I indicated in a post about strategy cards that Linda Boyd
included some penalty cards and sometimes got them correct. Linda posted
a long response saying how hard she worked to get the strategies
correct. I'm not questioning the effort and intention at all, but hard
work does not always translate into a quality product.
Boyd's strategies have a unique style to them. Since different
people process information in different ways, I have no doubt that some
people will find her format easier to understand than other formats. For
this she is to be commended. Giving players a choice of how to learn is
a good thing --- provided they are quality choices.
She has, however, MAJOR mistakes in most if not all of her
strategies. (I've only analyzed a few of them seriously. It's possible
that one or more of the ones I didn't analyze are acceptable.) This
isn't just a matter of style. It's a matter of omission. Take 9/6 Jacks
for example. It's possible she knows the game perfectly as a player, but
her strategies certainly don't reflect that knowledge.
I'm looking at "The Video Poker Edge," copyright 2006, first
edition. If there's an errata for mistakes in the first edition, I've
haven't seen it, or seen it offered.
Here are mistakes I've found in her 9/6 Jacks strategies, listed
on pages 70 and 71 of this book.
Using quote marks to indicate suited cards in this post, there
is no category saying you hold 'KT', 'QT', or 'JT'. In her "High Cards"
category, which from context appears to mean two or three unsuited high
cards, she has the exception to always hold two high cards over 'KT',
'QT', or 'JT'. That's the strategy Dancer/Daily has at the Recreational
Level (which is intentionally simplified), but at the Basic Level (which
is as good as it gets without penalty cards), the correct strategy is
'JT' over AJ (which is true 100% of the time), 'JT' over KJ (which is
the correct play on average), and 'QT' over AQ (which is the correct
play on average). At the Advanced level, there are flush penalty
considerations for 'JT' versus KJ and 'QT' versus AQ. Boyd sometimes
includes penalty card rules in her strategy, so whether she does this
time or not could be called "author's choice," but at whatever level she
intends to have this, she has omitted a few lines from her strategy. If
she's not going to use penalty cards in a particular section, surely she
should use the rules which are correct on average. She doesn't do that
here.
She never mentions 2-gap 3-card straight flushes other than at
the very bottom when she says they are better than single high cards.
But the ones with two high cards ('KQ9', 'KJ9', or 'QJ8') or one high
card ('QT8', 'Q98', 'JT7', 'J97', or 'J87', and all six A-low
combinations) are never mentioned except saying that they are better
than a single high card. The obvious conclusion is that from 'KQ9' you
hold 'KQ' only --- which is ludicrous, and expensive. There are times
you hold these combinations in preference to certain 4-card inside
straights and times you don't. These can be easily handled without using
penalty cards, but Linda neglects to even broach the subject. It's
possible that Linda (as a player) knows when these combinations are
played. But not covering them in her strategy is a major omission. This
is not a penaly card situation.
She says to prefer 3-card straight flushes with 0 or 1 gaps over
two high cards, but she neglects to differentiate between whether the
high cards are suited or not. That is, from 'KQ' "764" the correct play
is 'KQ', but from KQ "764" the correct play is "764". According to
Linda, "764" is the preferred play in both of these cases. In fact, 'KQ'
is about 56¢ more valuable (to a 5-coin $1 player) than KQ in the cited
hands, so it's no wonder that the correct play is different. This has
nothing to do with penalty cards. It is a major omission.
She says that low pairs are always held in preference to 4-card
open-ended straights. That is misplayed on the hand KQJTT. Again, this
has nothing to do with penalty cards.
She does say that you hold inside straights with three or four
high cards and she correctly says that a 3-card royal is superior. But
she omits to discuss 2-card royals in the same hand. (for example, Ah Kh
Qc Td 5d which is played one way or Ah Kh Qc Jd 5d which is played
another. This is NOT penalty cards. Neither does she distinguish between
the various times you hold 'QJ' from AK'QJ' and the times you hold all
four cards. This latter case IS penalty cards).
She says to never hold a 4-card flush over a 3-card royal. There
are some exceptions to this rule. It's not a terrible omission that she
doesn't discuss them, but since she sometimes discusses flush penalties
the implication is that she discusses ALL of the penalty card situations
rather than just some of them.
