I would like an explanation about why these two hands are
different in this Deuces Wild version.
Hand 1: 2 Spade, 9 Hearts, 8 Spades, 7 Diamonds & a 3 of Diamonds
2 = 5.0159
2,9,8,7 = 5.00
Hand 2: 2 Diamonds, 5 Hearts, 6 Diamonds 7 Clubs & a 10 of Spades
2 = 4.9796
2,5,6,7 = 5.00
Thanks,
Bob
I would like an explanation about why these two hands are
different in this Deuces Wild version.Hand 1: 2 Spade, 9 Hearts, 8 Spades, 7 Diamonds & a 3 of Diamonds
2 = 5.0159
2,9,8,7 = 5.00Hand 2: 2 Diamonds, 5 Hearts, 6 Diamonds 7 Clubs & a 10 of Spades
2 = 4.9796
2,5,6,7 = 5.00Thanks,
Bob
The best way to see this is to make a list of all the ways that a
deuce can make a straight and then total up how often each
denomination shows up in that list. "Outside" cards, such as 3s and
Ks, show up fewer times than "middle" cards, such as 7s and 8s. Even
though the first hand has more middle cards in the straight draw than
the second hand does, discarding the 3 penalizes the first hand so
much less than discarding the T penalizes the second hand that it more
than makes up the difference.
Futrend wrote: I would like an explanation about why these two hands are
different in this Deuces Wild version.
Hand 1: 2 Spade, 9 Hearts, 8 Spades, 7 Diamonds & a 3 of Diamonds 2 =
5.0159 2,9,8,7 = 5.00Hand 2: 2 Diamonds, 5 Hearts, 6 Diamonds 7 Clubs & a 10 of Spades 2 =
4.9796 2,5,6,7 = 5.00
These hands were discussed at length here when I published
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2007/1120.html
There were several other comments on vpFREE immediately following the
publication.
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
Just a wild guess, but I think the difference is that a ten is a
penalty card for a dirty (wild) royal. The answer is in the math
somewhere (math= the calculation of average return).
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bdancer@...> wrote:
Futrend wrote: I would like an explanation about why these two hands are
>different in this Deuces Wild version.
>
>Hand 1: 2 Spade, 9 Hearts, 8 Spades, 7 Diamonds & a 3 of Diamonds 2 =
>5.0159 2,9,8,7 = 5.00
>
>Hand 2: 2 Diamonds, 5 Hearts, 6 Diamonds 7 Clubs & a 10 of Spades 2 =
>4.9796 2,5,6,7 = 5.00These hands were discussed at length here when I published
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2007/1120.html
There were several other comments on vpFREE immediately following the
publication.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
That's relevant, but, without "cheating" by actually doing the math,
off the top of my head, I'd guess that straight penalties matter many
times more. An unnecessarily complicating factor is that, for a
reason that's not very apparent, the deuce prefers suited discards, so
that it can make more flushes. In 2 cases, that makes the difference
in what the best play is, and I'm SURE that having to stop and think
which way to go when those hands come up costs me more in lost hands
than it could possibly gain me.
Just a wild guess, but I think the difference is that a ten is a
penalty card for a dirty (wild) royal. The answer is in the math
somewhere (math= the calculation of average return).--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bdancer@...> wrote:
Futrend wrote: I would like an explanation about why these two hands are
>different in this Deuces Wild version.
>
>Hand 1: 2 Spade, 9 Hearts, 8 Spades, 7 Diamonds & a 3 of Diamonds 2 =
>5.0159 2,9,8,7 = 5.00
>
>Hand 2: 2 Diamonds, 5 Hearts, 6 Diamonds 7 Clubs & a 10 of Spades 2 =
>4.9796 2,5,6,7 = 5.00These hands were discussed at length here when I published
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2007/1120.html
There were several other comments on vpFREE immediately following the
publication.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
Night opined: Just a wild guess, but I think the difference is that a
ten is a penalty card for a dirty (wild) royal. The answer is in the
math somewhere (math= the calculation of average return).
