Is it better to always go for the four deuces or keep the five of a
kind?
FPDW - strategy when dealt five of a kind with three deuces
Depends on pay schedule. FPDW hold 5K if Tens,J,Q,K or Aces.
···
--- On Thu, 7/31/08, livingintexasusa <sburrow@us.ibm.com> wrote:
From: livingintexasusa <sburrow@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] FPDW - strategy when dealt five of a kind with three deuces
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 1:10 PM
Is it better to always go for the four deuces or keep the five of a
kind?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
As others have said, it's mathematically correct to only go for the 4
deuces when it's a 3-9 5oak.
But, this is a very small EV play for most people. It's worth at
most .3978 coins (with 3's according to WinPoker) which is only about
10 cents for a quarter player (and I assume if you know where there's
FPDW at a much higher level you're not going to broadcast it).
Then when you consider that a dealt 3-9 5oak only occurs ~ 1 in a
little over 15000 hands or about once every ~18 hours of play for most
folks, you're only adding less than a cent per hour to your EV.
So, if you're willing to accept many, many 4oak for the occasional WRF
or deuces that you'll get, then go ahead and make the mathematically
correct play (I do) but don't sweat it if you just collect your 75
coins, smile and move on to the next hand.
Bill
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "livingintexasusa" <sburrow@...> wrote:
Is it better to always go for the four deuces or keep the five of a
kind?
In addition, you increase your volitility by throwing away the made 5-
of-a-kind. I'll be holding all my delt 5oak at FPDW. 
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "weharter" <weharter@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "livingintexasusa" <sburrow@> wrote:
But, this is a very small EV play for most people. It's worth at
most .3978 coins (with 3's according to WinPoker) which is only about
10 cents for a quarter player (and I assume if you know where there'sBill
Also, if it's a hand pay for the 4 deuces you may want to consider always
holding the 5oak. Any tip at all to the floor person reduces the EV on
holding the 3 deuces to below the 5oak. And even if you didn't intend to
tip, if you factor in the lost EV waiting for the hand pay you could justify
holding the 5oak.
Mac McClellan
···
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:19 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: FPDW - strategy when dealt five of a kind with three
deuces
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups. <mailto:vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com> com, "weharter"
<weharter@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups. <mailto:vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com> com,
"livingintexasusa" <sburrow@> wrote:
But, this is a very small EV play for most people. It's worth at
most .3978 coins (with 3's according to WinPoker) which is only about
10 cents for a quarter player (and I assume if you know where there'sBill
In addition, you increase your volitility by throwing away the made 5-
of-a-kind. I'll be holding all my delt 5oak at FPDW.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1584 - Release Date: 7/31/2008
12:00 PM
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A couple years ago, a friend told me he had three different strategies
for .25 FPDW.
At MSS (now, no FPDW) he always broke quints because there was a
scratch card if he made it.
At binion's (now, no FPDW) he always held quints because he didn't
want to wait for 1000 quarters to drop and have to deal with the
hopper fill and cash them in.
At other places with TITO, he would follow the otherwise optimum strategy.
···
On 7/31/08, livingintexasusa <sburrow@us.ibm.com> wrote:
Is it better to always go for the four deuces or keep the five of a
kind?
livingintexasusa wrote:
> Is it better to always go for the four deuces or keep the five of a
> kind?
King Fish replied:
A couple years ago, a friend told me he had three different
strategies for .25 FPDW.At MSS (now, no FPDW) he always broke quints because there was a
scratch card if he made it.At binion's (now, no FPDW) he always held quints because he didn't
want to wait for 1000 quarters to drop and have to deal with the
hopper fill and cash them in.At other places with TITO, he would follow the otherwise optimum
strategy.
This is an excellent example that points out that the distinction
between the two holds is rather fine. While I follow the optimum
strategy playing a TITO machine (on the rare occasion I'm in LV and
make it to the "locals"), I don't fault any player who should choose
to hold 5K in all cases. There's something to be said for a
conservative play for a "sure thing" over an uncertain payout, when
the difference in expectation is nominal.
