vpFREE2 Forums

Linda Boyd's Book

#1

Linda wrote: I wrote a response to each of Bob's allegations and was
ready to post it.

It was long and I really was starting to sound just like Bob.

People will have to use Bob's cards during practice and use my cards
during practice to determine the merits of each.

My publishing house, Square One, just contacted me and asked that I
ignore all of Bob's posts.

That's what I will do.

BD replies: This is amusing --- and rather predictable from Linda. After
arguing repeatedly that it would take her months and months to respond
to my questions, somehow she was mysteriously able to answer them all in
a few hours. (Never mind sleep. This is important).

Now she comes up with a statement that says that even though she has
answers, she won't let us see them. Whether or not Square One actually
contacted her I don't know. (they actually monitor vpFREE? I find that
hard to believe) I certainly haven't contacted them yet. It is very easy
to claim to have answers while not revealing them to others.

This is just one more of her many techniques to avoid answering rather
simple questions and admitting that her strategies aren't up to snuff.

#2

BD replies: This is amusing --- and rather predictable from Linda.

After

arguing repeatedly that it would take her months and months to

respond

to my questions, somehow she was mysteriously able to answer them

all in

a few hours. (Never mind sleep. This is important).

Now she comes up with a statement that says that even though she has
answers, she won't let us see them. Whether or not Square One

actually

contacted her I don't know. (they actually monitor vpFREE? I find

that

hard to believe) I certainly haven't contacted them yet. It is very

easy

to claim to have answers while not revealing them to others.

This is just one more of her many techniques to avoid answering

rather

simple questions and admitting that her strategies aren't up to

snuff.

Interesting and predictable response. Bob has yet to respond to any
of my posts which demonstrate he is clearly wrong. He won't defend
himself and yet he takes Linda to task for doing EXACTLY the same
thing he is doing.

Come on Bob, let's see you state explicitly for everyone to read the
exact payback of Linda's strategy. If you don't know then admit that
you have been making claims without the slightest idea what you are
saying.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

#3

Mroejacks wrote: Come on Bob, let's see you state explicitly for
everyone to read the
exact payback of Linda's strategy. If you don't know then admit that
you have been making claims without the slightest idea what you are
saying.

I do avoid answering your posts. You have consistently taken an
anti-Dancer slant on vpFREE and so if I take the time to answer your
questions, I believe you'll merely attack me from a different angle.
Therefore, I ignore you.

But I'll tell you what I will do. Figuring out manually how much you
lose by holding J over a suited JT is relatively easy, albeit
timeconsuming, to figure out manually --- it will take me an hour or so
and I can explain to the group how to do it. (The output will look quite
a bit like the SHOW REPORT output in the strategy section of VPW. Once
someone spends enough time studying how this report is made, it allows
you to figure these things out manually. ) There are several thousand
hands to consider with several different error amounts depending on
straight and flush penalties.

I'll be happy to undertake that exercise once Linda admits that her
strategy indeeds makes this mistake. (It won't be hard to fix her
strategy, once she admits the error exists.) Short of her doing that, I
see no point in this exercise. If you, Dick, haven't been convinced of
my video poker expertise after all of the things I've written and
accomplished over the years, spending an hour of my time humoring one of
your demands is clearly a waste of time.

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

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf
Of mroejacks
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:38 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Linda Boyd's Book

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

BD replies: This is amusing --- and rather predictable from Linda.

After

arguing repeatedly that it would take her months and months to

respond

to my questions, somehow she was mysteriously able to answer them

all in

a few hours. (Never mind sleep. This is important).

Now she comes up with a statement that says that even though she has
answers, she won't let us see them. Whether or not Square One

actually

contacted her I don't know. (they actually monitor vpFREE? I find

that

hard to believe) I certainly haven't contacted them yet. It is very

easy

to claim to have answers while not revealing them to others.

This is just one more of her many techniques to avoid answering

rather

simple questions and admitting that her strategies aren't up to

snuff.

Interesting and predictable response. Bob has yet to respond to any
of my posts which demonstrate he is clearly wrong. He won't defend
himself and yet he takes Linda to task for doing EXACTLY the same
thing he is doing.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#4

I do avoid answering your posts. You have consistently taken an
anti-Dancer slant on vpFREE and so if I take the time to answer your
questions, I believe you'll merely attack me from a different angle.
Therefore, I ignore you.

I only take an anti-anybody stance when their posts are in error.
This is the case right now. I am probably a little harder on you
because so many people look up to you and tend to take whatever you
say as gospel. However, you are abusing that position by posting
misleading information.

