qh Th 2h 3s 9d 1080 0.0476 51.4080
48 Qh Th 2h 8s 9d 36 0.0369 1.3284
49 Kh Th 2h 3s 5d 1080 0.0066 7.1280
           22500 1766.5044

  Rows 1 and 2 are legitimately omitted by someone developing a
penalty-free strategy, although that wasn't part of the terminology

in

those days. I do not fault Dan for these particular errors, but

many of

Dan's errors were because he used the penalty card concept

incorrectly.

This wasn't understood by most players until my Reports came out ---
which is one reason I find it so offensive that Dan keeps repeating

that

my Reports were basically a rehash of his Precision Play rules.

This is fine. It still doesn't answer the question of format.

  Rows 3-14 are all cases where we have two suited high cards
combined with a 3-card straight flush with no high cards and one

inside.

This was sloppy. This is hardly "optimal".

I don't think Dan ever claimed his strategy perfect. He claimed it
was quite accurate (.01%) and simpler than an exact strategy. Until
you determine the cost of errors for using a more complex strategy
you will never determine if one is "better" than the other.

  Row 15 are cases where a 3-card straight flush with 1 high

card

and two insides is less valuable than a 4-card inside straight with
three high cards. This is a case where there are an equal number of
cases where the straight flush is better than the inside straight as
there are where an inside straight is better than the straight

flush.

Any simplified strategy has to pick one way or the other. If you

pick

the way Dan did, all the errors are 4.6¢. If you pick the opposite

way,

the same number of errors are 2.8¢ apiece. This is hardly "optimal".

Once again, you are wasting a lot of time proving nothing.

  Row 16-17 are cases where AKQJ are superior to a suited "QJ".
These are reasonable things to omit in a simplified strategy. I do

not

fault him for this.

  Rows 18-27 are cases where he said an unsuited AJ is superior

to

a suited "JT". This is NEVER true in 9/6 Jacks. This is hardly
"optimal".

  Rows 28-33 are cases where he said an unsuited KJ is superior

to

a suited "JT". This is a case where errors were inevitable, whether

he

said
KJ > "JT" or he said "JT" > KJ --- because sometimes it's one way

and

sometimes it's the other. This is something strategy-makers need to
accept if they are going to produce a simplified strategy.
Unfortunately, Dan chose the wrong one. "JT" > KJ is the better

choice,

with fewer (and smaller) errors resulting. This is hardly "optimal".

  Rows 34-37 are cases where he said an unsuited AQ is superior

to

a suited "QT". The exact comments from the previous paragraph apply
here, and again, Dan chose the wrong one. Again, he misuses the

claim

"optimal"

  Row 38 is a highly penalized case that Dan willingly

accepted. I

do not fault him for this.

  Rows 39-49 are just plain sloppiness. His rule 10 said "Keep a
suited ten when you have only one of A, K, Q, or J and no discard

of the

same suit . . ." This is an extremely sloppy penalty card rule. He's
talking about flush penalties here, and there is only one case in

9/6

Jacks where this matters --- and it needs a straight penalty to

boot.

(That's the case listed in row 38.) Here again, his claim

for "optimal"

is misplaced.

  Both the number of errors and extension were summed. To get

the

percentage error, I divided the sum of the error by ($5 *

2,598,960),

which is the total amount of money spent when each of the possible

hands

are played for the stakes I'm talking about.

  Dan's Table 2 is what I would call an Appendix. It is a hand
listing for the same game. It corrects several of the errors Dan

made in

his Precision Play rules but makes some others. His note m

says " . . .

and don't hold a 10 with any honor if any discard is the same suit

or a

straight card."

  I'm assuming that he means this to mean what is today referred
to as a flush penalty and a straight penalty. In rows 39-49 above,

we've

already shown the quantity and size of his "flush penalty"

misstatement.

There are NO cases where a straight penalty affects whether to hold

to a

KT, QT, or JT except the aforementioned case on row 38 where we have
BOTH a flush penalty and a straight penalty.

  This would include the following cases: "JT"9, "JT"8, "JT"7,
"QT"9, "QT"8, and "KT"9 (where the last two cards are lower, and

there

is no pair, 4-card straight, or 3-card straight flush in the hand),

all

of which are misplayed by the rule. The reason I didn't count them

all

is because I don't know when he says one penalty OR the other does

he

really mean one penalty AND/OR the other. (Both interpretations are
wrong.)

  As sloppy and as "unoptimal" Dan's Jacks or Better strategy

is,

his Joker Wild strategy is considerably worse.

  One of my problems with Dan's writing is that since he defined
Precision Play rules as "Optimal," as being, then the definition of
"Optimal," basically, is whatever he said it was. He says he didn't
change the strategies between editions 1-8 (I have no reason to

doubt

this), but I know he changed them in each subsequent edition ---

each

time changing the definition of "optimal".

When usability is factored into any procedure there is always room
for improvement based on feedback. Many things are
considered "optimal" in this world until a "better" method is found.
The "optimal" way of communicating years ago is much different today.

A far better definition of
"Optimal" is "the best possible strategy with using penalty cards".
Dancer/Daily Level 3 strategy, or the identical-except-for-format
version produced by Frugal VP offer good example of this. Jazbo's
strategies (which I last saw about five years ago) would meet this
definition. Paymar's rules are sadly lacking.

I think they may be "optimal" for some, but not others. I am 100%
sure that some people find penalty card usage difficult and
distracting and will commit many more errors when trying to use them.
For them a "strategy using penalty cards" would be far from optimal.

  I do owe Paymar two big thank yous. First, if his work hadn't
been so bad, I wouldn't have ever begun this career. Second,

although he

used the term incorrectly and very sloppily, I didn't start thinking
about penalty cards until I saw his reference to it.

I think knowing and understanding penalty cards can be useful for
many people (me included). As I have said many times before they are
not for everyone. If you really want to claim your strategy is better
than Dans' you still need to factor in usability. Until that time i
don't think you will ever convince anyone that you are right.

Now, please answer the question of format.

Dick

[vp_mavin]

I completed the following table in about an hour. If anyone doesn't

understand how a certain number was derived, feel free to ask.<<<

1 Ah Kh Th 2h Ts 288 0.0046 1.3248
2 Ah Kh Th 2h Js 576 0.0370 21.3120
3 As Ks 2h 3h 5h 108 0.3454 37.3032
4 As Ks 3h 4h 6h 288 0.2814 81.0432

.....

What software did you use to compute the table?