If you go with the "hold 5" strategy in all cases, you only give up
about .0001% of your expected return. To put that in another
perspective, for every additional set of deuces that you expect as a
consequence of holding just the deuces from a "low" 5K, you look to
gain 1.4 coins (.06 coins for each decision).
So, here's what it comes down to: Holding just the deuces will yield
you an addition set of quad deuces once for every 315,000 played hands
(on average). You might easily go 1 million hands or more without
ever seeing one of the quad deuces pan out from a broken 5K.
In lieu of the hope that you'll realize 1000 coins from a set of
deuces over the course of 315 thousand hands, you can instead take the
certainty of a payout of 998.6 coins.
In that context, always holding the quint doesn't sound entirely
irrational. Of course, where's the fun in that
- Harry
Exactly. In this case it is actually irrational to "go for the deuces"
when the rational Kelly strategy tells you to keep a dealt quint, for
the typical bankroll. Of course, if you don't care about bankroll,
which might be a rational decision on your part, then Kelly strategy
doesn't apply. Is it rational to ignore bankroll considerations while
gambling? Or is that simply a sign of addiction?
Kelly strategy:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_S.htm#KO
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
In that context, always holding the quint doesn't sound entirely
irrational. Of course, where's the fun in that
Should I already know the answer to my question?
To wit, looking at one definition, we have:
The Kelly Optimal VP strategy differs from both Max-EV and Min-Risk. In some sense, the
Kelly strategy is "between" these two -- less agressive than the Max-EV strategy, but more
risky than the Min-Risk strategy.
Do any of the various commercial "strategy" programs have an option to compute "Kelly
Optimal VP Strategy"? Are "Kelly" strategies listed somewhere for games like 9/6 JOB, 8/5
Bonus, and NSUD?
Thanks.
..... bl
I'd be a little bit surprised if any commercial VP programs had
support for Kelly optimal strategies, but I suppose anything is
possible. Last time I checked (which wasn't recently) the only
commercial software that supported anything beyond Max-EV
strategy was Dan Paymar's "Optimum Video Poker", so you
might want to see what it can do. I belive it supports Min-Risk
and possibly min-RoR-before-hitting-Royal, but don't quote
me on that.
Kelly strategies are more complicated than other strategies
because the strategy is dependent on bet fraction (the ratio
of unit size relative to the player's bankroll). So, if you're playing
a machine with a fixed unit size, the strategy mutates as your
bankroll grows and shrinks. When the bet fraction is very tiny
(huge bankroll) the Kelly strategy becomes the same as
Max-EV strategy, and when the bet fraction grows to twice the
size of the Kelly optimal bet (bankroll is half of what it needs
to be) the Kelly strategy becomes the same as Min-Risk.
Overbetting by more than a factor of two is perilous because
Kelly says that the bankroll is expected to shrink despite
playing a "favorable" game.
This mutation in the strategy makes it impossible to publish truly
complete Kelly strategies, and also makes it humanly impossible
to play in a way that is truly Kelly optimal. Of course, the player could
take care to change denominations as the bankroll fluctuates, trying
to keep the bet fraction nearly optimal, and just use the strategy which
corresponds to the Kelly optimal bet fraction.
···
On Saturday 02 August 2008 7:35 am, bornloser1537 wrote:
Should I already know the answer to my question?
To wit, looking at one definition, we have:
The Kelly Optimal VP strategy differs from both Max-EV and Min-Risk. In
some sense, the Kelly strategy is "between" these two -- less agressive
than the Max-EV strategy, but more risky than the Min-Risk strategy.Do any of the various commercial "strategy" programs have an option to
compute "Kelly Optimal VP Strategy"? Are "Kelly" strategies listed
somewhere for games like 9/6 JOB, 8/5 Bonus, and NSUD?Thanks.
..... bl
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
bornloser1537 wrote:
To wit, looking at one definition, we have:
The Kelly Optimal VP strategy differs from both Max-EV and Min-Risk.