But I'll tell you what I will do. Figuring out manually how much you
lose by holding J over a suited JT is relatively easy, albeit
timeconsuming, to figure out manually --- it will take me an hour

or so

and I can explain to the group how to do it. (The output will look

quite

a bit like the SHOW REPORT output in the strategy section of VPW.

Once

someone spends enough time studying how this report is made, it

allows

you to figure these things out manually. ) There are several

thousand

hands to consider with several different error amounts depending on
straight and flush penalties.

You only need to input Linda's strategy into FVP and let it compute
the payback. That sounds quite a bit simpler to me and you get a
COMPLETE picture. I wouldn't ask this of you except you are the one
who made the claims and now are refusing to back them up with REAL
data. I think this shows your real intent was to bash Linda and not
provide any helpful information to this forum. Personally, I don't
care one way or the other if you do this work, but by not doing the
real work I think the rest of the forum members now get to understand
your real motives.

I'll be happy to undertake that exercise once Linda admits that her
strategy indeeds makes this mistake. (It won't be hard to fix her
strategy, once she admits the error exists.)

Bob, leaving out strategy items is NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, a
mistake. It is a simplification. You may not agree that it is a good
simplicication but calling it an ERROR is pure BS. I find it amazing
that you can't understand this since I'm sure that is how you arrived
at your beginner strategies (or were you even involved in there
generation???).

Short of her doing that, I
see no point in this exercise. If you, Dick, haven't been convinced

of

my video poker expertise after all of the things I've written and
accomplished over the years, spending an hour of my time humoring

one of

your demands is clearly a waste of time.

Stating you are an expert doesn't cut it, Bob. We're not talking
about PLAYING VP or determining what is and what isn't a good play. I
do believe you can handle those tasks. We are talking about
strategies. You're comments here show a certain lack of expertise in
strategy generation concepts. Your recent comments on unlikely VP
hand combinations also showed severe problems understanding simple
mathematical concepts. Let's see if you can fix that image now. Admit
your mistake, apologize and move on.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

#5

Folks,

Isn't it time to drop this. I think any point to be made has been
made several times.

I, for one, use Bob's cards and love them. They helped me move from
Basic to Advanced play (I wouldn't have even bought cards at
recreational level.) The notation was, to my mind, easy to pick up in
less than an hour on Frugal Video Poker (I also own Optimum VP and
VPFW.)

I very much like what I've heard from Linda Boyd outside of this
flare-
up with Bob. I agree that his technical observations appear to be
correct but I do think he has handled it in a very "ungentlemanly"
way. That, unfortunately, has tarnished the image that I've held of
him.

I looked at Linda's Book and Cards and decided they were aimed at a
less experienced player. That's great, we need all kinds of options
and
I bought it just to support her since she's been so nice here even
though I have not read it and probably won't.

I think that EVERYONE can only LOSE by more discussion on the topic.
Let's get back to helping each other and being a friendly place
PLEASE.

Lavona Rann

#6

Applause from Summerlin; in Las Vegas, Nevada. All this bickering.
Yet today even for a mere 25c player like myself, great games are
within a few miles. Certainly 9/6 JOB. Certainly 8/5 Bonus with a
progressive. Certainly 9/6 Bonus Poker Deluxe. Certainly full pay
Deuces. Certainly 10/7 DB. Certainly 10/6 DDB.

Is that shouting? I don't think so. The three casinos near me will
take your bet; and whomever wins, that's it. But...let's not forget
points, cashback, comps.

Now I shall TRY to keep it real. Boyd versus Dancer: how many
situations arise per hour that even merit looking at either
strategy? This is directed at those that apparently play 600+ hands
an hour.

Any pro or quasi-pro care to quantify this?

Folks,

Isn't it time to drop this. I think any point to be made has been
made several times.

I, for one, use Bob's cards and love them. They helped me move

from

Basic to Advanced play (I wouldn't have even bought cards at
recreational level.) The notation was, to my mind, easy to pick up

in

less than an hour on Frugal Video Poker (I also own Optimum VP and
VPFW.)

I very much like what I've heard from Linda Boyd outside of this
flare-
up with Bob. I agree that his technical observations appear to be
correct but I do think he has handled it in a very "ungentlemanly"
way. That, unfortunately, has tarnished the image that I've held

of

him.

I looked at Linda's Book and Cards and decided they were aimed at

a

less experienced player. That's great, we need all kinds of

options

and
I bought it just to support her since she's been so nice here even
though I have not read it and probably won't.