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

[vp_mavin]

Dancer wrote:

Dan suggested that his Precision Play for Jacks or Better was

certified to be within 0.01% by Jazbo. I responded that this
slandered Jazbo. I can't believe that Jazbo is so inaccurate that he
would make such a miscalculation. I've always believed the error was
considerably larger than that, but I never calculated it until
tonight. My calculation tonight (shown below) shows that the error is
actually 0.0136%<<<

.01% is the correct ROUNDED two digit value for .0136% are you

suggesting Dan's statement is wrong? If not, what is are you trying
to say?<<<

First off its obvious from Bob's(Bill's) writing that he is not well
educated, he doesn't understand the differece between libel and
slander, his use of slander is wrong.

Second, his math skills are weak, he clearly doesn't understand the
concept of significant digits, nor the use of rounding techniques.
Bob, perhaps the local Las Vegas High School has some remedial
classes you can enroll in.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

[Bob_Dancer1]

For those who have said that 0.0136% is equivalent to under
0.01% are forgetting Dan's use of the word "under". If Dan said "about"
0.01%, then rounding would be appropriate. When he says UNDER 0.01%,
which he did, then even 0.0101% would not qualify. If a house was
advertised as selling for under $100,000, wouldn't you feel that an
actual price of $136,000 was false advertising?

        I used WinPoker to get the difference between the two plays. I
realized they were errors because I know the game well.

        I have said repeatedly that the Beginner Level strategy in my
reports was somewhat similar to Dan's format, without all of the errors.
The Intermediate strategy was a big improvement on this, and the
Professional Level strategy is perfect. If Dan said that the lowest of
my three strategic levels was similar to his, but then the next two
contained considerable enhancements, and that my discussion of penalty
cards was the best that had been written to date, then we would not have
this dispute. But he says the reason why my reports were so good was
because they copied him. And that is false.

        I concede that I used the word "slander" incorrectly. Dan
misrepresented the truth.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

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

[vp_mavin]

For those who have said that 0.0136% is equivalent to under

0.01% are forgetting Dan's use of the word "under". If Dan

said "about" 0.01%, then rounding would be appropriate. When he says
UNDER 0.01%, which he did, then even 0.0101% would not qualify. <<<

There are really two issues here: The semantic one which you addressed
above and second the question of significant digits, which you have
never addressed. .01%=.0001 care to demonstrate how you justify the
precision of your work? ".000136" how many of those digits are
significant. Give an example to back up your claim.

I concede that I used the word "slander" incorrectly. Dan

misrepresented the truth.<<<

I believe the word you were looking for was libel, slander is
deflamation by oral utterences.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

[Skip_Hughes2]

I have a little historical perspective on this and I will try to add
a bit of light (and hopefully no heat), to the discussion).
First of all, I do tend to trust Jazbo's software, which many years
ago was able to calculate the return of a given strategy.
Jazbo stated the following on the predecessor to vpmail in March of 1998:
"You peaked my curiousity, Dan. I input your strategy to my analyzer
(by the way, although you give only ten rules, several of them have
multiple parts and there are forward references --- at first I had
trouble figuring out where you intended a 4 card straight with 3 high
cards to rank).
Anyway, the EV for your strategy is 99.5348% --- less than 0.01% from
optimal, which is quite good and much better than the 0.04% error you
estimated.
For the record, my basic (no penalty card) strategy is 99.5429%, which
is with 0.001% of optimal. With the 5 (or 7, depending on how you
count them) penalty card rules I've given, optimal 9/6 Jacks can be
played."

···

---
So, in fact, Jazbo's software calculated Dan's strategy to be within,
.0081% of perfect. I could try to do the same with FVP, but I don't
really have that much interest in it. I don't know what method used to
calculate the return, but perhaps the difference is in interpreting
Dan's rule-based strategy.
BTW, the penalty-free strategy from FVP and on the Frugal strategy
cards, is also at 99.5429%. Any better than that is obsessive, IMO.

  DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN
It is interesting to note that this whole discussion is very nearly a
duplicate of one that was part of an ongoing exchange between Bob and
Dan and which eventually led to Bob voluntarily leaving my forum in
Jan of 99, since coexistence between the two seemed impossible.

Been a lot of water under the bridge since then, fellas. Maybe it's
time we all moved on.

[Skip_Hughes2]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Skip Hughes" <skiphughes@...> I
don't know what method used to

calculate the return...

Should have read what method Bob used...

Skip

[Bob_Dancer1]

Responding to Skip: Jazbo saying in 1998 that Dan's rules at that time
were under 0.01% incorrect is a different story than the current debate.
Dan had published his 9th edition by that time (with several
Dancer-supplied fixes, for which I was grudgingly paid $100). The
relevant question is what did Jazbo say about versions 8 and before
(which are identical, per Dan). My decision to start writing about video
poker was made in 1994 or 1995. It was Dan's sloppiness BEFORE then that
led me to that decision.

If you show Jazbo my analysis and Dan's rules, I'm confident that he
will agree that the error-rate is considerably above .01%.

Jazbo chooses to improve on the Frugal strategy by separating the ST4
3h1i and SF3 1h2i into different categories --- whereas FVP (and
Dancer/Daily, for that matter, although we also provide the 100%
strategy for those who care and FVP doesn't) chooses to lump them all
together.

This is NOT the thread that led to my leaving your group, although you
are right that Dan and I were not at all pals at that time.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FREEvpF…@…com] On
Behalf Of Skip Hughes
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:41 PM
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: Was Bob's My Best Shot Now Bob Needs Remedial
Education

I have a little historical perspective on this and I will try to add
a bit of light (and hopefully no heat), to the discussion).
First of all, I do tend to trust Jazbo's software, which many years
ago was able to calculate the return of a given strategy.
Jazbo stated the following on the predecessor to vpmail in March of
1998:
"You peaked my curiousity, Dan. I input your strategy to my analyzer
(by the way, although you give only ten rules, several of them have
multiple parts and there are forward references --- at first I had
trouble figuring out where you intended a 4 card straight with 3 high
cards to rank).
Anyway, the EV for your strategy is 99.5348% --- less than 0.01% from
optimal, which is quite good and much better than the 0.04% error you
estimated.
For the record, my basic (no penalty card) strategy is 99.5429%, which
is with 0.001% of optimal. With the 5 (or 7, depending on how you
count them) penalty card rules I've given, optimal 9/6 Jacks can be
played."
---
So, in fact, Jazbo's software calculated Dan's strategy to be within,
.0081% of perfect. I could try to do the same with FVP, but I don't
really have that much interest in it. I don't know what method used to
calculate the return, but perhaps the difference is in interpreting
Dan's rule-based strategy.
BTW, the penalty-free strategy from FVP and on the Frugal strategy
cards, is also at 99.5429%. Any better than that is obsessive, IMO.

  DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN
It is interesting to note that this whole discussion is very nearly a
duplicate of one that was part of an ongoing exchange between Bob and
Dan and which eventually led to Bob voluntarily leaving my forum in
Jan of 99, since coexistence between the two seemed impossible.

Been a lot of water under the bridge since then, fellas. Maybe it's
time we all moved on.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

SPONSORED LINKS
Gambling
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Gambling&w1=Gambling&w2=Online+gamb
ling&w3=Outdoor+recreation&w4=Recreation+software&c=4&s=84&.sig=iyWQICRl
ho-ikMw7A-FBJQ> Online
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Online+gambling&w1=Gambling&w2=Onli
ne+gambling&w3=Outdoor+recreation&w4=Recreation+software&c=4&s=84&.sig=p
1dKwQesA6qXqYMVM0lXEw> gambling Outdoor
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Outdoor+recreation&w1=Gambling&w2=O
nline+gambling&w3=Outdoor+recreation&w4=Recreation+software&c=4&s=84&.si
g=jhI7noewp5vYFdgPlpYE3w> recreation
Recreation
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Recreation+software&w1=Gambling&w2=
Online+gambling&w3=Outdoor+recreation&w4=Recreation+software&c=4&s=84&.s
ig=qhUGqPl6W60WjJcWdFbsng> software

  _____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

* Visit your group "FREEvpFREE
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE> " on the web.
  
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FREEvpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FREEvpFREE-unsubscr…@…com?subject=Unsubscribe>
  
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

  _____

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

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...>
wrote:

        For those who have said that 0.0136% is equivalent to under
0.01% are forgetting Dan's use of the word "under". If Dan

said "about"

0.01%, then rounding would be appropriate. When he says UNDER 0.01%,
which he did, then even 0.0101% would not qualify. If a house was
advertised as selling for under $100,000, wouldn't you feel that an
actual price of $136,000 was false advertising?

There go those math skills again. Your example is a 36% error. The
difference between your numbers and Dans is .0036% when applied to
the return of the game. Only three orders of magnitude. To correct
your example it would be like comparing a house for 100,000 and
100,036. Would anyone really care?

        I used WinPoker to get the difference between the two

plays. I

realized they were errors because I know the game well.

        I have said repeatedly that the Beginner Level strategy in

my

reports was somewhat similar to Dan's format, without all of the

errors.

The Intermediate strategy was a big improvement on this, and the
Professional Level strategy is perfect. If Dan said that the lowest

of

my three strategic levels was similar to his, but then the next two
contained considerable enhancements, and that my discussion of

penalty

cards was the best that had been written to date, then we would not

have

this dispute.

You still can't over the fact that terms like "best" and "optimal"
are questionable when evaluating a system where usability
considerations are extremely important. I suspect that if a study
were done it is quite possible the average user would fair better
with Dans' strategy than with your "best" strategy. In fact they may
do better with your own beginner or intermediate strategies. You
simply can't apply absolutes to subjective topics.

But he says the reason why my reports were so good was
because they copied him. And that is false.

        I concede that I used the word "slander" incorrectly. Dan
misrepresented the truth.

Dan stated "my way of presenting them as a set of rules was unique
until Bob's "Reports" were published."

Once again I see this as a question of format, not of content. Did I
miss a post where Dan stated something different?

Dick

[Bob_Dancer1]

There go those math skills again. Your example is a 36% error. The
difference between your numbers and Dans is .0036% when applied to
the return of the game. Only three orders of magnitude. To correct
your example it would be like comparing a house for 100,000 and
100,036. Would anyone really care?

You are incorrect. The difference between 0.0100% and 0.0136% is the
same as my $100,000 and $136,000 example. You are very free with your
"remedial education" accusations when many of the errors are made by
you, not me. Unless you apologize and ask subsequent questions with
respect rather than a sneering attitude, I will no longer respond to
your posts.

You still can't over the fact that terms like "best" and "optimal"
are questionable when evaluating a system where usability
considerations are extremely important. I suspect that if a study
were done it is quite possible the average user would fair better
with Dans' strategy than with your "best" strategy. In fact they may
do better with your own beginner or intermediate strategies. You
simply can't apply absolutes to subjective topics.

It is you who are not understanding the argument. A simplified strategy
is defensible and very useful to beginning players. This is why I have
always included simplified strategies in my Reports, Winner's Guides,
and strategy cards. The fact that Dan's strategy is simplified isn't my
big complaint. The fact that it is embarrassingly full of errors is the
complaint. I may well have decided to generate computer-perfect
strategies anyway. But you don't see me berate Jim Wolf over the
strategies his FVP software creates. Although simplified, they are
"decent". (I've discovered many errors in them as I participate in the
creation of a new strategy-creation software, but overall they are are
quality strategies.)

Once again I see this as a question of format, not of content. Did I
miss a post where Dan stated something different?

Apparently you did. The post by Dan that "caused" this thread (in my
opinion --- others differ) on March 5 where he said "Bob's first
"Reports" were accurate because they were a close copy of mine."

He said nothing about format in the post that generated a heated
response from me --- although he has referred to format in other posts.
And there is a HUGE difference in accuracy between 0.0136% errors and
0.0000% errors. You can't create a perfect strategy by closely copying a
seriously flawed one.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

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

[Earl]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wr

such a miscalculation. I've always believed the error was

considerably

larger than that, but I never calculated it until tonight. My
calculation tonight (shown below) shows that the error is actually
0.0136% --- although I was only working with 4-place numbers so

that

number might be off a bit. This is 40¢ an hour for the
600-hands-per-hour dollar player. Since I was planning on moving

up to

$5, I couldn't see playing a strategy that would cost me $2 an

hour.

Hey Bob I own quite a bit of your product, The three "how to beat
the casino" pamphlets from before your book was published, Winpoker
and Million Doller Video Poker. Your stuff has been both helpful and
entertaining. Using your own information, let me know if I got this
wrong, that a 1% edge makes a play worthwhile then playing a $5
machine at 600 hand per hour would yeild an overall potential profit
of $150 per hour. Taking $2 per hour off by using Dans strategy
would bring this down $148 per hour. Is this really such a big deal?
By the way on one of my trips to Las Vegas I forgot my copy of the
intermediate strategy page for FPDW from your pamphlet and got one
of Dans cards, It seemed to work fine.

[Harry_Porter]

vpearlkc wrote:

Using your own information, let me know if I got this wrong, that a 1%
edge makes a play worthwhile then playing a $5 machine at 600 hand per
hour would yeild an overall potential profit of $150 per hour. Taking
$2 per hour off by using Dans strategy would bring this down $148 per
hour. Is this really such a big deal?

