Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:04:03 -0800
From: "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@compdance.com>
Subject: RE: Re: Dan's Asked Me To Give It My Best ShotDan I don't feel any need to defend my work.
Bob: Obviously you do. My comment that the reason I started writing was
because of severe errors in your work has led to you defending your work
and defaming mine.
Bob, you take every possible opportunity to take shots at my work, making ridiculous claims about past work with no consideration of later work. Don't you expect a response?
Dan: 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.Bob: I have respect for Jazbo. But what Jazbo said in his 1998 post
was likely about the 9th or 10th edition of Precision Play rules, or
maybe even the first edition of his expanded book. Dan's "VP Optimum
Play" is in many respects the 11th edition of his earlier volumes. It
was definitely expanded, but much was taken intact from the earlier
works. These were published after I started writing (partly with
corrections I provided). Dan claimed that Jazbo used the "less than
0.01%" remark about his 8th or previous edition. Not the same thing at
all.
I already mentioned that Jazbo may have been looking at a later version, which, of course, makes it all the more ridiculous that you continue criticizing a strategy that is 15 years old, published before Video Poker Tutor or other good analysis tools were available. Are you afraid to compare your work with my current work?
The only reason I am talking about Dan's 1994 publication is that was
what was around when I made the decision to become a writer.
Do you don't bother to look at later work before rehashing old criticism? If you're too cheap to buy the book, you could have asked to see the current Precision Play rules, and I would have posted them, but you specifically referred to the 8th edition of "Video Poker - Precision Play."
Dan claims his work is "optimized". I suggest that that word should be
reserved for a much higher level of accuracy than what he reached.
You use "optimal" for your complex strategies. You continue to ignore the fact that I use "optimized" exactly as I define it -- that is, designed to allow a NON-PROFESSIONAL player to achieve the maximum per-hour win rate. The strategies are simplified in situations of low frequence and small EV difference. These situations have very little affect on the long-term ER. Even your calculation of a 0.0136% "error" vindicates that.
Dan claims his rules are easy to memorize. Really? Look again at his rule 6.
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
My ten (or 11) rules are not easier to learn than a 64-entry hand rank table? And, of course, you picked the longest rule for your example.
You have "any" twice, "unless", "except", "or" twice, "rather than",
"with no honors", and a parenthetical comment. (And in the original, he
uses very awkward capitalization which he conveniently forgot to include
when he duplicated what he wrote.) We have a rather tortuous sentence
with a lot of precisely (albeit incorrectly in some cases) worded
constraints. It is a rare player indeed who can understand such a
sentence and all of its caveats but could not understand a list of
rules. Perhaps there are such people.
Perhaps you could phrase it better?
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: I don't believe this is true at all. I recall no such
invitations.
Then you have a very bad memory.
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: I have not denied this. I have frequently said I provided you with
a list of hundreds of changes to the 8th edition --- which certainly
implies that I was thoroughly familiar with your work.
And I have repeatedly replied that I used only a few of your demanded changes in the 9th edition, then went back to the clearer wording in the 10th edition. There is almost nothing of your great improvements in my publications.
Now, of course, you will say that my publications are not as good as they could have been with your suggestions, but I found them to be worthless. The fact that my book is the best selling on video poker strategy speaks for itself.
I have frequently
said that the most beginning level of strategy published in my reports
was similar in format to Dan's Precision Plays --- only with many of the
mistakes eliminated. What makes the reports valuable was that it was the
first time 100% accurate strategies were published, and the first time a
lengthy discussion of penalty cards was published. When Dan wrote:
"Bob's first Reports were accurate because they were a close copy of
mine." , that was simply not true. The accurate part of the reports was
in the Intermediate and Professional strategies --- far past the
beginner section that was in similar format to Dan's. Had Dan not
written that sentence, this entire thread would not have started.
I showed where the thread started. I did not start it.
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.Bob: I think the details are very important. Would a staunch Republican
look at the Clinton years as the end result of eight years of prosperity
and no wars, or would he focus on the details? I'm not a staunch
Republican, and I'm not accusing Dan of anything sordid, but I do think
details are important.
The only detail that's important is the end result.
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: I'm not distinguishing between these words --- they are
equivalent to me. I was attempting to use the same word Dan used and
perhaps sometimes used the equivalent (to me) one instead. I am not
trying to play word games here. But whether you prefer "optimal",
"optimum", or "optimized", I suggest that all these words imply a far
higher degree of accuracy INCLUDING THE DETAILS than what Dan produces.
Whichever word(s) he uses, I think he over-compliments himself and his
work.
The words are not synonymous. "Optimal" suggests the very best possible, while "optimum" means the best for the current situation. Clearly, the type of player must be included as part of the situation. My publications are aimed at the beginner to the advanced skilled recreational players, not the pros.
Dan: And how did Joker Wild get into this? I thought we were
discussing Jacks or Better.Bob: What I was discussing is Dan's inaccuracies which prompted me to
take up this profession. His Joker Wild strategy was just more reason
for my decision.
But it had nothing to do with the analysis at hand. Just another spurious jab.
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: I very much doubt that Jazbo said any such thing about version 8
of the Precision Play rules. Dan keeps quoting what Jazbo said about
Dan's later work. And the only reason I am talking about 12 years ago is
that's when I made my decision to begin writing about this stuff.
So you continue to criticize that old stuff. Digging into the far past is just an excuse to criticize me without concerning yourself about work done since then.
Dan: You continue to criticize stuff that is 15 years old instead of
comparing my publications today with yours and others. Get up to date.Bob: You really think your current publications would receive high
marks from me? Get real.
Really, I don't care what you think about my work. The comments by others in these forums make it clear to me that your opinions don't carry much weight.
Dan
···
--
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