vpFREE2 Forums

Penalty Cards

#21

I meant nothin sarcastic , i mean with a chart errors can be eliminated
so all errors are bonehead.
But its a free country, make all the mistakes you want!! & while you
are trying to remeber what cards would give a straight or flush penalty
to the Q 10 suited , i check my 99.44% chart ,i just keep the 2
unsuited high cards & move on.

M J

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "neilemb" <nembree@a...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mklpryy24" <mklpryy24@y...> wrote:

> ALL errors are of the bonehead variety , & they would be reduced IF
> you practice with a card.

I'm too tired and have had too many beers to deal with this tonight.

Clever (and perhaps sarcastic) reply will follow in a day or so.

neil

#22

Q,T suited over A,Q unsuited. No penalty considerations and relatively easy
to remember.

Chandler

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
mklpryy24
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 2:41 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Penalty Cards

I meant nothin sarcastic , i mean with a chart errors can be eliminated
so all errors are bonehead.
But its a free country, make all the mistakes you want!! & while you
are trying to remeber what cards would give a straight or flush penalty
to the Q 10 suited , i check my 99.44% chart ,i just keep the 2
unsuited high cards & move on.

M J

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

#23

>
> > ALL errors are of the bonehead variety , & they would be

reduced

IF
> > you practice with a card.
> > M J
>
> Let me simply say that all errors are NOT of the bonehead

variety.

> Unless of course you define bonehead way to generally. If you are
> dealt a pair of nines and are playing fast and one nine does not
hold
> when you hit the button, you certainly knew the strategy

correctly

> (and having a strategy card would have made NO difference) but

it's

> still an error.
**************************************************************
You mean not checking to make sure the card was held is NOT a
bonehead error???

Not if speed is an important part of your overall strategy. You need
to accept that 100% accuracy is NOT the only IMPORTANT factor in
playing profitable VP. However, if this does occur it should be a
sign to slow down a little. That has nothing to do with bonehead
errors.

>
> I would never call this error "bonehead".
**********************************************************8
I think that your example is the definition of a bonehead error

Then you need to think again. Are you unable to admit that you may be
wrong???

In addition, there are many
> errors of the bonehead variety (like not seeing the nines), where

a

> strategy card would, once again, make no difference.
*******************************************************************
If you dont see the nines how would you know you made an error??

A question that needs no response. However, since you persist, if
you're practicing with winpoker, etal. It will tell you. Isn't that
how this topic started?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mklpryy24" <mklpryy24@y...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mklpryy24" <mklpryy24@y...> wrote:

>
> If you're trying to say using a strategy card to slow you down so
you
> NEVER make an error is a good practice, then say that. However, I
> would also disagree with that statement ....

*********************************************************************

No i am not, but maybe if using a card to practice would mean you

are

trying NOT to remember evry situation you would be able to pay
attention to the cards & MAYBE you would see the nines.

My point is ERRORS COST $, using a card WORKS, simple & perfect &
quick is better than complicated & almost & slower.

M J

Clearly, your still missing the point. Checking a card to verify a
hold you KNOW is correct ALSO costs $$$$.

Dick

#24

Let me simply say that all errors are NOT of the bonehead variety.
Unless of course you define bonehead way to generally. If you are
dealt a pair of nines and are playing fast and one nine does not

hold

when you hit the button, you certainly knew the strategy correctly
(and having a strategy card would have made NO difference) but it's
still an error.

I would never call this error "bonehead". In addition, there are

many

errors of the bonehead variety (like not seeing the nines), where a
strategy card would, once again, make no difference.

If you're trying to say using a strategy card to slow you down so

you

NEVER make an error is a good practice, then say that. However, I
would also disagree with that statement ....

Dick

Thank you very much for this response. It says everything I would
have, so now I don't have to bother.

Neil

···

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

#25

I meant nothin sarcastic , i mean with a chart errors can be

eliminated

so all errors are bonehead.
But its a free country, make all the mistakes you want!! & while

you

are trying to remeber what cards would give a straight or flush

penalty

to the Q 10 suited , i check my 99.44% chart ,i just keep the 2
unsuited high cards & move on.

M J

I wasn't going to bother with this any more, but I can't resist
noting the following:

* looking at a suited queen-ten and determining if there is another
card of that suit lower than an eight in the hand is hardly a
monumental challenge.

* as has already been pointed out, queen-ten suited is a superior hold
to ace-queen unsuited.

I'll try not to double post this time. I don't really know what
happened with the previous one.

neil

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mklpryy24" <mklpryy24@y...> wrote:

#26

Warning: this post contains information that most members on this
list already know, and which many will even consider as primitive.

Last week-end, I played (in practice) a 500-hand session of 9/6 JoB
without any error. That made me think that I'm not a total beginner
any more.

Yesterday night, instead of continuing to practice on JoB, I decided
to give DB a shot. After all, DB played with a JoB strategy returns more
than JoB, so I figured that without even changing anything I had already
improved my game (!). I found a basic strategy on the web, simplified it
a bit further so that I could get a chance to remember it quickly. I practiced
about 150 hands before going to bed.

This morning, I played a single 500-hand session in a bit less than an
hour. I played it with an estimated return of 99.86%, obviously better
than what I could ever have hoped on JoB. Worse, more than half of
the error came from two "bonehead" mistakes, that would also have
been "bonehead mistakes" playing JoB. All the other mistakes were
"just" strategy mistakes, where I played have the JoB way when it
wasn't optimal. There were also 2 cases where my strategy was
oversimplified, and I've corrected that.

Now, obviously, a single 500-hand session isn't statistically significant,
but my conclusion is that it's possible for a decent JoB player to play
DB significantly better than perfect JoB with very little practice, and that
adapting a basic JoB strategy to become a basic DB strategy doesn't
take much more effort than adapting the same basic JoB strategy to
a perfect strategy with all penalty cases.

So, I continue thinking that learning the penalty cards in JoB, while
intellectually interesting, might not be the option that yields the most
returns.

JBQ

···

On 8/3/05, Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbqueru@gmail.com> wrote:

So, until I play within 0.05%, I won't bother learning the situations that
involve penalty cards. And then my time would be much better spent
learning enough FPDW or DB. After all, FPDW with 1% errors or DB with
0.5% is better than perfect 9/6 JoB. And I already know that I will not
even attempt to learn all the penalty card situations in FPDW or DB.

#27

Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:

Now, obviously, a single 500-hand session isn't statistically
significant, but my conclusion is that it's possible for a decent
JoB player to play DB significantly better than perfect JoB with
very little practice, and that adapting a basic JoB strategy to
become a basic DB strategy doesn't take much more effort than
adapting the same basic JoB strategy to a perfect strategy with all
penalty cases.

This statement is very true ... the basic math for expected return
supports it. The ER without any adjustments to JB strategy is 99.63%.
   Making a few very simple adjustments (such as holding 3 card
flushes) improves that ER considerably.

But my issue is with the higher variance of DB. My take is that you
want every bit of additional game return possible as protection
against the higher loss risk of DB vs. JB. Mind you, I'm a little
jaundiced on this subject after a year's trial at casual, but active,
$1 DB play in which I absorbed a 6+ RF loss.

My advice is to finely hone your DB strategy/skill on your computer
before taking it into the casino.

- Harry

#28

I certainly can't argue with that. Variance is the silent enemy. At
least it's my silent enemy. As far as variance is concerned it's hard
to beat JoB, even in single-line play, and with the greater
availability of multi-line play JoB the game can't be ignored when
bankroll is a concerned or when aiming for "neutral" play (as opposed
to max advantage play) is a good enough goal.

A 6 RF swing in DB isn't totally unexpected, sadly, even in the
relatively short term. Assuming a normal distribution, on 10 RF cycles
of DB, with no CB, being down 6RFs is "only" approximately 1.5 times
the standard deviation, i.e. a 7% chance. (Once again, and this time I
insist, we're still looking at timescales where the distribution isn't
normal, possibly still far from it actually, and statistics based on
the assumption of a normal distribution must still be consumed with a
serious grain of salt). It takes about 10 million hands (over 200 RF
cycles) for the breakeven point in DB to be 1 standard deviation below
the average (and at that point the distribution is probably starting
to be fairly normal), that's 9 years "full time" (600 HPH, 8 hours per
day, 240 days per year).

JBQ

···

On 8/20/05, Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:

But my issue is with the higher variance of DB.

#29

Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:

... (Once again, and this time I insist, we're still looking at
timescales where the distribution isn't normal, possibly still far
from it actually, and statistics based on the assumption of a normal
distribution must still be consumed with a serious grain of salt).

Ok, I'll let you slide by with that one <big grin> ...

It takes about 10 million hands (over 200 RF cycles) for the
breakeven point in DB to be 1 standard deviation below the average
(and at that point the distribution is probably starting to be
fairly normal)

Gee, guy, at that point even I'll let you toss out all the "normal
distribution" stats you want with nary a raised eyebrow!

But, the pursuit of the "DB long term" isn't generally nearly that bad
(when defined as expectation of positive results. Most people who
pursue the game with discipline are looking at a minimum of .25% added
ER from cb/promotions (preferably .4%+, and some wouldn't touch it
with anything less than .8%). This draws the game away from it's base
case of slim advantage to something that you can get your teeth into,
without debating whether the social security checks will start rolling
in long before there's confident expectation of a DB profit.

- Harry

#30

"As far as variance is concerned it's hard
   to beat JoB, even in single-line play, and with the greater
   availability of multi-line play JoB the game can't be ignored when
   bankroll is a concerned or when aiming for "neutral" play..."

Be wary. Even a game such as JOB can decimate a session bankroll fairly
quickly, particularly when you are playing multiline.

I play a lot of triple line JOB, at $2.50 per line, i.e. 10 credits per
line. It's not too hard to blow through $800 in an hour.

Neil

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbqueru@g...> wrote:

#31

Tell me about it, during my last trip I lost $50 in 20 minutes playing
a 50-play penny game. Even a game with such a low variance as 100-play
JoB still has a higher variance than most other decent casino games.

JBQ

···

On 8/21/05, neilemb <nembree@aol.com> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbqueru@g...> wrote:
Be wary. Even a game such as JOB can decimate a session bankroll fairly
quickly, particularly when you are playing multiline.