"Big deal"? It's an "eye of the beholder" thing, no?

My question is, assuming that it involves a reasonably inconsequential
effort, why would you want to leave the $2 "on the table"?

- H.

[rastis_rulz]

Bob, you are a crack cocaine dealer with a special gift. You were
blessed with genius mathematical talent that you have squandered
away being a pimp and snake oil salesman to support your degenerate
gambling habit. The simple truth is that you are a street dealer who
does not want to work because you are addicted to "the game". Less
than one tenth of one percent of the population can master your so
called "perfect strategy". The reason you peddle propaganda and
prostitute yourself to casinos is simple. You need to make money to
feed your gambling addiction. You got lucky gambling just like the
meat packers who hit the lottery a few weeks ago. I laugh when you
talk about expecting to make a million dollars in the next 4-6
years! Gee, my wife and I (and millions more with real jobs) will
make that much money in five years and we don't have to gamble to
acquire financial security. We don't need to sell strategies and
information that most folks can't follow and will addict them to
video poker. You are selling them false hope. Dan's system is as
good as it gets for 99.99% of the players. Players can understand
and follow it. They can play for fun at a very reasonable
entertainment cost. This is a good thing. Do you think for a second
the casinos are going to let the players beat ANY game? Sure, a few
get lucky (just like you) and that brings them and all the others
back to play. If folks could play perfect video poker, you would
not teach them how. You are smart enough to know the games would be
gone faster than you can sell addiction to chain smoking
videopokerphiles in an hour at the Fiesta. BOB, you are the most
unique member of your graduating class. I will give you that.
You're a mathematical genius that has wasted his life gambling and
selling products that have addicted thousands more to the crack
cocaine of gaming. The players can't beat the system Bob. And long
term, you neither can you. In fact the good opportunities are going
away every day. You can't admit this, since you wouldn't be able to
sell your snake oil anymore. The TRUTH will make your bankroll
disappear faster than dollar FPDW. GET A REAL JOB BOB. You might
be surprised how a good health insurance and a company matching 401K
plan will boast your bottom line and provide you with real financial
security. You're no different than a crack cocaine dealer except
that your run is almost over.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...>
wrote:

  I am surprised that Dan welcomed a chance to identify his
errors. But he did, and he deserves a response. He invited me

to "give

···

it my best shot", and I intend to do that. Had he not made such an
invitation, I would not have written this.

[rastis_rulz]

Harry, I guess we could all eat out of trash cans like Jean Scott to
cover that two bucks.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

vpearlkc wrote:
> Using your own information, let me know if I got this wrong,

that a 1%

> edge makes a play worthwhile then playing a $5 machine at 600

hand per

> hour would yeild an overall potential profit of $150 per hour.

Taking

> $2 per hour off by using Dans strategy would bring this down

$148 per

> hour. Is this really such a big deal?

"Big deal"? It's an "eye of the beholder" thing, no?

My question is, assuming that it involves a reasonably

inconsequential

···

effort, why would you want to leave the $2 "on the table"?

- H.

[Dan2]

First, I want to make it clear that I write for the vast majority of players, those who are not
professional gamblers but who want to improve their skills and play at an advantage while
earning comps to make their vacation more enjoyable. I have never claimed that my
strategies are perfect; rather, they are optimized for the majority of players to be able to
achieve the best per-hour win rate (or smallest loss rate on negative games). This is done
by simplifying in situations where the difference in EV is small and the occurrence is
infrequent. This approach has been justified by Skip Hughes, showing that a penalty-card-
free strategy can yield within 0.01% of perfect play for most games, and within 0.001% on
Jacks or Better.

I don't feel any need to defend my work. My strategies have been validated many times.
Jazbo, well known in these forums as an expert mathematician, has shown that following
my Precision Play rules objectively will yield within 0.01% of perfect play. Before I could
complete this and post it, Skip Hughes found that 1998 post and proved that Jazbo had,
indeed, thus evaluated my rules. Although Bob has never developed a strategy on his own
from scratch, he seems to think that he is a better strategist and mathematician than
Jazbo or me.

I should note that Jazbo's evaluation may have been based on the first edition of "Video
Poker - Optimum Play" which had 11 rules instead of 10, while Bob by his own admission
was still criticizing work that was seven years old at the time.

Bob didn't copy the old rules in his criticism, so I'll reproduce them here so that we all
know exactly what we're talking about. Remember, this strategy is for 9/6 Jacks or Better.

1. Never break any made pay of two pair or better, except;
Break anything but a pat straight flush for any 4-card royal
2. Break a high pair only for a 4-card royal or any 4-card
straight flush (including an inside draw); also for K-Q-J
suited if a royal flush pays at least 4300 coins
3. Break a low pair only for K-Q-J-10, any 3-card royal flush,
or any 4-flush or straight flush
4. Break a 4-flush or open-end straight only for a 3-card royal
5. If you have both a 4-flush and a 4-straight, go for the flush
(and never draw to an inside Straight unless it includes 3 honors)
6. Draw to any 3-card straight flush (even a double inside
draw) unless it requires breaking a made pay, any pair, or
any 4-flush or open-end straight, except draw to one or two
high cards rather than a double inside straight flush with no
honors
7. Break A-K-Q-J only for suited Q-J or any three suited honors
8. Break any three of A, K, Q and J for any two suited honors
9. Hold any one, two or three honors, except ?
Discard Ace from A-honor-honor (but keep A-honor if suited)
10. Keep a suited 10 when you have only one of A, K, Q or J,
and no discard is of the same suit, except don't hold a ten with
an ace if the jackpot is less than 4600 coins

Now on to Bob's critique. I don't understand why Bob wants to make himself look
ridiculous, but since he's a glutton for embarrassment, here goes.

Bob: I am surprised that Dan welcomed a chance to identify his errors. But he did, and he
deserves a response. He invited me to "give it my best shot", and I intend to do that. Had
he not made such an invitation, I would not have written this.

Dan: Actually, I've made this invitation several times over the years, and this is the first
time that Bob has dared to post his criticism publicly. I finally get a chance to make a
direct response.

Bob: He says he didn't start this thread. Fair enough, but I didn't either. Someone else
suggested that the reason I started writing about video poker is because opportunities
were drying up, and I responded, truthfully, that the reason I started writing about video
poker was that the current writers weren't very accurate. Dan said that the reason my
Reports were so accurate was that I copied them from him. That is inaccurate and highly
offensive. Had he not said that, this thread would not have started.