She throws in some numbers for 9/6 Jacks progressive. In the
section discussing holding a high pair or a 3-card royal, she says
(using her capitalization rules) "In progressive 9/6 Jacks or Better,
hold three to a progressive Royal when Royal is paying over 4,780 coins
without a Flush Penalty. If Flush Penalty, hold if Royal pays over 5,050
coins." These numbers are accurate for 'AKQ', 'AKJ', and 'AQJ' only.
(She doesn't tell you this.) They are NOT accurate for 'KQJ', 'KQT',
'KJT', or 'QJT'. (She later has a paragraph for the 'AKT', 'AQT', and
'AJT' numbers which she gives correctly). To the right of this section
she gives these same breakpoint numbers for 3-card royals without an ace
--- for which they are NEVER correct. (This implies that 'KQT', 'KQJ',
and 'QJT' are all equal when it comes to progressive breakpoints ---
which they aren't.) She talks about flush penalties, but there are also
high card penalties (such as A'AKQ'J), ten penalties (such as 'AKQ' QT),
and a hand like 'AKQ'JJ --- where the high pair consists of cards not
included in the 3-card royal) has different numbers. It is unclear why
she included flush penalties only. Does she not know or care about the
other penalties?
She says the same strategy is good for 9/6 Bonus Poker Deluxe
which is nonsense. In games where two pair returns 5 coins rather than
10 coins, you hold inside straights with zero or two high cards ---
depending on the other cards in the hand and whether or not the high
cards in the hand are suited with each other. When you only get 5 coins
for two pair, you also play hands like QJT99 and JT988 differently than
you do in 9/6 Jacks. In BPD you hold a 4-card flush over 'AKT', 'AQT',
and 'AJT'.
Some of the omissions Linda makes are minor, but some are very
major. There are some fine points in the game that we can't even discuss
(such as when to hold K only from 'KT' because she says never to hold
'KT' at all). In sum, these strategies are substantially worse than any
strategy produced by any respected author. If anyone wishes to defend
her strategies, please explain how each of the items in this note is
incorrect. In sum they add up to a LOT.
Linda says she doesn't want to get into a fight with me over
strategies. In truth, I'm not itching for a fight either. But when she
keeps saying how good her strategies are and implies they are the best
thing on the market, I find her claims very dangerous. She implies that
being reviewed by "Publisher's Weekly" is a stamp of quality. That's
only true if the reviewer is knowledgeable about video poker and takes
the time to analyze her strategies carefully. This clearly was not the
case.
Linda tells us that her strategies were reviewed by experts. If
she wants to identify these experts and have any or all of them explain
to me how I am misinterpreting her strategies, I'm interested in hearing
what they have to say. If they were truly experts, they would have seen
the errors I'm mentioning here and they could have been fixed before
publication.
I'm certainly not trashing the entire book. Linda's discussion
of Class II gaming and how it varies state by state is the most complete
I've seen. (This information is, by necessity, time sensitive. There's
no telling how accurate it will be in three years.) If anyone here is
using Linda's strategies as their ONLY source of video poker
information, they should beware. There are major errors in them. If
you're getting strategy information elsewhere and learning other points
from Linda's book, it does have some information that is included
nowhere else.
I understand that I will be severely criticized by some here for
making any sort of negative post (and this certainly qualifies as that).
Before you lash out at me, however, I strongly encourage you to analyze
how accurate my points are, and that if I'm correct, how serious the
errors are. Would you really want players who were trying to learn this
game to never hold 'JT', 'QT', or 'KT'? Or to not differentiate between
two suited high cards and two unsuited high cards when you have three to
the straight flush in the same hand? Or to never hold 'KQ9' or 'QJ8'?
I encourage either Harry or Brian (or both), who are
knowledgeable and well-respected here with no axe to grind against Linda
or me, analyze what I've written. If they don't have the book, they can
ask Linda to fax them a copy of the two pages in question. (Since it's
for review purposes, I don't think it is illegal for me to fax two
pages, but I'm not sure.) I'm sure Linda also has it in emailable
format.
Bob Dancer
For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com