In some sense, the Kelly strategy is "between" these two -- less
agressive than the Max-EV strategy, but more risky than the Min-Risk
strategy.Do any of the various commercial "strategy" programs have an option
to compute "Kelly Optimal VP Strategy"? Are "Kelly" strategies
listed somewhere for games like 9/6 JOB, 8/5 Bonus, and NSUD?
I presume you're referencing the FAQ text:
"The Kelly Optimal VP strategy differs from both Max-EV and Min-Risk.
In some sense, the Kelly strategy is "between" these two -- less
agressive than the Max-EV strategy, but more risky than the Min-Risk
strategy. If a Kelly player is constrained to bet much less than the
optimal Kelly fraction, then the strategy which maximizes
log(bankroll) (and equivalently, geometric mean of the outcome) will
approach the Max-EV strategy. The means that Max-EV is appropriate for
well-bankrolled players who have bankrolls so large that they cannot
find machines that allow them to play as "large" as they would like.
But, if the Kelly player is constrained to bet more than the optimal
Kelly fraction, the best "constrained" strategy appears to approach
the Min-Risk strategy as the bet fraction increases from 1X toward 2X
Kelly. This means that a Kelly player with an insufficient bankroll
should probably choose to use a Min-Risk strategy."
There's no vp software that analyzes Kelly strategy.
Kelly strategy is optimized to grow a given bankroll at the fastest
rate. For any given bankroll, there's also an optimum bet size to
achieve that goal. If you're playing at a denomination that yields a
bet below that size, a more aggressive strategy is called for to
achieve this goal - which is the gist of the FAQ and NOTI's comments
in his reply.
I'll repeat a few observations I've made in the past:
Alternate strategy is somewhat of an esoteric consideration -- in many
cases, it's difficult to apply to vp play (because of discrete bet
sizes and limited play options). In others, it frequently involves
bankroll and risk distinctions that are relatively insignificant in
the average player's play (they usually engage in other play decisions
with risk and bankroll implications that dwarf those of shifting game
strategy from one goal optimization to another).
For those inclined to explore esoterica, it can be a fascinating
topic. While I have a bent in that direction, I find honing other
aspects of play has a larger payoff (and they, in themselves, are
sufficiently challenging that I'm not inclined to divert myself).
All that said, there are a few isolated cases where a vp strategy
alternative to max-EV is quite pertinent to the average player. The
"hold quint" vs. "play 3 deuces" is one of them -- because of the
sizable potential payoff sacrifice and the very close EV's involved.
- Harry
What's the novelty behind this game?
The paytable basically looks similar to a Jacks or Better paytable with two
pair returning 10 coins and 4ok returning 125 coins. The thing I don't get
was that four sevens returned 250 coins, and then another line said:
Four Aces or Four Eights.....125.
What's the difference between "Four Aces or Four Eights" and any other 4ok?
Why the separate payout line for that if it pays the same 125 coins?
What's a summarized strategy/return for this game?
I'm not sure what you were looking at, Nathan. Full pay
Aces & Eights pays 400 coins for quad aces or eights, in
addition to 250 coins for quad sevens. The rest of the
pay schedule is identical to 8/5 Bonus Poker, sans the
bonus quads. The EV with perfect play is approximately
99.78%.
~Babe~
···
===================================================
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan O. Roemer" <public@...> wrote:
What's the novelty behind this game?
The paytable basically looks similar to a Jacks or Better
paytable with two pair returning 10 coins and 4ok returning 125
coins. The thing I don't get was that four sevens returned
250 coins, and then another line said:
Four Aces or Four Eights.....125.
I just wanted to emphasize this statement, because I think it is a
mathematical fact that few gamblers are aware of, until it's too late
of course.
http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/kelly.html
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@...> wrote:
Overbetting by more than a factor of two is perilous because
Kelly says that the bankroll is expected to shrink despite
playing a "favorable" game.