Not really. When you start with an unsuited W567, all of the possible
fifth cards that do not make a straight or 3-of-a-kind are equally part
of a wild royal. With the A, K, and Q you hold the W by itself. With the
J and T, you hold the W567.
People use the phrase "penalty card" to mean "this is a pretty
complicated matter so it must be a penalty card." In actuality, this is
the OPPOSITE of penalty cards.
Penalty cards are cards in the hand that affect the value of a
combination you'd keep. In this type of hand, the card affect the value
of throwing everything away. As a few different people mentioned, cards
near the center of the A3456789TJQKA sequence are part of more straights
and straight flushes than cards at the extreme.
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
Night opined: Just a wild guess, but I think the difference is that
a
ten is a penalty card for a dirty (wild) royal. The answer is in the
math somewhere (math= the calculation of average return).Not really. When you start with an unsuited W567, all of the
possible
fifth cards that do not make a straight or 3-of-a-kind are equally
part
of a wild royal. With the A, K, and Q you hold the W by itself.
With the
J and T, you hold the W567.
People use the phrase "penalty card" to mean "this is a pretty
complicated matter so it must be a penalty card." In actuality,
this is
the OPPOSITE of penalty cards.
Penalty cards are cards in the hand that affect the value of a
combination you'd keep. In this type of hand, the card affect the
value
of throwing everything away. As a few different people mentioned,
cards
near the center of the A3456789TJQKA sequence are part of more
straights
and straight flushes than cards at the extreme.
Let's see, throwing the TS away does NOT "affect the value of a
combination you'd keep". Hmmmmmm, seems to me throwing the ten did
affect the deuce or it would have been the correct hold. I'm pretty
sure "throwing everything away" is never a consideration when dealt a
deuce playing deuces wild.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bdancer@...> wrote:
Let's see, throwing the TS away does NOT "affect the value of a
combination you'd keep". Hmmmmmm, seems to me throwing the ten did
affect the deuce or it would have been the correct hold. I'm pretty
sure "throwing everything away" is never a consideration when dealt
a
deuce playing deuces wild.
Dick
Although it might have been worded a little ambiguously, I think you
know what he meant. The Ts doesn't affect the value of the W567
combination you are considering, but does affect the value of the
deuce if you throw everything ELSE away.
It's the same as the FPDW exceptions when you have 3 to a wild royal
with an A (hold wAT unless you also have 34s, hold wAJ unless you
have any 34 or a 35s, etc...). The other 2 cards don't affect the
value of the wild RF3 combination you are considering, but does
affect the value of the deuce if you throw everything ELSE away
(because of the straights, flushes, SFs that you might "back into"
given the cards that are left).
Although I think YOU knew what he meant and were just ball-busting in
good humor. I suppose that there are those reading that might not
have known what he meant, so I figured a little clarification
couldn't hurt, even if it is redundant to those that already
understood.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
>
>
> Let's see, throwing the TS away does NOT "affect the value of a
> combination you'd keep". Hmmmmmm, seems to me throwing the ten
did
> affect the deuce or it would have been the correct hold. I'm
pretty
> sure "throwing everything away" is never a consideration when
dealt
a
> deuce playing deuces wild.
>
> Dick
>Although it might have been worded a little ambiguously, I think
you
know what he meant. The Ts doesn't affect the value of the W567
combination you are considering, but does affect the value of the
deuce if you throw everything ELSE away.
That's right. The 'T' is not causing the W567 to be held, it is
causing the deuce to be lowered in value (and not held) just like
other penalty situations.
