Linda Boyd Wrote: To answer his accusations in detail would take untold
hours and he knows it.
Bob Dancer replies: Not true. Just point out the paragraph where it
says to ever hold 'QT' or 'KT'. Just point out the paragraph where it
differentiates betweeen the play on 'AK'QT5 and 'AK'QJ5. Just point out
the paragraph where it says to hold 'KQ9' over 'KQ'. Just point out the
paragraph where it says to hold KQJT over TT. None of these things would
be difficult --- were these things included in your strategy. The
strategy is a page and a half long and can be read in a minute or two.
If you can't find these items in that page and a half (and you won't
because they aren't there), admit your mistakes.
Linda Boyd Wrote: Bob, has Dean Zamzow run an algorithm to check the
accuracy of your own cards? Is it even possible? (Dean Zamzow wrote
WinPoker, a product that Bob endorsed after it had been written.)
Bob Dancer replies: I certainly endorsed WinPoker 5 after suggesting
changes to WinPoker 4 (which was called WinPokerU at the time). When it
came time for WinPoker 6, I wrote out dozens of suggestions for features
in the new product. I did the same for WinPoker 7, and if they had been
done by Zamzow, I'd still be representing WinPoker rather than VPW. I'm
actually happy that Dean is now using Linda to help him sell the
software. Although dated, the product still has features that none of
the other software does.
I do not know if Dean Zamzow mathematically reviewed my strategy. In
Video Poker for Winners, however, the correct strategy is mathematically
shown to be 99.54390% with the strategy given as 99.54291%, for a
strategic error of 0.000999%. This is the irreducible amount of the
error given that the strategy intentionally omits penalty card
situations. In addition, all of the cases where the given strategy
provides a different answer than perfect strategy are listed with the
size of the error and the frequency. I believe the strategy presented on
Level 4 of the Dancer/Daily card is 100% perfect.
9/6 Jacks is a solved puzzle. Using WinPoker, VPW, FVP, etc allows you
to correctly analyze any hand. I've told you where your mistakes are.
All you need to do is to either explain how I am misinterpreting your
strategy or admit that your mistakes are major. There should be no doubt
to anyone that 'JT', 'QT', and 'KT' are sometimes held. There should
also be no doubt that anyone looking at pages 70-71 of your book will
not find any reference to holding these hands --- although it's possible
that you intended your book to say that you hold 'JT' from Q'JT' 74. And
in that case, it's just plain wrong.
Linda Boyd wrote: Bob has unfairly and regularly criticized the work of
Dan Paymar, Jean Scott and now me.
Bob Dancer replies: I threw the smallest of pebbles at Jean's strategies
(which were basically copied word for word from Jim Wolf --- I have
criticism of the style of the strategies, but in general the accuracy is
acceptable). I've definitely criticized Jean for things not related to
her strategies. I've thrown rocks at Dan's strategies, but I'm heaving
boulders at yours. If you're implying your strategies are anywhere close
to theirs in accuracy, you are being very unfair to both of them.
Linda Boyd wrote: I would have to stop everything to respond to his
malicious attack and I'm working solo.
Bob Dancer replies: How many people do you think are on my team? Last
time I checked, Shirley was in the kitchen, I'm in my office, and there
was nobody else around. The hard work (identifying your errors) has
already been done for you and everyone else. All you have to do is show
us how it is that my listing of your errors was incorrect or agree that
my listing was actually fair. If you are fair-minded, it should only
take you a few minutes to conclude that my listing was correct. Whether
or not you have the integrity to admit your mistakes is something we are
all finding out in these exchanges.
I do not consider my attack to be malicious. I consider it to be warning
video poker players about serious mistakes in the existing literature.
Linda Boyd wrote: People have only to use my cards and Bob's with the
practice software to know just how accurate and easy it is to use each
product.
Bob Dancer replies: That's a wonderful idea --- within limits! Anyone
who has your strategies can look at my posted list of errors and judge
whether I'm correctly characterizing your work or not. Once they verify
that I've accurately stated what's on your cards, they can check out the
hands on any of the software. Once they do, they will find that your
strategy is woefully inadequate. I certainly invite several people on
vpFREE to do just this. There are people on this site who will take your
side automatically because I'm on the other side, but anyone who
actually compares my criticism of your work to an accurate strategy will
find that I'm being very fair. And I request that they say so.
What I'm suggesting is that your cards lack accuracy. What you are
responding is that they are easy to use. This is not the same thing.
Making small simplifications with the aim of making a strategy easier to
use is certainly a justfiable goal of a strategy card creator.
Simplifications like saying a 3-card royal is ALWAYS better than a
4-card flush is definitely easier to understand for all but the most
serious players. (Dancer/Daily cards make this simplification on the
first three levels, but give the complete rules accurately on the fourth
level for those who want it.) But these formatting styles should not
have major omissions in them, and yours does. It is likely possible to
rewrite strategies using your style including corrections to the errors
I've pointed out. It should take an hour or two to do this --- not the
months and months you imply it will take --- no matter how many people
you have on your team.
Linda Boyd wrote: I really am physically sick over having to
defend many years of work by dropping everything or have people believe
Bob's vicious attack on my work.
Bob Dancer replies: I'll certainly be glad to wait until your health
improves before you respond --- although you clearly seem to be healthy
enough to be able to respond to several other posts today. A few months
ago when I gently chastised you for not being clear about the difference
between suited cards and unsuited cards in your statements like "Never
hold an Ace when dealt three high cards. Hold the two non-Ace high
cards" (page 71), you told us that you couldn't respond because you were
upset that your dog had died. Now you tell you you can't respond because
you are physically sick. These appear to be ruses so you can avoid
responding to legitimate criticism of your work.
I believe it is important to distinguish between legitimate criticism
and "vicious attacks". I believe my recent posts fall clearly in the
range of legitimate criticism. Your labeling them vicious attacks is
actually an unfair attack on me and likely just your way of trying to
avoid answering the reasonable questions posed.
Linda Boyd wrote (in a separate post --- responding to my request that
she defend her work if she is able to): No Bob, you're dead wrong. I'd
have to get in the mud and argue with you--very distasteful, to say the
least.
Bob Dancer implies: I'm not slinging mud. I'm pointing out legitimate
errors that you've made. I can understand why having your work
criticized is distasteful to you. But either my criticism is fair or it
isn't. I believe it to be fair. I welcome anyone on vpFREE who has a
copy of your strategy and access to a computer program that will tell
you how to play any hands to post whether they find my criticisms are
fair or not.
You are the one using terms like "mud-slinging", "vicious attack", and
"malicious attack." I've never used any such terms about you. What I've
said is that your strategies are very inaccurate. And I did state in
this post that continuing to deny your mistakes when present clear
evidence to the contrary shows a lack of integrity. If and when you
apologize to vpFREE for your strategies and the vigor with which you are
defending them even after being shown how bad they are, I'll be happy to
take that judgement back.
Bob Dancer