vpFREE2 Forums

penalty cards

#21

gilbert_616 wrote:

You're right! Anyone can analyze but, without seeing the actual
codes (line by line) and knowing exactly what the program does when
penalty cards exist, s/he can still be just guessing.

If you're successful in ferreting out an IGT employee who'll spill the
beans on this subject, maybe you can broach the topic that's always
been at the forefront of my brain:

When dealt 3 Aces, is the surest way to get a 4th on the draw to wave
you hand over the face of the display or to thunk the front panel 3
times?

- H.

#22

my understanding of penalty cards is different from yours.

···

On 12/7/05, gilbert_616 <gilbert_616@yahoo.com> wrote:

Not all IGT employee can explain the truth on penalty cards. The ones
who designed/developed/programmed/wrote the codes would know. Or the
ones who have seen and understand the source codes.

You're right! Anyone can analyze but, without seeing the actual codes
(line by line) and knowing exactly what the program does when penalty
cards exist, s/he can still be just guessing.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, LHOOQ <fieldcommand@g...> wrote:
>
> why does an IGT employee have to be the one to explain?
>
> anyone can analyze the EV of a specific play on a specific hand
can't they?
>
>
>
>
> On 12/7/05, gilbert_616 <gilbert_616@y...> wrote:
> > That's good info but, it still doesn't say that Michael
Shackleford
> > works or used to work for IGT as a designer or programmer of the
> > Video Poker games that we play. So, I'll just ask Santa if he can
get
> > the real stuffs (the truth about penalty cards) from IGT. :>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
>

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

#23

I guess I have to disagree a wee bit with all of you (or at least it seems
like a disagreement at this time). While Steve considers non-MAX EV
strategies ( and may go so far as to propose that such stratgeis are
appropriate for some players),

I sometimes tone down my comments to appease Harry, but I want to
make it clear that I'm not merely "proposing" that my strategies may
be apporpriate for some players, I'm claiming that as a mathematical
fact. For a player who truly wishes to maximize the probability of hitting
a royal before losing their current bankroll, the min-RoRBR strategy is
exactly optimal, mathematically speaking, for this very purpose. Any
other strategy will increase the probability that the player will go broke
rather than survive to hit a royal flush.

Same for Min-Cost-Royal strategy, a player who truly wishes the minimize
the average dollar amount lost between royal flushes, should (as in "it
is mathematically correct for such a player") use the Min-Cost-Royal
strategy. Any other strategy will not perform as well, when measured
in terms of "average units lost between royal flushes."

I want to go farther: I don't think "EV" per
se is the only quantity-- or even the most important quanntity for us ( and
especially Bob's mythical pro-player ) to worry about (that is optimize).

I've been saying "EV isn't everything" on the Internet for at least 15 years.

The "important quantity" for a player to worry about is whatever quantity
that players _chooses_ as a basis for guiding their play. A player who
wishes to have the best chance of playing forever, without ever going
broke, should use a min-RoR strategy. A player who wants the most
dollars, on average, per play of the game should use a max-EV strategy.
And so on. The "best" strategy is relative to the player's objective. The
notion that max-EV is some kind of "ultimate" strategy that is above all
others is a flawed notion, and I've stated this many times on this forum
(and elsewhere).

An analogy that I like to use is driving a car between two specific places
(say, from home to work). The best way to drive depends on what you
want to accomplish. If you are late for work and worried about losing your
job, you would tend the drive fast and take the path which gets you there
in the least amount of time. This is the "min-time" driving strategy. If you
have plenty of time and you want to get the very best fuel economy, you
might be careful to accelerate slowly, drive at moderate speeds, and choose
a path that minimizes time waiting for stop lights (and burning gas). This is
the "min-fuel" strategy. Or you might choose a scenic route past beaches
or through forests or whatever, to get the maximum enjoyment from the drive.
Different objectives, which lead to different driving "strategies".

Now, part of the point of this "best way to drive" analogy is that none of
these "driving objectives" are inherently superior to the others -- they are
each the very best in their own way. Comparing them doesn't really make
sense, because any comparison would be apples vs. oranges.

In my view, VP is no different. There are many different objectives that
a player can choose, and each objective has its own unique way of
measuring the outcome. These different ways of measuring the outcome
can often be expressed as "most X per Y", and conceptually this
represents the ratio average(X) / average(Y). The optimal strategy
maximizes the ratio. Examples:

max-EV is "most dollars per game played"
min-cost is "most dollars returned per dollar consumed by losses"
Min-Cost-Royal is "most dollars per royal flush"

Other strategies are described as a pure probability:

min-RoR is "highest probability of playing forever without going broke"
min-RoRBR is "highest probability of hitting a royal before going broke"

All of these have a simple, concrete meaning, and they all lead to
different strategies which are each optimal in their own unique way.
None are inherently superior to the others, they are all a matter of
personal choice. What do YOU want to maximize? If you can figure
out a way to measure "it" in terms of a ratio of average(X) / average(Y)
or as a pure probability, then proper application of math can determine
the playing strategy that maximizes "it".

···

On Wednesday 07 December 2005 09:48 am, cdfsrule wrote:

#24

Steve Jacobs wrote:

I sometimes tone down my comments to appease Harry ...

I think I should be honored -- Bev simply tells me I'm full of s**t
and leaves it at that :wink:

- H.

#25

There has been a train about IGT programmers knowing about
penalty cards. I do not understand why players think IGT programmers
think about penalty cards at all --- or do anything special to create
penalty cards. IGT programmers program the games to deal the cards in a
very-close-to-random manner. When the player selects the cards to hold,
the program is set to deal however many cards are necessary to complete
the hand. After the hand is done, the programs are set to recognize
paying combinations (straights, 3-of-a-kinds, etc.) and to pay off the
hand according to the pre-determined pay schedule. Penalty cards have
nothing to do with it.

        Players, however, are trying to make choices based on how many
spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs remain in the deck, and precisely
how many deuces, treys, fours, etc. Strategies, including penalty cards,
are devised by players attempting to play the game well. IGT is merely
attempting to make the game play fairly.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

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

#26

I can see clearly now the rain is gone...Glad to know this penalty
card thing was not in that "Design Specification".
Geez...i guess i've in Software QA for too long...

        There has been a train about IGT programmers knowing about
penalty cards. I do not understand why players think IGT

programmers

think about penalty cards at all --- or do anything special to

create

penalty cards. IGT programmers program the games to deal the cards

in a

very-close-to-random manner. When the player selects the cards to

hold,

the program is set to deal however many cards are necessary to

complete

the hand. After the hand is done, the programs are set to recognize
paying combinations (straights, 3-of-a-kinds, etc.) and to pay off

the

hand according to the pre-determined pay schedule. Penalty cards

have

nothing to do with it.

        Players, however, are trying to make choices based on how

many

spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs remain in the deck, and

precisely

how many deuces, treys, fours, etc. Strategies, including penalty

cards,

are devised by players attempting to play the game well. IGT is

merely

···

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

attempting to make the game play fairly.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

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

#27

I agree with Bob 100%. There's no special code in the machines to
modify the behavior of the game for certain hands. That would be
blatantly illegal in NV, and I have the feeling that IGT shareholders
wouldn't be very happy if their company was found to have cheated.

There are 2598960 deals in VP (assuming no joker, and that the order
of cards doesn't matter). For each of those hands there are 32
possible plays. A given strategy for a game is a list of which of the
32 plays to choose for each of the 2598960 deals.

Since nobody wants to explicitly remember that many hands, and since
our human brains are very good at recognizing patterns, that's how we
remember strategies. In most cases the value of the different plays
can be approximated closely enough by only looking at the cards that
are held. In a few cases the approximations are, well, too
approximate, and more cards have to be considered.

Those are simply cases where the simple patterns aren't precise
enough. Those aren't explicitly written in code. On the other hand one
can imagine that certain paytables are picked such that the max-EV
strategy has many such situations (10/7 DB comes to mind - positive on
paper, but with a somewhat high variance and quite a few penalty-card
situations).

There's no conspiracy, even if it sometimes feels like it.

JBQ

···

On 12/7/05, Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:

There has been a train about IGT programmers knowing about penalty cards [...]

#28

<<I've been saying "EV isn't everything" on the Internet for at least 15 years.>>

Some of us are hard-headed - or just plain dense. I liked your example. The older I get the more I see that "one size doesn't fit all." Maximizing ER or EV is still my goal and probably always will be. But I am becoming more and more aware of the different goals of so many other gamblers.

I do think there is a danger that people will take your message as an excuse to play any old way they feel like it and they will unhappily lose more than they wish to or their bankroll won't last as long as they wish. And I guess I will always feel the need to warn beginners that to figure out these alternate strategies takes a deep understanding of the math, one that the majority of players just will not have. But then most of them don't understand long-term ER/EV either!

My goal in writing about gambling is to provide people with as much information as possible in simple explanations they can understand so they can make informed choices. But I feel no responsibility to tell them what their choices SHOULD be. I just feel sad when I see them doing things that will not advance the goals they have.

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards.
  NEW - Blackjack Strategy Cards +
              Updated Second Edition of
             "The Frugal Gambler."

#29

I'll try to rephrase this: If your bankroll gives you an ror of say
1%, optimum strategy for bankroll growth is probably pretty close to
max-ER strategy, but not exactly, in case you are going to consider
penalty cards. But, you are underbetting your bankroll and thus not
achieving optimum bankroll growth if your ror is 1%. Also, as your
bankroll changes, which it will, optimum bankroll growth strategy
changes, i.e. optimum bankroll growth strategy is a function of
current bankroll size, and is somewhere between min-ROR and max-ER
strategy.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:
> For an adequately bankrolled player, I'd assert that the goal of the
> successful player should be to maximize ER.

If you are "adequately bankrolled" (what? 1% ror?) then you are
playing too conservatively, i.e. you are not achieving anywhere near
optimum bankroll growth. To get optimum bankroll growth, use Kelly
strategy.

#30

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

I'll try to rephrase this: If your bankroll gives you an ror of say
1%, optimum strategy for bankroll growth is probably pretty close to
max-ER strategy, but not exactly, in case you are going to consider
penalty cards. But, you are underbetting your bankroll and thus not
achieving optimum bankroll growth if your ror is 1%. Also, as your
bankroll changes, which it will, optimum bankroll growth strategy
changes, i.e. optimum bankroll growth strategy is a function of
current bankroll size, and is somewhere between min-ROR and max-ER
strategy.

Fully grasp the above, iggy.

You'll understand that my personal goal varies from a optimum bankroll
growth one. I'm not comfortable playing at bankroll amounts that
expose the player to the risk of playing at 10% ROR at times, given
play volatility. But this is a case where play strategy is "to each
their own".

I'll also briefly note that one problem in adjusting vp play strategy
is the rigidness of bet size adjustment options. But I'll leave that
for another day ...

- H.

#31

Everyone chooses for themselves. I, myself, like the "lifetime" session concept. and, for
me, the max strategy is what I choose. There is not that much difference (IMHO) in the
strategies and their results (will this start another thread of arguments?), just like what is
associated with using or not using penalty card variations. In the short term, lady luck
rules. In the long term, as i said, i opt for the max EV/ER (I always forget what I shoud
state here).

To each his own. Read it all and make your own decision.

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x...> wrote:

I sometimes tone down my comments to appease Harry, but I want to
make it clear that I'm not merely "proposing" that my strategies may
be apporpriate for some players, I'm claiming that as a mathematical
fact.

#32

gilbert_616 wrote:

I can see clearly now the rain is gone...Glad to know this penalty
card thing was not in that "Design Specification".
Geez...i guess i've in Software QA for too long...

Gil,

I've sensed in your posts some modest confusion about the definition
of a penalty card and how it impacts "perfect" play strategy. Let me
take a shot at a practical explanation for your benefit, and that of
others.

I expect you grasp the basics of vp strategy -- you go for the hold
that has the expectation of producing the strongest paying result,
looking at the average value of all hands that might be filled from a
given hold.

Basic strategies offered up by some authors, and software such as
Strategy Master and Frugal, rank various holds for a game on this
bases. A basic strategy considers only the cards that might be held.

However, advanced (or "perfect play") strategies also factor the cards
that are being discarded. Consider that discards are no longer
available to form final hands. If you remove a discard that could
have potentially formed a winning hand with held cards, then
presumably the value of that hold is diminished. Such cards are
referred to as "penalty cards" because of the reduction in hold value
(alternatively, these are called "interferences").

···

------

Let me offer up a practical example. Let's say that you're playing
10/7 DB and the two most valuable holds under consideration are:
- a suited (KQ8) and
- holding just (KQ).

Under the basic strategy provided by Frugal VP, the KQ is superior:
- KQ - 2.84 coins (5 coins wagered)
- 3F,2hi (KQ8) - 2.81

However, let's say that in one example hand the additional dealt cards
are non-suited 65, and in another non-suited 95.

In the first example, neither card could form a straight to the KQ.
In the second case, discarding the 9 removes one straight possibility
from the KQ. This 9, by the definition above, is a straight penalty
to KQ in being discarded.

When looking at these two alternative examples, the actual values (now
considering specific discards) of the considered KQ hold are:
- KQ w/ 865 discard - 2.83 coins
- KQ w/ 895 discard - 2.80

With specific dealt cards being considered (vs. the original general
case), the actual value of KQ8 increases slightly to 2.82 in both
examples.

It's seen that where there is no straight penalty, the KQ is still the
better hold. However, when we're discarding a straight penalty to the
KQ, the 3F hold (KQ8) now is stronger.

------

In this manner, penalty cards influence the optimal hold when playing
a "perfect play" strategy. The differences are relatively nominal,
but not entirely negligible. If you're playing $1 10/7 DB, the
consequence of the penalty example above is you're 1 cent better off
if you make the "perfect play" rather than the "strategy play".

For someone who understands the penalty cards situations associated
with a given game, making the necessary adjustments is generally
straightforward. Why leave a penny on the table if it's not
necessary. And, it's been argued, in gaining that understanding, that
acumen will carry over into stronger performance in playing basic
strategy, where accuracy really counts.

On the other hand, it's been pointed out that at it's core, the
difference between perfect play ER and strategy ER aren't substantial
enough to make a real difference in play outcome, and looking for
penalty situations can prove a distraction that will impair basic
strategy accuracy.

- Harry

#33

Steve Jacobs wrote:

I've been saying "EV isn't everything" on the Internet for at least
15 years.

Jean Scott wrote:

I do think there is a danger that people will take your message as
an excuse to play any old way they feel like it and they will
unhappily lose more than they wish to or their bankroll won't last
as long as they wish.

I'm with Jean here. I don't fault Steve's message. But he puts it
out for general consumption, and very much intends to.

I consider it a message suited only for those who've dragged
themselves through the mud and are fully equipped to grasp the
mechanics of Max-EV play and the consequences of alternate strategies.

When it's expressed in a general forum such as this, I consider there
to be a signficant risk that some of the ears it falls on will look to
it as justification to vary from max-ER without substituting a
disciplined approach in its place.

But, I've been told on more occasion that I fret too much over the
play of others. And, I've learned that those who want to venture play
without the rigid discipline that I consider crucial to survival will
pretty much find any excuse to do so.

- Harry

#34

I replied on another thread before reading this e-mail, but this sums
up my view beautifully (and way better than I ever could). In my
case, sometimes my goal is "find the best paytable for a game more
exciting than JoB at the quarter level in the Strip casino where my
friends and I are staying while I wait for them to come down from the
room" which sometimes leads me to play 9/6 DDB! I think the "scenic
drive" part of your car analogy is the part that many of the math
guys forget about...

I've been saying "EV isn't everything" on the Internet for at least

15 years.

The "important quantity" for a player to worry about is whatever

quantity

that players _chooses_ as a basis for guiding their play. A player

who

wishes to have the best chance of playing forever, without ever

going

broke, should use a min-RoR strategy. A player who wants the most
dollars, on average, per play of the game should use a max-EV

strategy.

And so on. The "best" strategy is relative to the player's

objective. The

notion that max-EV is some kind of "ultimate" strategy that is

above all

others is a flawed notion, and I've stated this many times on this

forum

(and elsewhere).

An analogy that I like to use is driving a car between two specific

places

(say, from home to work). The best way to drive depends on what you
want to accomplish. If you are late for work and worried about

losing your

job, you would tend the drive fast and take the path which gets you

there

in the least amount of time. This is the "min-time" driving

strategy. If you

have plenty of time and you want to get the very best fuel economy,

you

might be careful to accelerate slowly, drive at moderate speeds,

and choose

a path that minimizes time waiting for stop lights (and burning

gas). This is

the "min-fuel" strategy. Or you might choose a scenic route past

beaches

or through forests or whatever, to get the maximum enjoyment from

the drive.

Different objectives, which lead to different driving "strategies".

Now, part of the point of this "best way to drive" analogy is that

none of

these "driving objectives" are inherently superior to the others --

they are

each the very best in their own way. Comparing them doesn't really

make

sense, because any comparison would be apples vs. oranges.

In my view, VP is no different. There are many different

objectives that

a player can choose, and each objective has its own unique way of
measuring the outcome. These different ways of measuring the

outcome

can often be expressed as "most X per Y", and conceptually this
represents the ratio average(X) / average(Y). The optimal strategy
maximizes the ratio. Examples:

max-EV is "most dollars per game played"
min-cost is "most dollars returned per dollar consumed by losses"
Min-Cost-Royal is "most dollars per royal flush"

Other strategies are described as a pure probability:

min-RoR is "highest probability of playing forever without going

broke"

min-RoRBR is "highest probability of hitting a royal before going

broke"

All of these have a simple, concrete meaning, and they all lead to
different strategies which are each optimal in their own unique way.
None are inherently superior to the others, they are all a matter of
personal choice. What do YOU want to maximize? If you can figure
out a way to measure "it" in terms of a ratio of average(X) /

average(Y)

or as a pure probability, then proper application of math can

determine

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x...> wrote:

the playing strategy that maximizes "it".

#35

<<I've been saying "EV isn't everything" on the Internet for at least 15
years.>>

Some of us are hard-headed - or just plain dense. I liked your example.
The older I get the more I see that "one size doesn't fit all." Maximizing
ER or EV is still my goal and probably always will be. But I am becoming
more and more aware of the different goals of so many other gamblers.

Excellent. If you're happy maximizing EV then there is no compelling
reason to adopt a different goal.

I do think there is a danger that people will take your message as an
excuse to play any old way they feel like it and they will unhappily lose
more than they wish to or their bankroll won't last as long as they wish.

I agree there is some danger of this, but I don't feel that such worries
should be used as a justification for withholding the truth from players.

And I guess I will always feel the need to warn beginners that to figure
out these alternate strategies takes a deep understanding of the math, one
that the majority of players just will not have. But then most of them
don't understand long-term ER/EV either!

Agreed. It is true that figuring out max-EV strategy is a less complex
process. Perhaps the key message is that any optimal strategy uses
math to produce the best possible strategy for each specific goal.

My goal in writing about gambling is to provide people with as much
information as possible in simple explanations they can understand so they
can make informed choices. But I feel no responsibility to tell them what
their choices SHOULD be. I just feel sad when I see them doing things
that will not advance the goals they have.

I believe that is the right approach. That really summarizes what I'm saying
quite well. If you say "use max-EV strategy" before determining the player's
personal objectives, you would be imposing your choice on that player,
and depriving them of the opportunity to choose what is best for them.

Most people wouldn't dream of imposing their own personal tastes for
food, fashion, or lifestyle on someone else. VP shouldn't be any different.
I believe the correct answer to "what is the best way to play" always
begins with "that depends on your goal...". What is truly best for any one
player depends on what is most important to that person.

···

On Wednesday 07 December 2005 11:04 pm, Jean Scott wrote:

#36

Steve Jacobs wrote:
> I've been saying "EV isn't everything" on the Internet for at least
> 15 years.

Jean Scott wrote:
> I do think there is a danger that people will take your message as
> an excuse to play any old way they feel like it and they will
> unhappily lose more than they wish to or their bankroll won't last
> as long as they wish.

I'm with Jean here. I don't fault Steve's message. But he puts it
out for general consumption, and very much intends to.

That is exactly correct. I believe it would be irresponsible to keep
this information from players, for _any_ reason.

It isn't as if this was a set of instructions for building nuclear weapons
in your kitchen, and keeping people in the dark is necessary for public
safety and/or national security.

I'm willing to share the things I've figured out about VP, with anyone
who cares to listen. If I didn't want to put this out for "general
consumptions" then just what forum would you suggest as an
appropriate place to post this? Should I get clearance from Homeland
Security, or merely from a "save the children" organization?

I consider it a message suited only for those who've dragged
themselves through the mud and are fully equipped to grasp the
mechanics of Max-EV play and the consequences of alternate strategies.

By that standard, the general public would not be allowed to know
anything about Einstein's Theory of Reletivity, because only full
fledged physicists are "fully equipped" to grasp the concept.

When it's expressed in a general forum such as this, I consider there
to be a signficant risk that some of the ears it falls on will look to
it as justification to vary from max-ER without substituting a
disciplined approach in its place.

In other words, you still hold max-ER to be "sacred" above all other
strategies, and no others must be discussed "in front of the children"
for fear that those who hear will fall away from the "true" max-ER
religion.

Players who are attracted to a disciplined approach are fully capable
of making this choice without anyone imposing that choice on them
by having the truth withheld from their view.

Players who would use this as an excuse to abandon all restraint,
would be very unlikely to stick to max-ER even if that were the only
structured choice they were exposed to. So, I think your fears are
quite unfounded, and even absurd.

In fact, by your standard, we shouldn't even talk about max-ER
strategy, for fear that people who cannot control their gambling
urges will use math as an excuse to feed their addictions and
ruin their lives.

But, I've been told on more occasion that I fret too much over the
play of others. And, I've learned that those who want to venture play
without the rigid discipline that I consider crucial to survival will
pretty much find any excuse to do so.

Harry, please read that last sentence of yours very carefully. I
think it contradicts your previous comments. If such players will
"find any excuse" to avoid rigid discipline, then it clearly won't
matter if they are shown many different forms of rigid discipline
rather than a single method.

I offer choices to those who are able to make informed decisions
about what is best for their own situation and/or style. I freely admit
that people who should not be allowed out in publice without adult
supervision may be better off to adopt a "just use max-ER" view.
Fortunately, people who fall into that category tend to naturally
avoid discussions of math, so there is a built-in safety mechanism
in each and every post that I write :wink:

···

On Thursday 08 December 2005 07:15 am, Harry Porter wrote:

#37

Steve wrote: Most people wouldn't dream of imposing their own personal
tastes for
food, fashion, or lifestyle on someone else.

I was with you until you said this. Many wars (including 9/11 and
subsequent events) have been fought over the principle of "my God is
better than your God" or "our lifestyle is better than your lifestyle."
On this forum, people have been attacked fairly harshly for having a
view not-in-lockstep with someone elses.

You may be a live-and-let-live guy, Steve, but there a lots of folks in
this world who don't share those views --- or at least don't practice
those views.

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

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

#38

Steve,
I really don't understand why you are arguing with me, and likewise,
how you really anyone to believe your claims SIMPLY because you say
they are correct. BTW, I already know that EV isn't evervything, I
(LOL) I can go on the record of saying that, well, more than 20 yrs (
but, my isn't bigger. oh well, can't win them all).

Back to the point:

Can you explain some things for me:

You claim that "Any other strategy will not perform as well, when
measured in terms of" the goal of the min-cost-Royal strategey and
you make a similar statement fot min-RoRBR strategy.

I think I know what you are saying mathematically (and for these 2
cases I beleive you are correct, in a sense), but the statement that
says "an optimal strategy [for meeting a certain goal in VP] is
better than all other stratagies" is false in general, and I think
the folks who do try to read and understand your posts should
understand that [you didn't actually write anything that contradicts
this statement about optimal strategies, but what you did write did
suggest to me, at least, such a contradiction. What about the more
casual reader?]. It's easy to find examples. There are plenty. One
you have discussed is the min-ROR strategey,

'min-RoR is "highest probability of playing forever without going
broke"'

For a negative game, like JoB, RoR is always zero, regardless of
strategy. So, there is a huge set of min-RoR stratgies (classified
by involving playing until going broke and not stoping in betweem)
have no effect on the RoR, and they are all equally optimal, or
perhaps equally non-optimal. That is, in terms of the goal of the min-
RoR strategy, they all equally suck. But, had the goal been, play as
long as possible without going broke, then, well, there very well be
a single optimal strategy, but then again, maybe not. It also
depends on how one compares strategies-- and if how one compares
stratgeies "properly", one will find that there is usually a class of
equivelent stratgies that are optimal, where the differences between
strategies have not effect on the goal. [For VP it is relatively
simple, but for other games, like heads-up no-limit hold'em, the
optimal stratgey involves random play, and the distribution of that
random play matters. Really.] Conclusion: specification of a goal is
not always sufficent to produce AN optimal strategy, and sometimes it
depends on the game (with min RoR, Job vs FPDW, for example).

I do like you analogy to driving (one of my favorite activities). And
the point you draw from it is, IMHO, excellent. I do have quite a bit
to say about of this analogy can be used mathematically in
application to gambling (Feynman path integral approach) . But until
you try to apply some rigour to this analogy, I'll keep my fingers
idle.

#39

Harry,

Thanks for your reply!
I do follow and respect the Strategies covering penalty cards to the
best of my knowledge. (no confusion, i hope)
The purpose of my post asking Santa to knock on IGT's door is to let
others who are in doubt or confused that the way to find out how a
system/program works is to always go back to the Design Specs and/or
talk to the developers/programmers/engineers (that's what we do in
Software QA or Software Testing at least). Or talk to those who have
seen and undertood the Video Poker codes (whether it is written in
C/C++ or Delphi or Visual Basic, etc.) line by line.

So many people talk about penalty cards as if they know the vp
program 100% (all the IF statements, blah blah blah) and then later
on end up still confused!?

Since Santa is most likely to come from the North Pole and since IGT
is in northern Nevada (Reno area), maybe there is a good chance that
Santa can stop by and clear up some of the confusions. :> :> :>

If the IGT developers/programmers are not aware of the effect(s) of
penalty cards in video poker, and IF every vp player is able to
master how to handle these penalty cards, I won't be surprised to
hear or read in the news something like:
"MGM, Harrahs, Station Casinos, Coast Casinos, and others declared
that they are losing more money since all vp players have mastered
penalty card situations and are now talking to IGT asking for some
modifications on their video poker software (so as not to go thru the
use of Payschedule Reduction)."

...just a thought...

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

gilbert_616 wrote:
> I can see clearly now the rain is gone...Glad to know this

penalty

> card thing was not in that "Design Specification".
> Geez...i guess i've in Software QA for too long...

Gil,

I've sensed in your posts some modest confusion about the definition
of a penalty card and how it impacts "perfect" play strategy. Let

me

take a shot at a practical explanation for your benefit, and that of
others.

I expect you grasp the basics of vp strategy -- you go for the hold
that has the expectation of producing the strongest paying result,
looking at the average value of all hands that might be filled from

a

given hold.

Basic strategies offered up by some authors, and software such as
Strategy Master and Frugal, rank various holds for a game on this
bases. A basic strategy considers only the cards that might be

held.

However, advanced (or "perfect play") strategies also factor the

cards

that are being discarded. Consider that discards are no longer
available to form final hands. If you remove a discard that could
have potentially formed a winning hand with held cards, then
presumably the value of that hold is diminished. Such cards are
referred to as "penalty cards" because of the reduction in hold

value

(alternatively, these are called "interferences").

------

Let me offer up a practical example. Let's say that you're playing
10/7 DB and the two most valuable holds under consideration are:
- a suited (KQ8) and
- holding just (KQ).

Under the basic strategy provided by Frugal VP, the KQ is superior:
- KQ - 2.84 coins (5 coins wagered)
- 3F,2hi (KQ8) - 2.81

However, let's say that in one example hand the additional dealt

cards

are non-suited 65, and in another non-suited 95.

In the first example, neither card could form a straight to the KQ.
In the second case, discarding the 9 removes one straight

possibility

from the KQ. This 9, by the definition above, is a straight penalty
to KQ in being discarded.

When looking at these two alternative examples, the actual values

(now

considering specific discards) of the considered KQ hold are:
- KQ w/ 865 discard - 2.83 coins
- KQ w/ 895 discard - 2.80

With specific dealt cards being considered (vs. the original general
case), the actual value of KQ8 increases slightly to 2.82 in both
examples.

It's seen that where there is no straight penalty, the KQ is still

the

better hold. However, when we're discarding a straight penalty to

the

KQ, the 3F hold (KQ8) now is stronger.

------

In this manner, penalty cards influence the optimal hold when

playing

a "perfect play" strategy. The differences are relatively nominal,
but not entirely negligible. If you're playing $1 10/7 DB, the
consequence of the penalty example above is you're 1 cent better off
if you make the "perfect play" rather than the "strategy play".

For someone who understands the penalty cards situations associated
with a given game, making the necessary adjustments is generally
straightforward. Why leave a penny on the table if it's not
necessary. And, it's been argued, in gaining that understanding,

that

acumen will carry over into stronger performance in playing basic
strategy, where accuracy really counts.

On the other hand, it's been pointed out that at it's core, the
difference between perfect play ER and strategy ER aren't

substantial

···

enough to make a real difference in play outcome, and looking for
penalty situations can prove a distraction that will impair basic
strategy accuracy.

- Harry

#40

To put it as simply as possible, Gil, ALL video poker strategy doesn't
depend upon machine programming or RNG operation, so long as that
programming and operation fairly represent the basic mechanics of a
deck of cards ... in other words, strategy is based upon card
probabilities, whether those cards are dealt physically or electronically.

For ALL practial purposes, there's nothing to be gained from a
discussion with an IGT programmer.

- H.