It's the same as the FPDW exceptions when you have 3 to a wild
royal
with an A (hold wAT unless you also have 34s, hold wAJ unless you
have any 34 or a 35s, etc...). The other 2 cards don't affect the
value of the wild RF3 combination you are considering, but does
affect the value of the deuce if you throw everything ELSE away
(because of the straights, flushes, SFs that you might "back into"
given the cards that are left).Although I think YOU knew what he meant and were just ball-busting
in
good humor. I suppose that there are those reading that might not
have known what he meant, so I figured a little clarification
couldn't hurt, even if it is redundant to those that already
understood.
The only thing I objected to was claiming it was not a PENALTY
situation. IMO it is confusing to call it the exact opposite when it
is in fact consistent with other penalty situations.
A straight penalty reduces the number of possible straights, a flush
penalty reduces the number of possible flushes. Although these are
two completely different forms of penalties they both reduce the
number of possible winning combinations. That is the common feature
of a penalty situation and one that is common to the above case.
Maybe I'm the only one who defines "penalties" in this manner.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@> wrote:
Dick wrote: "The only thing I objected to was claiming it was not a
PENALTY
situation. IMO it is confusing to call it the exact opposite when it
is in fact consistent with other penalty situations.
A straight penalty reduces the number of possible straights, a flush
penalty reduces the number of possible flushes. Although these are
two completely different forms of penalties they both reduce the
number of possible winning combinations. That is the common feature
of a penalty situation and one that is common to the above case."
Perhaps we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but I see a
fundamental difference between "normal" penalty cards and the "power of
the pack" situations we have in the W567 case (among others).
I don't dispute Dick's position that you can make a broad enough
definition of penalty cards to encompass them both. But I feel it is
also useful to recognize how they are different. And they are enough
different that I feel my statement that these situations are the
"opposite of penalty cards" is warranted.
A "normal" penalty card sitation is one where cards that exist in the
hand affect the value of one of the other combinations in the hand in an
obvious way. Sticking to NSU, from 'KT3'A9 (where the quote marks
indicate the cards are suited with each other) you don't keep the normal
'KT' as the A and 9 are straight penalties and the 3 is a flush penalty.
It is relatively easy to understand how all three penalties negatively
affect the value of the 'KT'. (Compare this to 'KT8'A9. The same type of
"obvious" penalty cards exist but here we have an additional "power of
the pack" situation where the 8 hurts the value of the "draw 5 cards"
option and the correct play is 'KT'.)
A "power of the pack" situation arises when the existing cards affect
the value of "drawing five cards" or (in the specific case that Futrend
listed) "drawing four cards to a bare deuce." A different example of
this (also from NSU) is to compare 'KQ5'A6 (where you hold 'KQ') with
'KQ3'A6 (where you draw five cards). In both cases the '5' and '3' are
flush penalties to the 'KQ', and the ace is a straight penalty to the
'KQ', but the difference between the 3 and the 5 doesn't affect the
value of the 'KQ' but rather the value of the "draw 5" combination.
None of these "power of the pack" situations are obvious, although if
you look at the cases where "this hand applies and that one doesn't",
you'll always find that the hands that do make it more likely to "draw
5" or "draw 4 cards to the bare deuce", the "extraneous" cards closer to
the extremes of the 3456789TJQKA ranking.
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
Dick wrote: "The only thing I objected to was claiming it was not a
PENALTY
situation. IMO it is confusing to call it the exact opposite when
it
is in fact consistent with other penalty situations.
A straight penalty reduces the number of possible straights, a
flush
penalty reduces the number of possible flushes. Although these are
two completely different forms of penalties they both reduce the
number of possible winning combinations. That is the common feature
of a penalty situation and one that is common to the above case."Perhaps we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but I see a
fundamental difference between "normal" penalty cards and
the "power of
the pack" situations we have in the W567 case (among others).