Avoiding unnecessary risk is boring to the average person, but it can
be just as rewarding as pursuing opportunity. Most risk presents
itself as "isolated cases", but it is no longer isolated when you find
yourself personally in that pothole or staring down that "rogue wave".
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
All that said, there are a few isolated cases where a vp strategy
alternative to max-EV is quite pertinent to the average player. The
"hold quint" vs. "play 3 deuces" is one of them -- because of the
sizable potential payoff sacrifice and the very close EV's involved.
Thanks for the comments. Being just an average recreational player I have stuck with max-
EV. But, from time to time, I try to look around and see if there might be anything else out
there applicable to my "laid-back" style of play. But, please do not get me wrong. By "laid
back", I do not mean that I do not try to play EV strategy as well as I can.
..... bl
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
Alternate strategy is somewhat of an esoteric consideration
All that said, there are a few isolated cases where a vp strategy
alternative to max-EV is quite pertinent to the average player.- Harry
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
All that said, there are a few isolated cases where a vp strategy
alternative to max-EV is quite pertinent to the average player. The
"hold quint" vs. "play 3 deuces" is one of them -- because of the
sizable potential payoff sacrifice and the very close EV's involved.
There's actually a lot of these cases. I remember in late 2000 a
discussion about TomSki when she told a lady to go for the royal (the
player was dealt a pat flush in 9/6 JOB but had 4 to the royal in
0.25 triple play at max coins). She went for the royal and missed on
all three lines and turned three guaranteed winner into three
losers. She then proceeded gave TomSki a dirty look along with a not
so nice remark. TomSki at the time had just finished his TSI index
(many years before Dunbar would release his video poker software) and
when he redid the numbers, he discovered the correct play was based
on the lady's net worth. I forgot the exact number the lady needed
in order to go for the royal, but people don't understand that a
guaranteed winner is worth about twice the EV (this is the general
rule of bird in hand versus two in the bush).
Another case was in October 2000 when TomSki was asked the effect of
purposely keeping winners in lieu of higher ev hands, and the
possibility to using that to design a streamline vp strategy. At
this time TomSki was also known for his VPSM program. The question
came up in full pay pick'em about whether to keep all High pair over
3 to the royal. In fact, a partial description of the alogorithm was
disclosed on the message boards, and I remember Dan Paymar wanting to
use that algorithm for an article in his vp periodical. This
algorithm was designed to give the highest ev with respect to
variance and is a much cruder method (again, computing power was
rather limited in 2000 versus today) that some of the strategies
Steve Jacobs later disclosed to the public. If I remembered the
algorithm, it looked at both the ev and variance of the game AND with
an eye to reduced strategy (easier to play and easier to maintain).
In the case of Pick'em, keeping high pair over 3 to the royal reduced
the ev, but ALSO reduced the variance AND simplified the strategy.
In summary, for someone like Harry Porter to say there are few
isolated cases means he hasn't had the opportunity to investigate the
many aspects of this interesting field of video poker.
I'd be a little bit surprised if any commercial VP programs had
support for Kelly optimal strategies, but I suppose anything is
possible. Last time I checked (which wasn't recently) the only
commercial software that supported anything beyond Max-EV
strategy was Dan Paymar's "Optimum Video Poker", so you
might want to see what it can do. I belive it supports Min-Risk
and possibly min-RoR-before-hitting-Royal, but don't quote
me on that.
To be fair, Frugual VP software allows one to alter strategy and thus
alter ev and variance, respectively.
This mutation in the strategy makes it impossible to publish truly
complete Kelly strategies, and also makes it humanly impossible
to play in a way that is truly Kelly optimal. Of course, the
player could
take care to change denominations as the bankroll fluctuates, trying
to keep the bet fraction nearly optimal, and just use the strategy
which
corresponds to the Kelly optimal bet fraction.
The problem with video poker is its high variance and along with
the "skewness" of the rare jackpots. These two factors makes the
video poker game unlikely suited for a kelly bettor than a blackjack
player who flat bets when bj pay 2 to 1, respectively, given both
games have the same return (when controlling for return, I
exaggerated the examples for a reason).