I think that EVERYONE can only LOSE by more discussion on the

topic.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Lavona Rann" <lrann2@...> wrote:

Let's get back to helping each other and being a friendly place
PLEASE.

Lavona Rann

#7

Great post, Bob.

Linda could say the same thing:

"I will avoid answering your posts because you have consistently
taken an anti-Boyd slant on vpFREE and so if I take the time to
answer your questions, I believe you'll merely attack me from a
different angle. Therefore, I will ignore you."

···

On 6/21/07, Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:

<SNIP>
I do avoid answering your posts. You have consistently taken an
anti-Dancer slant on vpFREE and so if I take the time to answer your
questions, I believe you'll merely attack me from a different angle.
Therefore, I ignore you.
<SNIP>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#8

Bob, leaving out strategy items is NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, a
mistake. It is a simplification. You may not agree that it is a good
simplicication but calling it an ERROR is pure BS. I find it amazing
that you can't understand this since I'm sure that is how you arrived
at your beginner strategies (or were you even involved in there
generation???).

Dick,

I couldn't agree with you more. If Dancer was truly interested
in "educating" the VP public, he would have shown the cost of using the
Boyd strategy vs. his own. He obviously is more interested in
discrediting others than he is in educating the VP public.

I think if the Boyd strategies are easier to use and don't cost too
much then that is fine for many people. This question remains,
however, what is the return of the Boyd strategy?

TR

#9

Hey, I got a great idea! If you don't appreciate or enjoy these
posts, then don't open and read them!

It just so happens that some of us (I won't mention any names!)
are getting a kick out of this! :wink: You know that there are many
more private emails going back and forth than there are on the
Group!

I, for one, am glad to see the real Bob Dancer coming out in
his posts. He's done this before and this won't be the last time.

Oh, yeah, another good thing about this discussion is that I am
probably going to buy Linda's book (even though I had not
previously planned to) just to support her.

But, I'm going to actually read it!

···

On 6/21/07, Lavona Rann <lrann2@earthlink.net> wrote:

Folks,

Isn't it time to drop this. I think any point to be made has been
made several times.

I, for one, use Bob's cards and love them. They helped me move from
Basic to Advanced play (I wouldn't have even bought cards at
recreational level.) The notation was, to my mind, easy to pick up in
less than an hour on Frugal Video Poker (I also own Optimum VP and
VPFW.)

I very much like what I've heard from Linda Boyd outside of this
flare-
up with Bob. I agree that his technical observations appear to be
correct but I do think he has handled it in a very "ungentlemanly"
way. That, unfortunately, has tarnished the image that I've held of
him.

I looked at Linda's Book and Cards and decided they were aimed at a
less experienced player. That's great, we need all kinds of options
and
I bought it just to support her since she's been so nice here even
though I have not read it and probably won't.

I think that EVERYONE can only LOSE by more discussion on the topic.
Let's get back to helping each other and being a friendly place
PLEASE.

Lavona Rann

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#10

Oh, yeah, another good thing about this discussion is that I am
probably going to buy Linda's book (even though I had not
previously planned to) just to support her.

But, I'm going to actually read it!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Curtis Rich" <LGTVegas@...> wrote:

Are you actually going to apply her strategy advice to your play?
Even after this discussion? I suppose W.C. Fields said it best:
"There is a sucker born every minute."

#11

Or, was that P. T. Barnum? <smile>

From Wulipedia...

"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase often credited to
P.T. Barnum, an American showman.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "skiallsix" <emailscot@...> wrote:

I suppose W.C. Fields said it best:
"There is a sucker born every minute."

#12

Sorry...Wikipedia...The article is actually an interesting read and
they say, in the article, that the source of the quote is pretty much
unknown, though.

.....bl

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@...>
wrote:

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "skiallsix" <emailscot@> wrote:
>
> I suppose W.C. Fields said it best:
> "There is a sucker born every minute."
>

Or, was that P. T. Barnum? <smile>

From Wulipedia...

"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase often credited to
P.T. Barnum, an American showman.

#13

It would be mutually beneficial from a marketing perspective for
Dancer and Boyd (and a particular casino) to have a face off and bury
the hatchet at the same time: A timed contest in which each uses his/
her strategy for JoB (or a mutually agreed upon game) and the results
are published (including cashback).

I'd love to see the results for a positive game like All American
played at Trump Plaza on one of their 2X Super Cashback cashback days.

I played for 12 hours and averaged $15.00 an hour in cashback alone
at TP on one of their 2X Super Cashback days. TP paid me 4X CB. I
don't know if this was an error or not. [2X Super (2x) = 4 times].

Bill Bate

Folks,

Isn't it time to drop this. I think any point to be made has been
made several times.

I, for one, use Bob's cards and love them. They helped me move from
Basic to Advanced play (I wouldn't have even bought cards at
recreational level.) The notation was, to my mind, easy to pick up

in

less than an hour on Frugal Video Poker (I also own Optimum VP and
VPFW.)

I very much like what I've heard from Linda Boyd outside of this
flare-
up with Bob. I agree that his technical observations appear to be
correct but I do think he has handled it in a very "ungentlemanly"
way. That, unfortunately, has tarnished the image that I've held of
him.

I looked at Linda's Book and Cards and decided they were aimed at a
less experienced player. That's great, we need all kinds of options
and
I bought it just to support her since she's been so nice here even
though I have not read it and probably won't.

I think that EVERYONE can only LOSE by more discussion on the

topic.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Lavona Rann" <lrann2@...> wrote:

Let's get back to helping each other and being a friendly place
PLEASE.

Lavona Rann

#14

P.S. In my prior post, The $15.00 per hour CB earned at TP in AC was at
a 25 cent machine.

Bill Bate

#15

Ok

I used Frugal VP to determine the cost of holding a Jack over a
Jack/Ten suited. Here are the results:

Frugal "normal" strategy 99.54289%
Not holding JT Suited 99.52797%

Bob, I know Frugal isn't your favourite piece of software but this was
relatively easy to use and I am sure its accurate.

I do not have Linda's book and do not know if her strategy does indeed
say to do this, so I can't comment on that.

Cheers

···

But I'll tell you what I will do. Figuring out manually how much you
lose by holding J over a suited JT is relatively easy, albeit
timeconsuming, to figure out manually --- it will take me an hour or so

#16

Yes, it is quite easy using the proper tool ... as you did and I
suggested in one of my first posts on this subject. Of course, this
would have highlighted that FVP/WVP have superior capabilities over
VPfW. However, I have not done this myself since I don't think it is
the main issue.

It still gets down to a trade-off between simplicity and detail and
that decision is a personal one. I will probably always prefer the
VPSM charts since those are the ones I first learned. I rarely use
strategy charts in a casino for reasons already stated. At some point
in time I may decide to learn another format in more detail and
change my approach, again, a personal decision. I also know that I
make errors in my play that probably overpower any small strategy
details. I don't play VP for a living or I might be more concerned.

I suspect if Bob had taken a slightly different approach to this
issue none of this controversy would have enused. Clearly, as others
have suggested, had he sent Linda a private email with his
suggestions for improvement nothing would have happened. Also, had he
phrased his opinion in the form of a suggestion for improvements, I
don't think he would have received the same responses. We may have
still debated exactly how to factor in simplicity and that is a
reasonable topic for discussion. However, I think the discussion
would have been much less heated.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kiwiboy4921" <waynes@...> wrote:

Ok

I used Frugal VP to determine the cost of holding a Jack over a
Jack/Ten suited. Here are the results:

Frugal "normal" strategy 99.54289%
Not holding JT Suited 99.52797%

#17

I agree with the trade of for simplicity over perfection. I don't do
penalty cards. Others do, great!

But perhaps it could be argued that JT suited over J is not a
difficult rule? In fact in almost every game that I can think of,
this is the correct hold (DB, DDB, JOB, FPDW, NSUD, Jokers, Super Aces
etc...)

In this case, although the exclusion is smaller in overall EV, perhaps
it could be argued that this is a simple consist rule, which doesn't
need to be simplified. Of course others may argue different.

>
> Ok
>
> I used Frugal VP to determine the cost of holding a Jack over a
> Jack/Ten suited. Here are the results:
>
> Frugal "normal" strategy 99.54289%
> Not holding JT Suited 99.52797%

Yes, it is quite easy using the proper tool ... as you did and I
suggested in one of my first posts on this subject. Of course, this
would have highlighted that FVP/WVP have superior capabilities over
VPfW. However, I have not done this myself since I don't think it is
the main issue.

It still gets down to a trade-off between simplicity and detail and
that decision is a personal one. I will probably always prefer the
VPSM charts since those are the ones I first learned. I rarely use
strategy charts in a casino for reasons already stated. At some point
in time I may decide to learn another format in more detail and
change my approach, again, a personal decision. I also know that I
make errors in my play that probably overpower any small strategy
details. I don't play VP for a living or I might be more concerned.

I suspect if Bob had taken a slightly different approach to this
issue none of this controversy would have enused. Clearly, as others
have suggested, had he sent Linda a private email with his
suggestions for improvement nothing wou

ld have happened. Also, had he

···

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kiwiboy4921" <waynes@> wrote:
phrased his opinion in the form of a suggestion for improvements, I
don't think he would have received the same responses. We may have
still debated exactly how to factor in simplicity and that is a
reasonable topic for discussion. However, I think the discussion
would have been much less heated.

Dick

#18

I suspect the problem may be when more than JT is considered ... QT,KT
and AT. It starts to get into penalty situations etc. It could easily
be considered "simpler" to just treat all "x"T situations the same.
Especially with a rules driven approach. I've discovered in some of the
strategy work I have done that once you decide to add a certain level
of detail, and do it consistently, it starts to snowball into ever
increasing complexity.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kiwiboy4921" <waynes@...> wrote:

I agree with the trade of for simplicity over perfection. I don't do
penalty cards. Others do, great!

But perhaps it could be argued that JT suited over J is not a
difficult rule? In fact in almost every game that I can think of,
this is the correct hold (DB, DDB, JOB, FPDW, NSUD, Jokers, Super Aces
etc...)

In this case, although the exclusion is smaller in overall EV, perhaps
it could be argued that this is a simple consist rule, which doesn't
need to be simplified. Of course others may argue different.

#19

Kiwiboy wrote: I used Frugal VP to determine the cost of holding a Jack
over a Jack/Ten suited. Here are the results:

Frugal "normal" strategy 99.54289%
Not holding JT Suited 99.52797%

You picked an instruction that was easy to delete. Instruction 25 of the
FVP 9/6 Jacks strategy is indeed a suited JT and you can remove it from
the strategy and grind out the numbers. FVP is the only software that
allows this, and it is a useful tool.

But that's not the problem.

Linda has 15 categories down the left side of her strategy (Two Pair,
Jacks or Better, Four Flush, etc.). In the center column of each
category she lists exceptions. Next to Four Flush, for example, she
lists the exception that you hold three to the royal flush instead. A
right-hand column, called "Taboos (What you should NEVER do)", in the
same section says "Never hold a Four Flush over three to a Royal Flush.
Hold only the three to the Royal." It appears as though the taboos are
usually the same as the exceptions, only phrased in somewhat longer
sentences.

So far there's no problem. Under the Four Flush category, the next ones
down are (Low Pair, Open-Ended Four-Straight, Inside Four Straight, High
Cards, No Pairs or High Cards). That's the entire bottom end of the list
(which is where the problems are).

In the High Cards section is the only place where it says to hold AK,
AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, QJ, or KQJ.

In the exceptions column, one exception says to hold two to the royal,
unless they are 'AT', 'KT', or 'QT'. Notice this is as a EXCEPTION to
holding two or three high cards. I don't really understand what it means
to have 'AK' being an exception in the High Card category. If you read
this as 'AK', 'AQ', 'AJ', 'KQ', 'KJ', and 'QJ' being included in this
section (i.e. suited high cards), then what do you do with what it says
in the in the "Taboo" column, where it says "Never hold an Ace when
dealt three high cards. Hold the two non-Ace high cards." What this says
is from Ah Kh Qc, you hold Kh Qc. I've asked her if she meant this a few
months ago, and she said no, but her dog has just died so she couldn't
explain how to properly read the chart. (She's had months since to
answer, but she has chosen not to. Most math teachers I've known have
been good at debating mathematical problems, which is what this is.
Linda Boyd seems to be the exception to this.) In the current exchange,
she has offered no explanations.

I suppose on FVP you could put 'AK', 'AQ', and 'AJ' BELOW unsuited KQ,
KJ, and QJ. That would be consistent with what she has written on her
strategy. But she already denies that that is what she means, so what do
you do? You can't put any strategy into FVP format unless you agree on
what the strategy says. There currently is no agreement (and Linda is
refusing to cooperate) so there's no way that there will be any
agreement on the number that FVP comes up with. There's a phrase used in
certain calculations of "Garbage In Garbage Out". If there's no
agreement on what the strategy says in the first place, there will be no
confidence in whatever number FVP churns out.

Analyzing the Level 4 Dancer/Daily strategies using FVP is likewise
impossible simply because FVP doesn't handle penalty card situations.
There are also different notations to get used to. For example, one
instruction in Dancer/Daily Level 4 says 'SF3 +1; SF3 +0'. The
comparable instruction in FVP says 3 Card Straight Flush, 9JQ, 9TJ,
3-K:Dbl Ins (2 High), 8-Q:Inside (1 high), 3-T:Open

Are these the same or different? It will take an experienced
player/analyst to work this out but most inexperienced players couldn't
know for sure if the two different instructions were not at all the
same, partly the same, mostly the same, or 100% exactly the same. To be
100% the same, remember that there can be no differences in the
combinations included. No more, no less. (The answer is not too
difficult but I'll let others work it out. For those yelling and
screaming that putting the strategies on FVP is a great solution, can
you figure it out?)

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

#20

So, let me see if I understand correctly. You admit you don't know
how to read the strategy and you have no idea how to compute the
payback, yet you had no problem ASSERTING that there are major errors
and demanded an apology. Good grief.

Dick

You picked an instruction that was easy to delete. Instruction 25

of the

FVP 9/6 Jacks strategy is indeed a suited JT and you can remove it

from

the strategy and grind out the numbers. FVP is the only software

that

allows this, and it is a useful tool.

But that's not the problem.

Linda has 15 categories down the left side of her strategy (Two

Pair,

Jacks or Better, Four Flush, etc.). In the center column of each
category she lists exceptions. Next to Four Flush, for example, she
lists the exception that you hold three to the royal flush instead.

A

right-hand column, called "Taboos (What you should NEVER do)", in

the

same section says "Never hold a Four Flush over three to a Royal

Flush.

Hold only the three to the Royal." It appears as though the taboos

are

usually the same as the exceptions, only phrased in somewhat longer
sentences.

So far there's no problem. Under the Four Flush category, the next

ones

down are (Low Pair, Open-Ended Four-Straight, Inside Four Straight,

High

Cards, No Pairs or High Cards). That's the entire bottom end of the

list

(which is where the problems are).

In the High Cards section is the only place where it says to hold

AK,

AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, QJ, or KQJ.

In the exceptions column, one exception says to hold two to the

royal,

unless they are 'AT', 'KT', or 'QT'. Notice this is as a EXCEPTION

to

holding two or three high cards. I don't really understand what it

means

to have 'AK' being an exception in the High Card category. If you

read

this as 'AK', 'AQ', 'AJ', 'KQ', 'KJ', and 'QJ' being included in

this

section (i.e. suited high cards), then what do you do with what it

says

in the in the "Taboo" column, where it says "Never hold an Ace when
dealt three high cards. Hold the two non-Ace high cards." What this

says

is from Ah Kh Qc, you hold Kh Qc. I've asked her if she meant this

a few

months ago, and she said no, but her dog has just died so she

couldn't

explain how to properly read the chart. (She's had months since to
answer, but she has chosen not to. Most math teachers I've known

have

been good at debating mathematical problems, which is what this is.
Linda Boyd seems to be the exception to this.) In the current

exchange,

she has offered no explanations.

I suppose on FVP you could put 'AK', 'AQ', and 'AJ' BELOW unsuited

KQ,

KJ, and QJ. That would be consistent with what she has written on

her

strategy. But she already denies that that is what she means, so

what do

you do? You can't put any strategy into FVP format unless you agree

on

what the strategy says. There currently is no agreement (and Linda

is

refusing to cooperate) so there's no way that there will be any
agreement on the number that FVP comes up with. There's a phrase

used in

certain calculations of "Garbage In Garbage Out". If there's no
agreement on what the strategy says in the first place, there will

be no

confidence in whatever number FVP churns out.

Analyzing the Level 4 Dancer/Daily strategies using FVP is likewise
impossible simply because FVP doesn't handle penalty card

situations.

There are also different notations to get used to. For example, one
instruction in Dancer/Daily Level 4 says 'SF3 +1; SF3 +0'. The
comparable instruction in FVP says 3 Card Straight Flush, 9JQ, 9TJ,
3-K:Dbl Ins (2 High), 8-Q:Inside (1 high), 3-T:Open

Are these the same or different? It will take an experienced
player/analyst to work this out but most inexperienced players

couldn't

know for sure if the two different instructions were not at all the
same, partly the same, mostly the same, or 100% exactly the same.

To be

100% the same, remember that there can be no differences in the
combinations included. No more, no less. (The answer is not too
difficult but I'll let others work it out. For those yelling and
screaming that putting the strategies on FVP is a great solution,

can

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

you figure it out?)

Bob Dancer