vpFREE2 Forums

Perfect Play

#1

Those of us who play video poker debate the term "full-pay" and constantly refer to the concept "perfect-play". A recent contributor to the blog admitted to not always playing perfectly and added that only Bob Dancer and a few others do so. I would argue that no one plays perfectly for any period of time. It is humanly impossible to do anything perfectly all of the time. We may know how to play perfectly, but we are incapable, even Bob Dancer, of so performing over an extended period. Certainly the long discussion of annoyances demonstrates the host of circumstances which contribute to loss of concentration which would result in a greater tendency towards error.

What I would like to know, is if UNLV, or any other university, has studied the actual performance of "perfect-play" by skilled video poker players, and what is a reasonable expectation of actual performance in a real life casino, or a realistic casino environment? If anyone knows of such studies, I would be interested in a citation so that I could read them.

Jim

#2

Those of us who play video poker debate the term "full-pay" and constantly refer to the concept "perfect-play". A recent contributor to the blog admitted to not always playing perfectly and added that only Bob Dancer and a few others do so. I would argue that no one plays perfectly for any period of time. It is humanly impossible to do anything perfectly all of the time. We may know how to play perfectly, but we are incapable, even Bob Dancer, of so performing over an extended period. Certainly the long discussion of annoyances demonstrates the host of circumstances which contribute to loss of concentration which would result in a greater tendency towards error.

And "errors" are not the only "threats" to "perfect play." Possibly
every video poker game has plays that are so unimportant that it's not
feasible to even try to play them "perfectly." "Perfect play" isn't
optimal. It's better to play FPDW at a .75% advantage at 800 hands
per hour than it is to play it "perfectly" at a .762% advantage at 600
hands per hour. Past a certain point, the time spent trying to play
"perfectly" would be better spent playing more hands slightly
imperfectly. In Kings or Better Joker's Wild, maximizing EV entails
keeping 2 to a straight flush occasionally. But to play "perfectly,"
one must analyze each time 2 to a straight flush appears just for that
1 time in 100 it should be held. It's arguably better to ignore that
type of hand entirely.

#3

Thanks for pointing that out, Tom! It makes me feel better.

At last count I have played over 1.5 million hands of KBJW
on WP6 software. My accuracy is usually around 99.7% on
this difficult game. What trips me up each time is dealt
hands containing SF2. I get an equal number of "errors"
whether I hold or discard all SF2 cards, even when I stop
"to think about it". {{O:

Now, I just whiff them and don't bother to second guess
myself......unless the other SF3 cards appear. }}O:

~Babe~

ยทยทยท

=======================================
-In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@.wrote:

.......Past a certain point, the time spent trying to play
"perfectly" would be better spent playing more hands slightly
imperfectly. In Kings or Better Joker's Wild, maximizing EV
entails keeping 2 to a straight flush occasionally. But to play "perfectly," one must analyze each time 2 to a straight
flush appears just for that 1 time in 100 it should be held.
It's arguably better to ignore that type of hand entirely.