Dan: Bob says he didn't start this thread. On February 26, he posted on vpFREE: " My
reports were first published in 1995, when I was barely into
dollar stakes and still played mostly quarters. My writing was mainly
inspired by the lack of good published information. I have a background
in teaching various things, so teaching others about video poker came
naturally. The only "reasonable" video poker writing I could find then
was Bradley Davis, Frome, Paymar, and Wong. While Davis and Wong were
accurate enough (but only about specific games I wasn't interested in),
the other two weren't --- by a long shot."

This is what started the current debate, with Bob saying that my strategies were not as
accurate as Davis or Wong "by a long shot." I had not posted anything mentioning Bob for
several months prior to that.

Bob: I am getting chastised on vpFREE for picking on Dan. In my opinion, he asked for it by
accusing me of copying his work. I have stated many times that Dan's work is extremely
sloppy and that people using it are making a large number of mistakes. I was not going to
keep harping on that, but when Dan starts up and accuses me of plagiarism, he's asking
for it, in my opinion.

Dan: If you will pick up any copy of my Precision Play rules, as far back as the first issue of
"Video Poker - Precision Play" in 1991, you will see that my format and method of putting
the strategy into a short set of rules instead of just a hand rank table was unique until
Bob's "Reports" came out several years later in very similar form.

Bob: Dan suggested that his Precision Play for Jacks or Better was certified to be within
0.01% by Jazbo. I responded that this slandered Jazbo. I can't believe that Jazbo is so
inaccurate that he would make such a miscalculation. I've always believed the error was
considerably larger than that, but I never calculated it until tonight. My calculation tonight
(shown below) shows that the error is actually 0.0136% --- although I was only working
with 4-place numbers so that number might be off a bit. This is 40¢ an hour for the 600-
hands-per-hour dollar player. Since I was planning on moving up to $5, I couldn't see
playing a strategy that would cost me $2 an hour. This was hopelessly inaccurate for my
purposes. If you count the error made by EITHER the Precision Rules or Table 2 in the back
(they are NOT the same at all), the error is closer to .015%.

Dan: I have great respect for Jazbo. After Bob posted his harangue (his word), I was
surprised and grateful when, unsolicited, Jazbo posted a comment that my rules would
return 99.5248%, only 0.0081% off of perfect play. Bob responded, "Be careful, Jazbo."
Clearly, Jazbo was much more careful than Bob. Prior to that I had only claimed that my
strategy would yield within 0.02% of perfect, and here Bob inadvertently validates that
claim by saying that the error is 0.0136%. Thank you, Bob. Even without going further in
the discussion, you have shot down your own criticism. And Bob's right, that would be
almost 41 cents on $3000 action. If you're a pro, this might be important to you, but most
players would lose more due to loss of speed and unintentional deviations from a
complicated "perfect" strategy.

Bob: I completed the following table in about an hour. I did figure out an error overnight
(in counting the hands including "KT", a flush penalty, and a 9 penalty, I forgot to subtract
out hands like "KT8"97, which is a 4-card straight and is handled correctly by Dan. It's
possible that more errors exist. But it should be pretty close. And if I were going to publish
this in a book, it would be checked three or four times. If anyone doesn't understand how
a certain number was derived, feel free to ask.

Dan's Precision Play strategy misplays 22,500 different hands, listed below. (With a
number like this it may appear to be rounded. But it's not. That's the number of hands I
counted.) This is approximately 1 in 115 hands. The Advanced strategy I published in my
reports misplays zero hands. It's hard to imagine how he figures I copied his work. If I had
copied his work, I would have the same errors he did.

Dan: It doesn't matter how many hands are "misplayed" (i.e., not played for the absolute
greatest EV) provided the end result is within acceptable tolerance. My rules were refined a
bit for publication of "Video Poker - Optimum Play" (in part due to comments by Bob and
others). Also, I never claimed that Bob copied my work. Only the concept of putting the
strategy in the form of a small number of rules that are much easier to remember than a
hand rank table. Again, he validated my work by using the same form. What's that they say
about the sincerest form of flattery?

Bob: Each of the hands has a number next to it showing the number of occurrences. To
show an example of how this number was calculated, look at the first row. (This error in
particular is one that Dan never attempted to play correctly. I'll discuss later which hands
were because there were penalty cards and which ones were due to sloppiness. The
explanation here is how the 288 figure is derived.)

This hand occurs when "AKT", "AQT", or "AJT" is combined with a card of the same suit in
the range 2-9. Further this must be accompanied by an off-suit ten. There are four suits.
So we multiply 4 (for the number of suits) * 3 (for the number of 3-card royals in the
category) * 8 (number of different cards in the range 2-9) * 3 (number of suits possible for
the off-suit ten). This comes out to 288.

The next column over is the size of error if you are playing five coins on a $1 machine. The
error here of 0.0046 represents slightly less than a half-cent. (This number is five times as
large as the 1-coin EV figure that Dan prefers to use. We each have our reasons for using
the particular EV sizes we do, but there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between them and
either can be used to do calculations.) There are several errors on this list in excess of
40¢.

The last column is an "extension" --- that is, the product of the previous two columns. I
needed to do this in order to calculate the size of the total error.

There are more notes below the chart.

