I play the quarter All American video poker at Las Vegas Hilton.
Full House and Straights pay 8x. 4 of a kind pays 200 credits with 5
played. Straight Flush pays 1000 credits with 5 played. I practice
at home with Bob Dancer's WinPoker software. I have a strategy card
from Dan Paymar (I think that's how you spell it). Anyway, Bob
Dancer's software often tells me I am playing the hand incorrectly
when I am dealt an offsuit Ace and Jack. Sometimes I am only suppose
to hold the jack and sometimes I am suppose to hold both the jack and
the ace. Dan Paymars strategy card says always hold the Jack only.
Does anyone know how to look at the other cards and determine the
proper play? Thanks in advance.
Need help with All American video poker hand
I struggled with the same thing for a long time. Ok, I still do.
But I got this from Cap Richards and it helps:
1. Make sure you don't have 3FL, JT9, J9s, J8s. If you do, hold them
over the AJ or J.
2. Check for a NINE not the same suit as the J. If there is a nine,
hold AJ.
3. Check for a suit penalty to the J. If none, hold the J.
4. If there is a suit penalty to the J, hold AJ UNLESS the highest of
the three remaining cards is a SIX.
Clear as mud? Memorized it yet? Why not? What good are you?
Fortunately, errors on AJu hands in All American only cost a little
bit.
carlos
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "marcusallee" <MALLEE777@C...> wrote:
I play the quarter All American..[etc]...Anyway, Bob Dancer's
software often tells me I am playing the hand incorrectly when I am
dealt an offsuit Ace and Jack....[etc]...Does anyone know how to look
at the other cards and determine the proper play? Thanks in advance.
marcusallee wrote:
I play the quarter All American video poker at Las Vegas Hilton.
I have a strategy card from Dan Paymar. Anyway, Bob
Dancer's software often tells me I am playing the hand incorrectly
when I am dealt an offsuit Ace and Jack. Sometimes I am only
suppose to hold the jack and sometimes I am suppose to hold both the
jack and the ace. Dan Paymars strategy card says always hold the
Jack only. Does anyone know how to look at the other cards and
determine the proper play? Thanks in advance.
The situation here is that frequently the values of holding AJ and
just the J are very close. When there are 2 holds in a video poker
game for which this is true, the exact best hold can be dependent upon
the discards in the hand in addition to what you might hold.
The Paymar strategy card ignores the specifics of these situations
(refered to as "penalty" cards or "interferences) in favor of a
simplified (basic) strategy that always advises the hold that is
either generally more often advantageous or has greater advantage when
it's the optimal hold (in this case it's the J-only hold).
I recommend this approach since it modestly simplifies a difficult
strategy with little cost. Generally you're looking at a cost of less
than half a cent when playing $.25 AA if you hold J only when the AJ
is the stronger hold. (In most cases, the ER impact of following a
basic strategy vs. the advanced "penalty card" strategy is .01% or less.)
The problem that you face here exposes one advantage of Frugal Video
Poker (FVP) software over Winpoker. Winpoker will flag an error
anytime you follow the simplified strategy and "penalty" card
considerations give the alternate hold a very slight edge (e.g. AJ
over J with AA).
However, FVP has a "Strategy Play" practice mode that advises the
player of an error only if the selected hold is contrary to basic
strategy. This makes learning a difficult game such as AA MUCH easier.
While I prefer Winpoker in many respects, I'd look to FVP for AA
practice in a heartbeat.
- Harry
The situation here is that frequently the values of holding AJ and
just the J are very close. When there are 2 holds in a video poker
game for which this is true, the exact best hold can be dependent
upon
the discards in the hand in addition to what you might hold.
The Paymar strategy card ignores the specifics of these situations
(refered to as "penalty" cards or "interferences) in favor of a
simplified (basic) strategy that always advises the hold that is
either generally more often advantageous or has greater advantage
when
it's the optimal hold (in this case it's the J-only hold).
I recommend this approach since it modestly simplifies a difficult
strategy with little cost. Generally you're looking at a cost of
less
than half a cent when playing $.25 AA if you hold J only when the
AJ
is the stronger hold. (In most cases, the ER impact of following a
basic strategy vs. the advanced "penalty card" strategy is .01% or
less.)