I don't dispute Dick's position that you can make a broad enough
definition of penalty cards to encompass them both. But I feel it is
also useful to recognize how they are different. And they are enough
different that I feel my statement that these situations are the
"opposite of penalty cards" is warranted.A "normal" penalty card sitation is one where cards that exist in
the
hand affect the value of one of the other combinations in the hand
in an
obvious way. Sticking to NSU, from 'KT3'A9 (where the quote marks
indicate the cards are suited with each other) you don't keep the
normal
'KT' as the A and 9 are straight penalties and the 3 is a flush
penalty.
It is relatively easy to understand how all three penalties
negatively
affect the value of the 'KT'. (Compare this to 'KT8'A9. The same
type of
"obvious" penalty cards exist but here we have an additional "power
of
the pack" situation where the 8 hurts the value of the "draw 5
cards"
option and the correct play is 'KT'.)
A "power of the pack" situation arises when the existing cards
affect
the value of "drawing five cards" or (in the specific case that
Futrend
listed) "drawing four cards to a bare deuce." A different example of
this (also from NSU) is to compare 'KQ5'A6 (where you hold 'KQ')
with
'KQ3'A6 (where you draw five cards). In both cases the '5' and '3'
are
flush penalties to the 'KQ', and the ace is a straight penalty to
the
'KQ', but the difference between the 3 and the 5 doesn't affect the
value of the 'KQ' but rather the value of the "draw 5" combination.None of these "power of the pack" situations are obvious, although
if
you look at the cases where "this hand applies and that one
doesn't",
you'll always find that the hands that do make it more likely
to "draw
5" or "draw 4 cards to the bare deuce", the "extraneous" cards
closer to
the extremes of the 3456789TJQKA ranking.
This last paragraph may be true of deuces games but isn't true for
every game. Eg, OEJs. However, the basic principle is the same as
with other penalty situations. Reducing available winning
combinations.
I think the problem here may be based on not perceiving penalty cards
in their full sense. Once you do this then you will see your "power
of the pack" (PotP) is just an extention of other penalty situations
(or more precisely, the other situations are simplifications). For
example, you may have straight, flush and SF penalties that can
determine whether you keep an ace or ace/face in some bonus games
(like SDB). Like your PotP penalties the card is actually limiting
possibilites in multiple payline returns and you are not discarding
everything. In fact, there are situations where penalties to RFs or
highcards may occur. Since these are not common you may not think of
them as penalties like the more common ones, but they are equivalent.
That is exactly what is going on with PotP. The 'T' in the given
example, effects WRs and SFs to a higher degree than other discards.
Keep in mind that severity is not unusual for other situations you
seem to accept as penalties. For example, you may have straight
penalties that cause a hold to change whereas another straight
penalty may be less severe and not change the hold. In both cases you
have penalties, one is just more severe than another.
I believe using the term "power of the pack" is both useful and
misleading. It is useful in simplifying the discussion, but may cause
one to forget that a card dimishing the PotP is really reducing the
value of specific paylines just like any other penalty.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bdancer@...> wrote:
None of these "power of the pack" situations are obvious, although if
you look at the cases where "this hand applies and that one doesn't",
you'll always find that the hands that do make it more likely to "draw
5" or "draw 4 cards to the bare deuce", the "extraneous" cards closer to
the extremes of the 3456789TJQKA ranking.Bob Dancer
I don't think a difference of degree of obviousness of the effect that
discarding different cards has on the value of different draws puts
them in different categories. Discarding a 5 (or should I just have
written "A 5" without including "discarding"?) is more of a straight
penalty to a lone deuce than discarding a 3 is in the same way that
discarding a ten is more of a straight penalty to 'KQ' than discarding
a 9 is. The only difference is that it's easier to see how 'KQ' makes
straights than a lone deuce does, although it's conceivable that for
some people, the opposite is true (the point being that "obviousness"
is a matter of perception, not a matter of categorization of types of
situations). But it's probably more a semantic issue than a
conceptual one. I'd vote to say that what you call the "power of the
pack" idea is a subset of penalty card situations rather than opposite
to them.
Tom wrote: I'd vote to say that what you call the "power of the pack"
idea is a subset of penalty card situations rather than opposite to
them.
Your vote is noted, conceptually anyway.
Dick wrote: I believe using the term "power of the pack" is both useful
and
misleading. It is useful in simplifying the discussion, but may cause
one to forget that a card dimishing the PotP is really reducing the
value of specific paylines just like any other penalty.
Your vote seems to be in alignment with Tom's. (That's 2-to-1 against me
with about 4000 "I don't care" votes silently thrown in). Your
implication that if I studied OEJ I'd understand penalty cards in a
broader sense may be correct. I haven't looked seriously at that game
and likely won't until they have interesting pay schedules for $5 or
higher stakes.
One final point: I think Dick's use of the "PotP" acronym sucks. Reading
it out loud as POT-PEE has toilet implications that are best left
unexplored. I far prefer POP for the same thing.
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
It's all card removal effects. In my mind, a penalty card is a discard
that effects the value of the draw, it's a mental note that I have to
make an adjustment in my normal assumptions of value. The simple cases
are discards that could make a flush or straight with the cards I
intend to hold, but there are many other cases. The bottom line is
that discards effect the value of the draw, and that concept has long
been called "card removal effects", well known to bridge players,
probably known to sharp 21 players before Thorp and probably known by
sharp poker players.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bdancer@...> wrote:
Perhaps we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but I see a
fundamental difference between "normal" penalty cards and the "power of
the pack" situations we have in the W567 case (among others).
Your vote seems to be in alignment with Tom's. (That's 2-to-1 against
me
with about 4000 "I don't care" votes silently thrown in). Your
implication that if I studied OEJ I'd understand penalty cards in a
broader sense may be correct. I haven't looked seriously at that game
and likely won't until they have interesting pay schedules for $5 or
higher stakes.
You really think I'd post it here ... 
One final point: I think Dick's use of the "PotP" acronym sucks.
Reading
it out loud as POT-PEE has toilet implications that are best left
unexplored. I far prefer POP for the same thing.
I think it would have been more appropriate to call my usage "crappy".
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bdancer@...> wrote:
Night wrote: The bottom line is that discards effect the value of the
draw, and that concept has long been called "card removal effects", well
known to bridge players, probably known to sharp 21 players before Thorp
and probably known by sharp poker players.
That's mostly a different effect than penalty cards. In video poker and
live poker, there's a fresh shuffle after each hand. In bridge and 21,
hands are played consecutively without shuffling between hands. The
"card removal effect" is generally used to discuss the the removal of
cards on earlier rounds, NOT the removal of cards on the same hand. A
broader definition could be used, of course.
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
I would suggest that your blackjack game would improve significantly
if you include all cards seen, including those on the current hand.
Therefore, the logical conclusion would be that card removal effects
apply to all cards known to have been removed from the draw deck,
irregardless of when they were actually removed. The opposite is to
assume a random deck, which is sometimes done to simplify calculation.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bdancer@...> wrote:
That's mostly a different effect than penalty cards. In video poker and
live poker, there's a fresh shuffle after each hand. In bridge and 21,
hands are played consecutively without shuffling between hands. The
"card removal effect" is generally used to discuss the the removal of
cards on earlier rounds, NOT the removal of cards on the same hand. A
broader definition could be used, of course.
Night wrote:
The bottom line is that discards effect the value of the
draw, and that concept has long been called "card removal effects",
well known to bridge players, probably known to sharp 21 players
before Thorp and probably known by sharp poker players.
Bob Dancer wrote:
That's mostly a different effect than penalty cards. In video poker
and live poker, there's a fresh shuffle after each hand. In bridge
and 21, hands are played consecutively without shuffling between
hands. The "card removal effect" is generally used to discuss the the
removal of cards on earlier rounds, NOT the removal of cards on the
same hand. A broader definition could be used, of course.
While I grasp the difference to which you point, Bob, if stated with
modestly different phrasing I find Night's perspective on penalty
cards very much preferred over how you introduce the concept (in other
discussions). Both descriptions are equivalent. But I find that the
"card removal" slant makes a much cleaner cut at the topic.
Bottom line: "This hold is worth less because I discard cards that
could otherwise have completed a winning hand in combination with the
held cards, but which now won't be available."
It's a matter of perspective and I know, from a past post exchange,
that you see it differently, Bob (... and, if I recall correctly, what
I state as the "bottom line" of the concept isn't adequate in your eyes).
In calling potential discards "penalty cards", I'd address the "power
of the pack" question in the following manner:
With regard to the more typical "penalty card" scenario (where they
can also be considered "interferences") -- refer to them as "penalties
to the held cards" (but, since this scenario predominates, just use
the term "penalty card", understanding that it's use is in reference
to the held cards).
When it comes to the "power of the pack" situation (where drawing to
held wildcards is strongest if the discards are located at the
extremes - e.g. cards such as A,3,K etc.), I'd call the potential
discards "penalty cards to the pack" (or, drawing on the general term
for unplayed cards in games such a solitaire, "penalties to the stock".
FWIW
- Harry
Harry Porter wrote:
Bottom line: "This hold is worth less because I discard cards that
could otherwise have completed a winning hand in combination with
the
held cards, but which now won't be available."
It's a matter of perspective and I know, from a past post exchange,
that you see it differently, Bob (... and, if I recall correctly,
what
I state as the "bottom line" of the concept isn't adequate in your
eyes).
In calling potential discards "penalty cards", I'd address
the "power
of the pack" question in the following manner:
With regard to the more typical "penalty card" scenario (where they
can also be considered "interferences") -- refer to them
as "penalties
to the held cards" (but, since this scenario predominates, just use
the term "penalty card", understanding that it's use is in reference
to the held cards).When it comes to the "power of the pack" situation (where drawing to
held wildcards is strongest if the discards are located at the
extremes - e.g. cards such as A,3,K etc.), I'd call the potential
discards "penalty cards to the pack" (or, drawing on the general
term
for unplayed cards in games such a solitaire, "penalties to the
stock".
FWIW
- Harry
This is the clearest explanation that I can recall regarding penalty
cards thatI have ever heard. Especially the short "bottom line"
paragraph.
Maisse
Harry wrote: > Bottom line: "This hold is worth less because I discard
cards that
could otherwise have completed a winning hand in combination with the
held cards, but which now won't be available."
Although this seems clear enough, there are penalty cards THAT ARE NOT
DISCARDED --- such as in 10/7 DB where from 'K93'Q4, the 9 is a straight
penalty to the KQ, which requires that you HOLD 'K93'. Any definition
that includes a "discarded" proviso is incorrect. This is one
distinguishing characteristic between "normal" penalty cards and "power
of the pack" situations. The relevant cards in a "power of the pack"
situation MUST BE DISCARDED.
When you write "in combination with the held cards," you are assuming
away the entire basis for the disagreement in this thread --- namely: Is
it a "different" case or "special" case when the "held cards" are either
a blank deuce or a "draw 5"? I've argued that it is "different" ---
hence my "opposite of penalty cards" statement. Tom and Dick have argued
that it isn't really different --- it merely a "special" case of a
typical penalty card situation. (Back in the 60s and early 70s, I wore a
beard and long hair, a la Chris "Jesus" Ferguson. No more. But it occurs
to me that if that were still the case, we'd be having an argument
between Tom, Dick, and Hairy.)
Discussing whether we have a special case or a different case is
arguably more a matter of semantics than anything else. It strikes me as
likely that there will not be a consensus on this --- nor a particular
need for one. Certainly Tom, Dick, and I each understand the opposite
side of the argument --- and note there is some merit to that side ---
but believe on balance that we're on the correct side.
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