vpFREE2 Forums

Digest Number 397

#1

I repeat, my strategies are optimized. That is, simplified without significantly reducing the overall expected return. These trivialities are in the noise level. Remember, jazbo has shown that these rules, as they stand, will yield within 0.01% of perfect play.

Dan

···

At 7:12 PM +0000 3/6/06, FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com wrote:

Is the "no discard is of the same suit" really necessary? Isn't QTs
with a flush penalty still better than Queen alone, & JTs with flush
penalty still better than a Jack alone (which would have the same
penalty)?

I'm a somewhat casual player, but I'd thought I'd been doing right by
always choosing QTs or JTs over a Q or J alone. With the King, I hold
the suited Ten almost always, only exception when there's both a 9 &
a flush penalty.

So I'd THOUGHT that "keep a suited 10 when you have only one of K, Q,
or J" would be the correct simple rule, & adding "except don't hold
KTs if discards include both a 9 and a card of the same suit" might
add a tiny bit of EV (I don't know if it's enough to justify the
added complexity).

Stuart

--
Dan Paymar
Author of best selling book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor/Publisher of VP newsletter "Video Poker Times"
Developer of VP analysis/trainer software "Optimum Video Poker"
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com

"Chance favors the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur

#2

>Is the "no discard is of the same suit" really necessary?
>I'd THOUGHT that "keep a suited 10 when you have only one of K,
>Q, or J" would be the correct simple rule

Dan Paymar:

I repeat, my strategies are optimized. That is, simplified without
significantly reducing the overall expected return.

I'm not questioning that. I'm just wondering if the strategy could be
made still SIMPLER by making the rule just "keep a suited 10 when you
have only one of K, Q, or J". My thought is that by dropping the "...
if no discard is of the same suit," the strategy would become more
simple, and I'm not sure that ANY expected return would be lost. I
don't have enough knowledge to know this for sure myself, so if I'm
wrong, it'd be interesting for me to learn why.

I myself love the optimized strategy. I'm a casual player myself, and I
often gamble with friends and family who'd have trouble with any
complicated strategy. So simplifying the strategy is often more
important to my particular needs than squeezing out an extra few .01%s.
Dan's optimized strategy works great for many of my friends; my
question is in the spirit of looking for further simplification.

Stuart

#3

Of course it could be made simpler, and more accurate at the same time. We have been
discussing the Precision Play rules that were first published in 1991. I posted those rules
from the 8th edition of "Video Poker - Precision Play" because that's the version that Bob
was criticizing. Let's get up to date. The rules in my current book, "Video Poker - Optimum
Play" ARE simpler and more accurate, but Bob doesn't seem to want to compare his work
with my recent work -- only with work done before good tools were available.
dan

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <sresnick2@...> wrote:

> >Is the "no discard is of the same suit" really necessary?
> >I'd THOUGHT that "keep a suited 10 when you have only one of K,
> >Q, or J" would be the correct simple rule

Dan Paymar:
> I repeat, my strategies are optimized. That is, simplified without
> significantly reducing the overall expected return.

I'm not questioning that. I'm just wondering if the strategy could be
made still SIMPLER by making the rule just "keep a suited 10 when you
have only one of K, Q, or J". My thought is that by dropping the "...
if no discard is of the same suit," the strategy would become more
simple, and I'm not sure that ANY expected return would be lost. I
don't have enough knowledge to know this for sure myself, so if I'm
wrong, it'd be interesting for me to learn why.

I myself love the optimized strategy. I'm a casual player myself, and I
often gamble with friends and family who'd have trouble with any
complicated strategy. So simplifying the strategy is often more
important to my particular needs than squeezing out an extra few .01%s.
Dan's optimized strategy works great for many of my friends; my
question is in the spirit of looking for further simplification.

Stuart

#4

"vpanalyst" <Dan@...> wrote:

I posted those rules from the 8th edition of "Video Poker -
Precision Play" because that's the version that Bob was
criticizing. Let's get up to date. The rules in my current
book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play" ARE simpler and more accurate

It was a few years back that I bought Dan's book, so it sounds like
the question I asked might be irrelevent to the strategy in the
CURRENT book, which I haven't seen. My question was relevent to me
because I often give the older strategy to friends I gamble with.

It seems like some of my friends can comprehend the precision-style
list of rules, but their mind would instantly fog up if I tried to
show them a strategy in the other style (a list of hands/EVs). I
asked the suited ten question because I'm always looking for ways to
make strategy even simpler for such friends. A dollar or two of EV
per hour is trivial in this particular situation.

But if I can get the strategy a little simpler, it could be very much
non-trivial. It could easily make the difference between a friend
having a good time on a casino trip, & getting frustrated, angry, &
confused.

In the past couple years, the rate that I get for my real job went
down $1/hour, then back up $1/hour. The effect that this change had
on my overall life happiness was so close to zero that I easily
ignored it. I'd draw the line somewhere; maybe if the difference had
been $5/hour I would have found it worth taking some action.

So obviously, for me personally, losing less than $1/hour in VP EV
(which I only play for a few days every month or two) doesn't cross
the line of my concern. It's an entirely personal decision where
anyone chooses to draw this line, and I'd no sooner criticize someone
else's choice in this matter than I would his religion.

And even though I don't care about small differences in EV as a
practical matter, I still enjoy the nitty-gritty examination of tiny
difference that Bob and others provide, since I'm a math geek and
enjoy it purely as mental exercise.

Stuart (RandomStu)
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/mypage.htm

#5

Stu,

I am in somewhat the same situation as you. If left alone I tend to get
extremely analytical. My wife tends the other way and looks for the
simplest approach if not an intuitive one. Over the years I've been
able to get her to take on a little more precision while I've learned
that absolute precision is not required to be successful.

Dick

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <sresnick2@...> wrote:

And even though I don't care about small differences in EV as a
practical matter, I still enjoy the nitty-gritty examination of tiny
difference that Bob and others provide, since I'm a math geek and
enjoy it purely as mental exercise.

#6

This is SOOOO entertaining! Little dicky has made an acute addict of
his wife just as some of the gurus have done---a VERY pathetic
accomplishment. This is the only thing they have in common. Dicky
stands alone, however, in his quest of continual humiliating failure
to 'fit in' within the world of the famous in video poker. But relax
dicky. You've been famous since last Tuesday, and readers want MORE!

I am in somewhat the same situation as you. If left alone I tend to

get

···

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

extremely analytical. My wife tends the other way and looks for the
simplest approach if not an intuitive one. Over the years I've been
able to get her to take on a little more precision while I've learned
that absolute precision is not required to be successful.

Dick

#7

This is SOOOO entertaining! Little dicky has made an acute addict of
his wife just as some of the gurus have done---a VERY pathetic
accomplishment.

Are you ever right? Nope. All you need to do is look in the mirror to
find the only addict in this discussion.

This is the only thing they have in common. Dicky
stands alone, however, in his quest of continual humiliating failure
to 'fit in' within the world of the famous in video poker. But relax
dicky. You've been famous since last Tuesday, and readers want MORE!

They must be insightful readers. They're probably fed up with your lies
and fantasies.

So, Dave, er, I mean Rob, I guess you're back after another folly.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...> wrote:

#8

Bingo! Denial right on cue!! Do I control you or what!!!

> This is SOOOO entertaining! Little dicky has made an acute addict

of

> his wife just as some of the gurus have done---a VERY pathetic
> accomplishment.

Are you ever right? Nope. All you need to do is look in the mirror

to

find the only addict in this discussion.

> This is the only thing they have in common. Dicky
> stands alone, however, in his quest of continual humiliating

failure

> to 'fit in' within the world of the famous in video poker. But

relax

> dicky. You've been famous since last Tuesday, and readers want

MORE!

They must be insightful readers. They're probably fed up with your

lies

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@> wrote:
and fantasies.

So, Dave, er, I mean Rob, I guess you're back after another folly.

#9

Or what, Dave, er, I mean Rob.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...> wrote:

Bingo! Denial right on cue!! Do I control you or what!!!

#10

Or what. I hate to make you look even dumber than you already show, but
when your 'Dave' appeared I wrote Dean Zamzow and asked him to
investigate where his posts were coming from. Straight from New Mexico.
So now's a great time for you to activate some of that computer-
geekiness stuff yourself. And BTW, don't feel so down here little
dicky. Your pal Bob Dancer also accused me of being 'Dave'. See, you do
have something in common with him, other than that which I've already
mentioned.....

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@> wrote:
>
> Bingo! Denial right on cue!! Do I control you or what!!!

Or what, Dave, er, I mean Rob.

#11

I've definitely been impressed with Dick's typewritten domination of a
Singer and a Dancer. Way to verbally rip thru the performing arts
section of VP "gurus"!

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@> wrote:
>
> Bingo! Denial right on cue!! Do I control you or what!!!

Or what, Dave, er, I mean Rob.

#12

Indeed! And Dick is not malicious, hypercritical, or spoiling for a
fight ... he simply challenges posters (fairly) in a clear-thinking
manner to back-up what they post. And he will not be intimidated,
which makes him an excellent debater.

Bob Dancer's quick retreat suggests lesson-learned and even maniacal
Rob Singer has been humbled. Early on, Rob attempted to engage Dick
intellectually but after getting his posts repeatedly ripped to shreds,
he's been reduced, as you can see, to posting grade-school taunts.

I'm sure Dick appreciates your support, but I'm not sure he needs it!

I've definitely been impressed with Dick's typewritten domination of

a

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mark.mentone@...> wrote:

Singer and a Dancer. Way to verbally rip thru the performing arts
section of VP "gurus"!

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@> wrote:
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@> wrote:
> >
> > Bingo! Denial right on cue!! Do I control you or what!!!
>
> Or what, Dave, er, I mean Rob.
>

#13

You forgot something. He likes you.

Indeed! And Dick is not malicious, hypercritical, or spoiling for

a

fight ... he simply challenges posters (fairly) in a clear-thinking
manner to back-up what they post. And he will not be intimidated,
which makes him an excellent debater.

Bob Dancer's quick retreat suggests lesson-learned and even

maniacal

Rob Singer has been humbled. Early on, Rob attempted to engage

Dick

intellectually but after getting his posts repeatedly ripped to

shreds,

he's been reduced, as you can see, to posting grade-school taunts.

I'm sure Dick appreciates your support, but I'm not sure he needs

it!

>
> I've definitely been impressed with Dick's typewritten domination

of

a
> Singer and a Dancer. Way to verbally rip thru the performing arts
> section of VP "gurus"!
>
> >
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>

wrote:

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "2-WILD" <lucky4K@...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mark.mentone@> wrote:
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bingo! Denial right on cue!! Do I control you or what!!!
> >
> > Or what, Dave, er, I mean Rob.
> >
>