vpFREE2 Forums

Linda Boyd's Book

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

I let this one slide for awhile to see if Bob would take this a
little further. Guess what? Linda's strategy DOES say to keep JT
before J. This is another error made by Bob in his criticism ... yes,
that makes 3 now.

Does anyone else get the feeling that Bob is running around with an
extremely RED face about this time?

Dick

···

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

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

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.

Bob, there is NO 3rd column (right-hand column) on Linda's strategy
cards. I thought that is what you were trying to evaluate.

How many errors is that now? Did you even look at the strategy cards
in the back of her book? I'm beginning to wonder ...

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.

Bob, I'm glad you finally are admitting your initial comment was
WRONG (where you stated RF2 was not handled). Where's that apology??

Now you are arguing about FORMAT. I'm sorry you don't like the format
but that is COMPLETELY different then stating there is an error.

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.

Once again there is NO 3rd column on the strategy cards. Bob this
backpedalling attempt to justify your initial attack is ludicrous.

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.

How could she explain something that is NOT on her cards? Bob, this
entire note of yours is really sick!

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.

No it wouldn't. The exceptions are processed FIRST. That is what
exception means Bob. Please try to get ONE thing right. I am truly
amazed ... you have made so many errors in this response that it
boggles the imagination. Do you really consider yourself an EXPERT at
VP strategies? I hope others revisit that assumption.

But she already denies that that is what she means, so what do
you do?

Listen??? Read, with comprehension???

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.

I think GIGO describes your post rather accurately.

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?)

This is a cop out on Bob's part. Right in line with all the errors he
made in this note.

Dick