1 Ah Kh Th 2h Ts 288 0.0046 1.3248
2 Ah Kh Th 2h Js 576 0.0370 21.3120
3 As Ks 2h 3h 5h 108 0.3454 37.3032
4 As Ks 3h 4h 6h 288 0.2814 81.0432
5 As Js 7h 8h Th 24 0.3256 7.8144
6 As Qs 7h 8h Th 48 0.2516 12.0768
7 Ks Qs 2d 3d 5d 264 0.3627 95.7528
8 Ks Js 7d 8d Td 24 0.3972 9.5328
9 Ks Qs 7d 8d Td 24 0.3232 7.7568
10 Qs Js 2d 3d 5d 84 0.4539 38.1276
11 Qs Js 5d 6d 8d 24 0.4352 10.4448
12 Qs Js 6d 7d 9d 12 0.4145 4.9740
13 Qs Js 6d 8d 9d 12 0.3997 4.7964
14 Qs Js 7d 8d Td 12 0.4539 5.4468
15 Ah Js Qd Td 8d 48 0.0463 2.2224
16 As Ks Qh Jh 9d 144 0.0114 1.6416
17 As Ks Qh Jh 2h 288 0.0601 17.3088
18 Ah Js Ts 2d 3d 1008 0.1520 153.2160
19 Ah Js Ts 2d 7d 540 0.1323 71.4420
20 Ah Js Ts 2d 8d 540 0.1125 60.7500
21 Ah Js Ts 2d 9d 540 0.0928 50.1120
22 Ah Js Ts 2s 3d 720 0.0490 35.2800
23 Ah Js Ts 2s 7d 180 0.0095 1.7100
24 Ah Js Ts 2s 8d 180 0.0295 5.3100
25 Ah Js Ts 2s 9d 180 0.0095 1.7100
26 Ah Js Ts 8d 7d 108 0.0977 10.5516
27 Ah Js Ts 8d 7d 108 0.0780 8.4240
28 Kh Js Ts 2d 3d 1080 0.0731 78.9480
29 Kh Js Ts 2d 7d 540 0.0533 28.7820
30 Kh Js Ts 2d 8d 540 0.0336 18.1440
31 Kh Js Ts 2d 9d 540 0.0336 18.1440
32 Kh Js Ts 7d 8d 108 0.0188 2.0304
33 Kh Js Ts 7d 9d 108 0.0188 2.0304
34 Ah Qs Ts 2d 3d 1548 0.0607 93.9636
35 Ah Qs Ts 2d 8d 648 0.0410 26.5680
36 Ah Qs Ts 2d 9d 648 0.0212 13.7376
37 Ah Qs Ts 8d 9d 108 0.0064 0.6912
38 Kh Th 2h 9s 3d 1440 0.0077 11.0880
38 Jh Th 2h 3s 4d 972 0.1461 142.0092
40 Jh Th 2h 3s 7d 720 0.1317 94.8240
41 Jh Th 2h 3s 8d 720 0.1174 84.5280
42 Jh Th 2h 3s 9d 720 0.1031 74.2320
43 Jh Th 2h 7s 8d 180 0.1066 19.1880
44 Jh Th 2h 7s 9d 180 0.0923 16.6140
45 Qh Th 2h 3s 4d 2052 0.0764 156.7728
46 Qh Th 2h 3s 8d 1080 0.0620 66.9600
47 Qh Th 2h 3s 9d 1080 0.0476 51.4080
48 Qh Th 2h 8s 9d 36 0.0369 1.3284
49 Kh Th 2h 3s 5d 1080 0.0066 7.1280
                              22500 1766.5044

Rows 1 and 2 are legitimately omitted by someone developing a penalty-free strategy,
although that wasn't part of the terminology in those days. I do not fault Dan for these
particular errors, but many of Dan's errors were because he used the penalty card concept
incorrectly. This wasn't understood by most players until my Reports came out --- which
is one reason I find it so offensive that Dan keeps repeating that my Reports were basically
a rehash of his Precision Play rules.

Dan: I haven't bothered to go over the gritty details. Bob may be 100% right, but it's the
end result, not the details, that matters.

No one understood penalty cards very well prior to the availability of Panamint Software's
"Video Poker Tutor." I had to write my own computer programs to analyze the games. Bob
is unfairly comparing work that was first published in 1991 with later work using better
tools.

Bob: Rows 3-14 are all cases where we have two suited high cards combined with a 3-card
straight flush with no high cards and one inside. This was sloppy. This is hardly "optimal".

Dan: Bob confuses the word "optimal" with "optimum." I have never claimed optimal
strategies. I have always said that my strategies were optimized for maximum hourly win
rate by non-professional players. Bob finds fault by changing words.

Bob: Row 15 are cases where a 3-card straight flush with 1 high card and two insides is
less valuable than a 4-card inside straight with three high cards. This is a case where there
are an equal number of cases where the straight flush is better than the inside straight as
there are where an inside straight is better than the straight flush. Any simplified strategy
has to pick one way or the other. If you pick the way Dan did, all the errors are 4.6¢. If you
pick the opposite way, the same number of errors are 2.8¢ apiece. This is hardly "optimal".

Row 16-17 are cases where AKQJ are superior to a suited "QJ". These are reasonable things
to omit in a simplified strategy. I do not fault him for this.

Rows 18-27 are cases where he said an unsuited AJ is superior to a suited "JT". This is
NEVER true in 9/6 Jacks. This is hardly "optimal".

Rows 28-33 are cases where he said an unsuited KJ is superior to a suited "JT". This is a
case where errors were inevitable, whether he said KJ > "JT" or he said "JT" > KJ ---
because sometimes it's one way and sometimes it's the other. This is something strategy-
makers need to accept if they are going to produce a simplified strategy. Unfortunately,
Dan chose the wrong one. "JT" > KJ is the better choice, with fewer (and smaller) errors
resulting. This is hardly "optimal".

Rows 34-37 are cases where he said an unsuited AQ is superior to a suited "QT". The
exact comments from the previous paragraph apply here, and again, Dan chose the wrong
one. Again, he misuses the claim "optimal"

Row 38 is a highly penalized case that Dan willingly accepted. I do not fault him for this.

Rows 39-49 are just plain sloppiness. His rule 10 said "Keep a suited ten when you have
only one of A, K, Q, or J and no discard of the same suit . . ." This is an extremely sloppy
penalty card rule. He's talking about flush penalties here, and there is only one case in 9/6
Jacks where this matters --- and it needs a straight penalty to boot. (That's the case listed
in row 38.) Here again, his claim for "optimal" is misplaced.

Both the number of errors and extension were summed. To get the percentage error, I
divided the sum of the error by ($5 * 2,598,960), which is the total amount of money
spent when each of the possible hands are played for the stakes I'm talking about.

Dan: I haven't bothered to review on all this detail because, in the end, it all adds up to
only 0.0136% (or less than 0.01%, according to Jazbo).

Bob: Dan's Table 2 is what I would call an Appendix. It is a hand listing for the same game.
It corrects several of the errors Dan made in his Precision Play rules but makes some
others.

Dan: Actually, it's the other way around. The hand rank table was developed first, then the
Precision Play rules were derived from it to provide basically the same strategy, but
simplified by ignoring low frequency situation with small EV differences.

Bob: His note m says " . . . and don't hold a 10 with any honor if any discard is the same
suit or a straight card." I'm assuming that he means this to mean what is today referred to
as a flush penalty and a straight penalty. In rows 39-49 above, we've already shown the
quantity and size of his "flush penalty" misstatement. There are NO cases where a straight
penalty affects whether to hold to a KT, QT, or JT except the aforementioned case on row
38 where we have BOTH a flush penalty and a straight penalty.

This would include the following cases: "JT"9, "JT"8, "JT"7, "QT"9, "QT"8, and "KT"9 (where
the last two cards are lower, and there is no pair, 4-card straight, or 3-card straight flush
in the hand), all of which are misplayed by the rule. The reason I didn't count them all is
because I don't know when he says one penalty OR the other does he really mean one
penalty AND/OR the other. (Both interpretations are wrong.)

Dan: Yes a penalty card by today's nomenclature. And, as noted above, penalty cards were
not well understood in 1991 when the above strategy was first published. The point that
should be noted here is that Bob continues to criticize work that is 15 years old. Using
better tools, he has improved on that, but obviously so have I. For example, note m now
says, "Don't hold a suited 10 with an ace if the jackpot is less than 940-for-1, and don't
hold a suited 10 with either an ace or a king if any discard is the same suit or is a ten or
higher." Still not "perfect" or "optimal" by Bob's standards, but it's optimized.

But how did note m get into this discussion anyway? We were discussing the Precision Play
rules, and that's related to the hand rank table.

Bob: As sloppy and as "unoptimal" Dan's Jacks or Better strategy is, his Joker Wild strategy
is considerably worse.

One of my problems with Dan's writing is that since he defined Precision Play rules as
"Optimal," as being, then the definition of "Optimal," basically, is whatever he said it was.
He says he didn't change the strategies between editions 1-8 (I have no reason to doubt
this), but I know he changed them in each subsequent edition --- each time changing the
definition of "optimal". A far better definition of "Optimal" is "the best possible strategy
with using penalty cards". Dancer/Daily Level 3 strategy, or the identical-except-for-
format version produced by Frugal VP offer good example of this. Jazbo's strategies (which
I last saw about five years ago) would meet this definition. Paymar's rules are sadly lacking.

Dan: Again, "optimal" instead of "optimum." I have never used the word "optimal." I'll leave
it to Bob to publish optimal strategies for the few hundred pros (most of whom wouldn't
be bothered buying someone else's strategy), and I'll continue to publish optimum
strategies for serious recreational players. And how did Joker Wild get into this? I thought
we were discussing Jacks or Better.

Bob: I do owe Paymar two big thank yous. First, if his work hadn't been so bad, I wouldn't
have ever begun this career. Second, although he used the term incorrectly and very
sloppily, I didn't start thinking about penalty cards until I saw his reference to it.

Dan: And thank you, Bob, for admitting that you were building upon my work, as I have
credited Lenny Frome for the basics that I built upon. The difference in that we have taken
different paths. I write for recreational players (the vast majority of players) who want to
become skilled, while you write for the wanna-be pros and casino management. You
continue to criticize stuff that is 15 years old instead of comparing my publications today
with yours and others. Get up to date.

[Dan2]

By his own admission, Bob is still criticizing strategies that were first published in 1991.
Bob has built upon my work, but obviously I have also continued to improve my strategies.
Why not get up to date? Comparing his 1996 and later work (with the help of tools that
were not available earlier) to mine of 1991 is indeed sloppy.
Dan

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

Responding to Skip: Jazbo saying in 1998 that Dan's rules at that time
were under 0.01% incorrect is a different story than the current debate.
Dan had published his 9th edition by that time (with several
Dancer-supplied fixes, for which I was grudgingly paid $100). The
relevant question is what did Jazbo say about versions 8 and before
(which are identical, per Dan). My decision to start writing about video
poker was made in 1994 or 1995. It was Dan's sloppiness BEFORE then that
led me to that decision.

If you show Jazbo my analysis and Dan's rules, I'm confident that he
will agree that the error-rate is considerably above .01%.

Jazbo chooses to improve on the Frugal strategy by separating the ST4
3h1i and SF3 1h2i into different categories --- whereas FVP (and
Dancer/Daily, for that matter, although we also provide the 100%
strategy for those who care and FVP doesn't) chooses to lump them all
together.

This is NOT the thread that led to my leaving your group, although you
are right that Dan and I were not at all pals at that time.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

-----Original Message-----
From: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FREEvpF…@…com] On
Behalf Of Skip Hughes
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:41 PM
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: Was Bob's My Best Shot Now Bob Needs Remedial
Education

I have a little historical perspective on this and I will try to add
a bit of light (and hopefully no heat), to the discussion).
First of all, I do tend to trust Jazbo's software, which many years
ago was able to calculate the return of a given strategy.
Jazbo stated the following on the predecessor to vpmail in March of
1998:
"You peaked my curiousity, Dan. I input your strategy to my analyzer
(by the way, although you give only ten rules, several of them have
multiple parts and there are forward references --- at first I had
trouble figuring out where you intended a 4 card straight with 3 high
cards to rank).
Anyway, the EV for your strategy is 99.5348% --- less than 0.01% from
optimal, which is quite good and much better than the 0.04% error you
estimated.
For the record, my basic (no penalty card) strategy is 99.5429%, which
is with 0.001% of optimal. With the 5 (or 7, depending on how you
count them) penalty card rules I've given, optimal 9/6 Jacks can be
played."
---
So, in fact, Jazbo's software calculated Dan's strategy to be within,
.0081% of perfect. I could try to do the same with FVP, but I don't
really have that much interest in it. I don't know what method used to
calculate the return, but perhaps the difference is in interpreting
Dan's rule-based strategy.
BTW, the penalty-free strategy from FVP and on the Frugal strategy
cards, is also at 99.5429%. Any better than that is obsessive, IMO.

  DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN
It is interesting to note that this whole discussion is very nearly a
duplicate of one that was part of an ongoing exchange between Bob and
Dan and which eventually led to Bob voluntarily leaving my forum in
Jan of 99, since coexistence between the two seemed impossible.

Been a lot of water under the bridge since then, fellas. Maybe it's
time we all moved on.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

SPONSORED LINKS
Gambling
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Gambling&w1=Gambling&w2=Online+gamb
ling&w3=Outdoor+recreation&w4=Recreation+software&c=4&s=84&.sig=iyWQICRl
ho-ikMw7A-FBJQ> Online
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Online+gambling&w1=Gambling&w2=Onli
ne+gambling&w3=Outdoor+recreation&w4=Recreation+software&c=4&s=84&.sig=p
1dKwQesA6qXqYMVM0lXEw> gambling Outdoor
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Outdoor+recreation&w1=Gambling&w2=O
nline+gambling&w3=Outdoor+recreation&w4=Recreation+software&c=4&s=84&.si
g=jhI7noewp5vYFdgPlpYE3w> recreation
Recreation
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Recreation+software&w1=Gambling&w2=
Online+gambling&w3=Outdoor+recreation&w4=Recreation+software&c=4&s=84&.s
ig=qhUGqPl6W60WjJcWdFbsng> software

  _____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

* Visit your group "FREEvpFREE
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE> " on the web.
  
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FREEvpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FREEvpFREE-unsubscr…@…com?subject=Unsubscribe>
  
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

  _____

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

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...>
wrote:

There go those math skills again. Your example is a 36% error. The
difference between your numbers and Dans is .0036% when applied to
the return of the game. Only three orders of magnitude. To correct
your example it would be like comparing a house for 100,000 and
100,036. Would anyone really care?

You are incorrect. The difference between 0.0100% and 0.0136% is the
same as my $100,000 and $136,000 example.

But that is not the point, is it? The point is the impact of errors
on the payback of the game. What you came up with was an impact
increase of .0036% from what Dan had stated. Saying anything else is
an obvious attempt to cloud the issue. When you turn the numbers into
$s you need to make a legitimate comparison.

You are very free with your
"remedial education" accusations when many of the errors are made by
you, not me.

I tried to turn it into an apples to apples comparison. And, since
you choose to delete what I said, let me refresh your memory. I
specifically said "The difference between your numbers and Dans
is .0036% when applied to the return of the game".

Unless you apologize and ask subsequent questions with
respect rather than a sneering attitude, I will no longer respond to
your posts.

Do you think I care? What an arrogant statement. Let it put it to you
as simple as I can. If you make questionable statements on this
forum, I will point out the falacies. If you think that is
a "sneering attitude" or can't stand the heat, then run back to
VPFree where the Administer can protect you.

You still can't over the fact that terms like "best" and "optimal"
are questionable when evaluating a system where usability
considerations are extremely important. I suspect that if a study
were done it is quite possible the average user would fair better
with Dans' strategy than with your "best" strategy. In fact they

may

do better with your own beginner or intermediate strategies. You
simply can't apply absolutes to subjective topics.

It is you who are not understanding the argument. A simplified

strategy

is defensible and very useful to beginning players. This is why I

have

always included simplified strategies in my Reports, Winner's

Guides,

and strategy cards. The fact that Dan's strategy is simplified

isn't my

big complaint. The fact that it is embarrassingly full of errors is

the

complaint.

I don't think you are getting it. The bottem line is THE ONLY ISSUE.
Would someone do better with one strategy over another? That is a
subjective question. By necessity, simplifying causes accuracy errors
from another point of view. There are many ways to simplify a
strategy and you may disagree with Dans' approach. That doesn't make
another strategy "best" or "optimal".

How do I know this? I've also put together a strategy that others
have used. By necessity I HAD to simplify the strategy. I
intentionally inserted what might be considered errors for usability.
It's interesting the comments I've gotten back from different
individuals that are 180 degrees apart. I wouldn't have a problem if
you said you didn't like Dans' apporach. That is your opinion.
However, when you try to quantify an inherently qualitative issue,
then I have problems.

I may well have decided to generate computer-perfect
strategies anyway. But you don't see me berate Jim Wolf over the
strategies his FVP software creates. Although simplified, they are
"decent". (I've discovered many errors in them as I participate in

the

creation of a new strategy-creation software, but overall they are

are

quality strategies.)

Once again you are taking a subjective issue and trying to make it
black and white. YOUR definition of "decent" may be completely
different than anothers. To imply that YOUR definition is the right
one is arrogance, pure and simple.

Once again I see this as a question of format, not of content. Did

I

miss a post where Dan stated something different?

Apparently you did. The post by Dan that "caused" this thread (in my
opinion --- others differ) on March 5 where he said "Bob's first
"Reports" were accurate because they were a close copy of mine."

Clearly, that was not on this forum. I initially passed up this
thread on VPfree. I can see that his statement was ambiguous. It does
not separate format from content. However, in his post on this forum
Dan was very clear about what he meant. I would think that should
have eliminated your concern about content.

He said nothing about format in the post that generated a heated
response from me --- although he has referred to format in other

posts.

And there is a HUGE difference in accuracy between 0.0136% errors

and

0.0000% errors. You can't create a perfect strategy by closely

copying a

seriously flawed one.

Once again you are stating YOUR OPINION as fact. That's called
arrogance. The word "perfect" cannot NEVER be applied to a strategy
since the impact on speed and correct usage of the strategy will
apply differently to different people, there is NO SUCH THING AS
PERFECT.

By the way, I don't personally have a problem that you copied Dans'
format. If you thought it was a better approach, then using his
format is essentially a compliment to Dan. Although I can't speak for
Dan, I suspect your usage of that approach is what caused him to
think you had also copied the content.

Since I have experience in generating strategies let me say that
coming up with a strategy is not that difficult. I can do it by hand
in a day for just about any game. The real art is in laying it out to
make using it as easy as possible. Even though I copied a variation
of the format used by VPSM in my strategy, I'd say at least 1/3 of
the people who got my strategy have modified it to their own liking.

[Bob_Dancer1]

Harry wrote: "Big deal"? It's an "eye of the beholder" thing, no?

My question is, assuming that it involves a reasonably inconsequential
effort, why would you want to leave the $2 "on the table"?

Exactly. Thank you Harry. Also, the premise of a 1% edge is misleading.
Common slot clubs on the Strip in those days was 0.67% cash back,
yielding an 0.31% advantage (99.544% + 0.667% = 100.311%). Giving up
0.0135% off of a 0.311% advantage is about 4% of your advantage. For
players playing a lot, the idea of giving up 4% of your advantage is
HUGE. That's thousands of dollars per year. For someone like me who was
trying desparately to build up a bankroll, throwing away thousands of
dollars per year was unacceptable.

Other people have far more modest goals than I do. If you're happy with
Dan's work, fine. If extra money isn't important to you, fine. But I
believe a main reason for my success is that I chased the small
differences --- actually considerably smaller than 0.01% sometimes.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

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

[Dan2]

Right, the point is the impact of errors on a real situation. I don't write for pros, so let's
consider my typical reader. He/she may be on a trip to Las Vegas, playing perhaps 15
hours total over a weekend. At 600 hands per hour on $1 JoB, a 0.01% error translates to a
loss of 30 cents per hour, while a 0.0136% error means a loss of 41 cents per hour. That's
a difference of $1.65 over the weekend, less than a tip for the valet. For that $1.65, the
player gets to have more fun because he/she does not have to be concerned about trivial
deviations from perfect play. And if that player tried to follow a more nearly perfect
strategy, the loss may be greater due to reduced speed and unintentional deviations from
a necessarily more complex strategy.

But remember, Bob is still analyzing my work of 15 years ago. We have both improved on
the strategies since then. The difference is that in "Video Poker - Optimum Play" I give
credit to Lenny Frome whose work I built upon, and many others whose work helped me
(yes, even Bob Dancer), while Bob has never given any credit to me before the begrudging
and backhanded "thank you" at the end of his recent critiique.

Dan

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

The point is the impact of errors
on the payback of the game. What you came up with was an impact
increase of .0036% from what Dan had stated. Saying anything else is
an obvious attempt to cloud the issue. When you turn the numbers into
$s you need to make a legitimate comparison.