Let's consider something else: the opportunity cost of
learning/memorizing this particular strategy nuamce (several minutes
at least)
the cost of pausing and rechecking when the hand comes up in actual
play (presumably you are playing at a positive return so time=money)
versus:
the 0.25 cents cost of an error (since if you just hold the J in all
cases you'll be right about half the time)
How often does this hand come up? Is it worth paying attention to?
Don't you actually LOSE money in the long run by expending this
effort to occasionally save yourself 1/4 cent?
I don't know what the math says about how often it comes up.
However, it comes up often enough that many AA players get around to
asking about it. That's probably because it's a source of some
frustration when using VP software. After playing several AJu hands
correctly, you think you know what to do. Then, it comes up again and
WinPoker screams ERROR! at you. The correct strategy not being
intuitive adds to the teeth gnashing.
If I were an AA player and a pure disciple of Optimum Play, I would
consider using AJu as the basis for setting the error threshold in my
VP software. That would eliminate the aggravation.
However, I'm more a disciple of Bob Dancer when it comes to my
favorite game and I've found that after practicing a gazillion hands
of AA, it doesn't slow me down to analyze and make the correct play.
carlos
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
Let's consider something else: the opportunity cost of
learning/memorizing this particular strategy nuamce (several
minutes
at least)
the cost of pausing and rechecking when the hand comes up in actual
play (presumably you are playing at a positive return so time=money)
versus:
the 0.25 cents cost of an error (since if you just hold the J in
all
···
cases you'll be right about half the time)
How often does this hand come up? Is it worth paying attention to?
Don't you actually LOSE money in the long run by expending this
effort to occasionally save yourself 1/4 cent?
rockofjello333 wrote:
Let's consider something else: the opportunity cost of learning/memorizing this particular strategy nuamce (several minutes at least)
the cost of pausing and rechecking when the hand comes up in actual play (presumably you are playing at a positive return so time=money)
versus:
the 0.25 cents cost of an error (since if you just hold the J in all cases you'll be right about half the time)
How often does this hand come up? Is it worth paying attention to? Don't you actually LOSE money in the long run by expending this effort to occasionally save yourself 1/4 cent?
I agree with ROJ 100% on this. Of course, by now, most people (well at least all my subscribers and readers) know my opinion on these issues. If you could play "perfect" A/A strategy with 100% accuracy, with all the penalty situations (of the 90-some lines that TomSki's VPSM generates for the advance strategy, more than forty of them mention penalty cards), your expected return would be 100.72%. If you play a no penalty card strategy (such as the default 51 line strategy from FVP) your return will be... 100.72%! I believe the VPSM basic strategy will be somewhere in that area also.
If you think there was a typo there, look again. Both the all-penalty card strategy and the no-penalty card strategy return 100.72%. You need to go to the third decimal point to find the difference. Finding a nickel on the floor once a day is a more profitable use of your time. If you find a quarter you are way ahead.<g>
Which strategy are you more likely to play corrrectly?
Bob Dancer has been a great help for so many players and has obviously been a major influence in teaching people video poker, but in his articles he always emphasizes how much one of these fine point plays will cost you when it happens. As ROJ points out here, that information is meaningless unless you know exactly how many times the play will occur. In this regard, I think Bob has been giving players the wrong impression for may years. That impression? That these detailed little fine points have even the slightest bit of relevance for the average player. The fact is - they don't. In fact they are a distraction and mostly counterproductive.
Of course, strategies can be further trimmed down depending on how compulsive or relaxed one is about it. I like to think of the "perfect"* strategies as "Monk" strategies and the more practical strategies as the, well... More Practical Strategies.
I recently published a "no-brainer" + 21 lines A/A strategy that will return 100.6%. More and more, I am leaning towards the practical side.
* The reason I put perfect in quotes is this - the more difficult the strategy is, the less chance there is you will play it perfectly. In fact it could easily cause some to commit errors that lower the return too below the no-penalty strategy.
For those who have both the time and the burning desire to play each and every hand perfectly I have two thoughts:
First a little bad news. You are never going to play perfectly. Nobody does.
Second, a little good news. Goals are good. Striving for perfection in a chosen area is a wonderful thing. Have fun.
Thanks,
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@e...> wrote
Bob Dancer has been a great help for so many players and has
obviously
been a major influence in teaching people video poker, but in his
articles he always emphasizes how much one of these fine point
plays
will cost you when it happens. As ROJ points out here, that
information
is meaningless unless you know exactly how many times the play
will
occur. In this regard, I think Bob has been giving players the
wrong
impression for may years. That impression? That these detailed
little
fine points have even the slightest bit of relevance for the
average
player. The fact is - they don't. In fact they are a distraction
and
mostly counterproductive.
<snip>
.......More and more, I am leaning towards the practical side.
* The reason I put perfect in quotes is this - the more difficult
the
strategy is, the less chance there is you will play it perfectly.
In
fact it could easily cause some to commit errors that lower the
return
too below the no-penalty strategy.
For those who have both the time and the burning desire to play
each
and every hand perfectly I have two thoughts:
First a little bad news. You are never going to play perfectly.
Nobody
does.
Second, a little good news. Goals are good. Striving for
perfection in a
···
chosen area is a wonderful thing. Have fun.
====================================
Hi Skip,
I agree you with you and ROJ 100%. Of course, I am a mere rec
player, and can't be bothered with the minutiae that BD recommends
to all who aspire to be "advantage players". I could stay home and
go to my office if I wanted to deal with that kind of nit-picking.
So, I play as well as I can w/o sweating the tiny stuff, practice
diligently at home, and hope for the best. This gives ME the best
possible combination of enjoyment and EV.
It is very pleasing to me to read that 2 pros, such as yourself and
ROJ, support that feeling, and are willing to share it with board,
Many thanks to you both.
Babe
jackessiebabe wrote:
I agree you with you and ROJ 100%. Of course, I am a mere rec
player, and can't be bothered with the minutiae that BD recommends
to all who aspire to be "advantage players". I could stay home and
go to my office if I wanted to deal with that kind of nit-picking. So, I play as well as I can w/o sweating the tiny stuff, practice
diligently at home, and hope for the best. This gives ME the best
possible combination of enjoyment and EV.It is very pleasing to me to read that 2 pros, such as yourself and
ROJ, support that feeling, and are willing to share it with board,Many thanks to you both.
Thank you, Babe. I don't really consider myself a pro player. But even pros have a finite amount of resources to apply. And time is a very big one. Most pros like to scarf up every last little morsel of percentage off the plate (even 3 or four places past the decimal), when they are feasting on their favorite game. But when they are working on a side dish... oh to hell with that metaphor, I'm getting lost. Even pros will sacrifice a little bit for expediency's sake. For most people video poker is fun , not life.
Skip Hughes posted:
I agree with ROJ 100% on this. Of course, by now, most people
(well at
least all my subscribers and readers) know my opinion on these
issues.
If you could play "perfect" A/A strategy with 100% accuracy, with
all
the penalty situations (of the 90-some lines that TomSki's VPSM
generates for the advance strategy, more than forty of them
mention
penalty cards), your expected return would be 100.72%. If you play
a no
penalty card strategy (such as the default 51 line strategy from
FVP)
your return will be... 100.72%! I believe the VPSM basic strategy
will
be somewhere in that area also.
If you think there was a typo there, look again. Both the all-
penalty
card strategy and the no-penalty card strategy return 100.72%. You
need
to go to the third decimal point to find the difference. Finding a
nickel on the floor once a day is a more profitable use of your
time. If
you find a quarter you are way ahead.<g>
Which strategy are you more likely to play corrrectly?Bob Dancer has been a great help for so many players and has
obviously
been a major influence in teaching people video poker, but in his
articles he always emphasizes how much one of these fine point
plays
will cost you when it happens. As ROJ points out here, that
information
is meaningless unless you know exactly how many times the play
will
occur. In this regard, I think Bob has been giving players the
wrong
impression for may years. That impression? That these detailed
little
fine points have even the slightest bit of relevance for the
average
player. The fact is - they don't. In fact they are a distraction
and
mostly counterproductive.
I agree with Skip and ROJ that precise play (full penalty card
analysis) can be counter-productive in many instances. However, I
have found the Bob Dancer articles to be very useful. Bob's articles
typically explain why penalty cards,etc. vary the correct play, and
I have found that by studying the reasoning behind such plays, I
have been able to analyize a new game or a paytable variation of an
existing game "over the table" much more accurately. Such skill has
become increasingly important in today's environment where you can
not specialize in certain games, but must play whatever favorable
game you might encounter. Therefore, while not an advocate of 100%
precise play, I consider Dancer's analysis to be very beneficial as
well as intellectually stimulating.
David
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "d_richheimer" <d_richheimer@y...>
wrote:
I agree with Skip and ROJ that precise play (full penalty card
analysis) can be counter-productive in many instances. However, I
have found the Bob Dancer articles to be very useful. Bob's
articles
typically explain why penalty cards,etc. vary the correct play,
and
I have found that by studying the reasoning behind such plays, I
have been able to analyize a new game or a paytable variation of
an
existing game "over the table" much more accurately. Such skill
has
become increasingly important in today's environment where you can
not specialize in certain games, but must play whatever favorable
game you might encounter. Therefore, while not an advocate of 100%
precise play, I consider Dancer's analysis to be very beneficial
as
···
well as intellectually stimulating.
David
============================================
Hi David,
I think that you make some excellent points. I would be the last
one to criticize most of BD's columns, as he has helped my play
immensely (as did Lenny Frome and Stanford Wong, before him).
However, as an un-mathhead, basically happy rec player, I think that
paying attention to every penalty card situation, nullifys lots of
my joy in playing the game, as well as slowing me down a great
deal. I do NOT have a photographic memory, as some must, to burn
all the penalty card situations that may arise, in all of the games
that I play, into my memory bank. Nor do I care that much. It
seems too much like drudgery to me. For those that feel otherwise,
more power to them in their quest for perfect play.
I do think that you make an excellent, and very pertinent point,
when you say that by studying the logical reasoning, in his articles,
that you get a get a better perspective of the various games he is
addressing. That is certainly the case with my own play, when,
frequently, I will say to myself, that I don't want to keep a
certain set of cards due to "flush/straight interference".
Obviously, some of BD's more estoteric writings are still
influencing my play, at least subconciously.
Cheers,
Babe
David;
I can agree with that. And I do not mean to criticize the content of
the articles, only the impression that you cannot achieve the same
high return without learning all the "fine print plays".
A case in point:
When I approached Gamblers Book Store about selling the Frugal
Strategy Cards, I was introduced to a gentlemen who was the resident
video poker expert. He looked the cards over and then told me there
was something wrong with them. I asked what that was. He told me that
the strategies couldn't possibly return the percentage listed on them
(which was exactly the same percentage as the perfect strategy, at two
decimal points, except for the KBJW, which was 100.63% instead of
100.65%). I asked him where he got that idea, and while I have to
admit I don't remember the exact reply, I know that Bob's name came
up. I assured him that due to the additional knowledge that we all*
gained with the advent of Jim Wolf's Frugal Video Poker software, we
now realize that penalty cards just do not impact the overall return
of the game to any significant difference.
That's only one case but it's someone who was knowlegeable about VP
but knew for a fact, something that was simply not true. I have run
into a lot more. As I have said may times, for those with an eye for
detail who enjoy the detailed analyses, they are a lot of fun and can
be interesting. For others they may be less so. But the practical
value is very limited, at best. Bob and I have had fun arguing about
this for years, of course, and I wouldn't be surprised if we do so in
the future. When FVP came out, my side was reinforced immeasurably, of
course. It's hard to argue with the numbers.
*Well, not all, Jazbo Burns knew this all along, as he had his own
software that proved it. And I had also had my JB strategy analyzed by
still another programmer who had software that was very difficult to
work with, but analyzed/tuned my 1998 pen-free JB strategy at 99.543%
as opposed to the perfect 99.544%.
···
--
Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "d_richheimer" <d_richheimer@y...> wrote:
I
have found the Bob Dancer articles to be very useful. Bob's articles
typically explain why penalty cards,etc. vary the correct play, and
I have found that by studying the reasoning behind such plays, I
have been able to analyize a new game or a paytable variation of an
existing game "over the table" much more accurately. Such skill has
become increasingly important in today's environment where you can
not specialize in certain games, but must play whatever favorable
game you might encounter. Therefore, while not an advocate of 100%
precise play, I consider Dancer's analysis to be very beneficial as
well as intellectually stimulating.David