On a more serious note, have you done work on keep pat hands
(guaranteed winners) in strategy -- i.e. in 9/6 JOB, it is commonly
known to break pat flush, pat straights and go for the 4-card royal,
also you give up the high-pair for 4-card straight flushes, etc.
While keeping these pat hands cost us in terms of game return, it
also materially reduces variance? This is clearly not the same as
the other work you have done.
Thanks.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
> In that context, always holding the quint doesn't sound entirely
> irrational. Of course, where's the fun in thatExactly. In this case it is actually irrational to "go for the deuces"
when the rational Kelly strategy tells you to keep a dealt quint, for
the typical bankroll. Of course, if you don't care about bankroll,
which might be a rational decision on your part, then Kelly strategy
doesn't apply. Is it rational to ignore bankroll considerations while
gambling? Or is that simply a sign of addiction?
My take on this is pretty simple. The answer to such questions as
those which close your post is that context (circumstance,situation) is
crucial, perhaps critical. Despite what Madison Avenue advertising
types claim, one size simply doesn't fit all. If you can
easily "afford" to play $1 or $5 per hand but choose to limit yourself
to .25 or .50 instead, how would such even remotely constitute "a sign
of addiction?" Even if you choose to always "chase" the deuces or the
RF in similar circumstances. I do this regularly and could easily play
$1 and $5 vp if I desired to do so. For me, such choices are a matter
of fun while, for the most part, I'm avoiding W2G's which screw up my
tax return.
tj
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@> wrote:
The problem with video poker is its high variance and along with
the "skewness" of the rare jackpots. These two factors makes the
video poker game unlikely suited for a kelly bettor than a blackjack
player who flat bets when bj pay 2 to 1, respectively, given both
games have the same return (when controlling for return, I
exaggerated the examples for a reason).
Agreed. A Kelly optimal strategy used with Kelly optimal bet fraction
results in a strategy which devalues large payoffs by a significant
amount. This affects the royal payoff much more than any of the
smaller payoffs. I believe the most notable affect would be that the
Kelly optimal bet fraction for the VP game would be much smaller
than the Kelly optimal bet fraction for the blackjack game. However,
since VP is much faster in terms of hands played per hour, it is possible
that the VP game would be a better play when bankroll growth is
formulated as expected time to double the bankroll.
On a more serious note, have you done work on keep pat hands
(guaranteed winners) in strategy -- i.e. in 9/6 JOB, it is commonly
known to break pat flush, pat straights and go for the 4-card royal,
also you give up the high-pair for 4-card straight flushes, etc.
While keeping these pat hands cost us in terms of game return, it
also materially reduces variance? This is clearly not the same as
the other work you have done.
I've done a little work with trying to reduce variance, but I realized a long
time ago that variance itself isn't inherently bad. I personally believe
that trying to reduce raw variance for its own sake is misguided. A player
who truly wishes to minimize variance will simply choose not to play, since
not playing eliminates variance entirely. A strategy which minimizes
variance would never break a pat hand even when doing so gives a huge
increase in EV, and I'd call this an example of "good variance" that is
desirable, as it gives a big reward in exchange for the increased
uncertainty. The time to reduce variance is when the gain from breaking the
pat hand is small. So the trick with variance is to avoid it when it hurts
and embrace it when it helps. I believe that tradeoff is handled quite well
by a min-risk strategy, which minimizes the probability of going broke rather
than playing forever without ever having the bankroll reduced to zero.
I believe it is best to have a clear mathematical objective to drive the
strategy, whether it is EV or risk or having the best shot at hitting a royal
before expending the entire bankroll, or whatever the player chooses as what
is most important to him/her. Once a clear objective is chosen and the
strategy is optimized for that objective, variance and all other
considerations becomes less important. If one is still tempted to deviate
from the optimized strategy, then perhaps that objective isn't really what
is most important, but that is something every player has to decide for
themselves.
···
On Saturday 02 August 2008 6:33 pm, chungsterama wrote: