vpFREE2 Forums

Proper hold JOB 3 card royal vs. 4 card flush?????

To me, the real key here is whether this concept of “bankroll preservation” should ever indicate a preference for a play with a slightly smaller EV. If you don’t have enough money to play the game correctly, I don’t see how you could make a case for playing the game incorrectly; your “correct play” with an inadequate bankroll is, in fact, “don’t play at all.”

To me, it seems like every time you make a decision that gives up money, even if it’s a nickel, you are making a decision that DEPLETES your bankroll a little more quickly, no matter the size of the bankroll – and even if that decision comes up infrequently. Just because the decision is not frequent, and the cost of making the wrong decision is small, does not seem to
me to justify playing a hand incorrectly.

All this is academic in my case; I play games where my EV AFTER TAXES (I don’t file as a professional gambler) is probably terrible, I have NOT learned all the penalty card variations for precisely correct play, and I probably make enough occasional mistakes that my errors are more important – but even with all that, why give up a nickel intentionally when you know better?

–BG

···

===================

2.2. Re: Proper hold JOB 3 card royal vs. 4 card flush???
Posted by: “Bob Dancer” bobdance…@…com bobdancerlasvegas
Date: Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:43 pm ((PDT))

Norma wrote: Holding the four clubs: EV = 1.2766
Holding 3 to the royal: EV =
1.2868

You would have to play an awful lot of hands for that small difference to matter.

When
the EV is this close, relative volatility is more important than EV. I
don’t know how Winpoker computes, but it seems obvious that drawing one
card to a flush is way less volatile than going for the royal. It’s a
matter of bankroll survival.

Ignoring small possible contributions by a high pair:
Probabilities:
One card flush draw: 9/47
Two card royal draw: (2/47)(1/46)
Ratio: 207:1 in favor of the one card draw to a flush.

Your conclusion is defensible, maybe, but the way you got there was questionable.

The difference between the plays is about 5 cents for the 5-coin dollar player. Or 1 cent for the quarter player. Or $5 for the $100 player. Multiply those numbers accordingly if you’re playing Triple Play, Five Play, etc. Whether that’s a lot or a little can be argued. On a personal basis, a 5 cent
error for dollar 5-coin players is HUGE. I suppose you could say I play “an awful lot of hands”

You’re comparing the frequency of a flush (worth 30 coins) with the frequency of a royal flush (worth 4,000 coins). You are looking at how often something happens rather than how much it pays. Even if you accept that as reasonable methodology, why do you count the number of 30-coin flushes when you’re drawing one card and not count the number of 30-coin flushes and 20-coin straights when you’re drawing two cards? Instead of 1-out-of-1081 chances to get a royal from AKT, you get 51-chances-out-of-1081 to get a royal, flush, or straight. Big difference.

I’m not sure why you neglect high pairs. You get a high pair from AKT about 22% of the time. You get a high pair from AKT4 less than 13% of the time,which is slightly more than half as often. I know a high pair is small compared to a flush, but not nearly as much smaller as a flush is to a royal
flush.

When it comes down to how often do you get ANYTHING POSITIVE from the two draws, it’s 30% of the time from AKT and 32% of the time from AKT4. While these numbers aren’t identical, they are nowhere near as different as the 207-1 ratio you cited in your post.

Bankroll preservation is an essential part of intelligent gambling — which is your main point, and you’re correct in this. But if you’re regularly making safety plays this large, you have no chance to be playing a positive game no matter how large the slot club is.

Bob

If I have understood the play correctly it is a short run gain as opposed to the long run of hitting a royal? So you have a bankroll preservation in the short run. In the case of a average player might be a good choice. But for a pro like Bob a bad choice.

···

To: vpF…@…com
From: vpF…@…com
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 06:23:08 -0700
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Proper hold JOB 3 card royal vs. 4 card flush???

To me, the real key here is whether this concept of “bankroll preservation” should ever indicate a preference for a play with a slightly smaller EV. If you don’t have enough money to play the game correctly, I don’t see how you could make a case for playing the game incorrectly; your “correct play” with an inadequate bankroll is, in fact, “don’t play at all.”

To me, it seems like every time you make a decision that gives up money, even if it’s a nickel, you are making a decision that DEPLETES your bankroll a little more quickly, no matter the size of the bankroll – and even if that decision comes up infrequently. Just because the decision is not frequent, and the cost of making the wrong decision is small, does not seem to
me to justify playing a hand incorrectly.

All this is academic in my case; I play games where my EV AFTER TAXES (I don’t file as a professional gambler) is probably terrible, I have NOT learned all the penalty card variations for precisely correct play, and I probably make enough occasional mistakes that my errors are more important – but even with all that, why give up a nickel intentionally when you know better?

–BG

===================

2.2. Re: Proper hold JOB 3 card royal vs. 4 card flush???
Posted by: “Bob Dancer” bobdance…@…com bobdancerlasvegas
Date: Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:43 pm ((PDT))

Norma wrote: Holding the four clubs: EV = 1.2766
Holding 3 to the royal: EV =
1.2868

You would have to play an awful lot of hands for that small difference to matter.

When
the EV is this close, relative volatility is more important than EV. I
don’t know how Winpoker computes, but it seems obvious that drawing one
card to a flush is way less volatile than going for the royal. It’s a
matter of bankroll survival.

Ignoring small possible contributions by a high pair:
Probabilities:
One card flush draw: 9/47
Two card royal draw: (2/47)(1/46)
Ratio: 207:1 in favor of the one card draw to a flush.

Your conclusion is defensible, maybe, but the way you got there was questionable.

The difference between the plays is about 5 cents for the 5-coin dollar player. Or 1 cent for the quarter player. Or $5 for the $100 player. Multiply those numbers accordingly if you’re playing Triple Play, Five Play, etc. Whether that’s a lot or a little can be argued. On a personal basis, a 5 cent
error for dollar 5-coin players is HUGE. I suppose you could say I play “an awful lot of hands”

You’re comparing the frequency of a flush (worth 30 coins) with the frequency of a royal flush (worth 4,000 coins). You are looking at how often something happens rather than how much it pays. Even if you accept that as reasonable methodology, why do you count the number of 30-coin flushes when you’re drawing one card and not count the number of 30-coin flushes and 20-coin straights when you’re drawing two cards? Instead of 1-out-of-1081 chances to get a royal from AKT, you get 51-chances-out-of-1081 to get a royal, flush, or straight. Big difference.

I’m not sure why you neglect high pairs. You get a high pair from AKT about 22% of the time. You get a high pair from AKT4 less than 13% of the time,which is slightly more than half as often. I know a high pair is small compared to a flush, but not nearly as much smaller as a flush is to a royal
flush.

When it comes down to how often do you get ANYTHING POSITIVE from the two draws, it’s 30% of the time from AKT and 32% of the time from AKT4. While these numbers aren’t identical, they are nowhere near as different as the 207-1 ratio you cited in your post.

Bankroll preservation is an essential part of intelligent gambling — which is your main point, and you’re correct in this. But if you’re regularly making safety plays this large, you have no chance to be playing a positive game no matter how large the slot club is.

Bob

I agree that, strictly speaking, the highest EV is the correct choice, in the long run…

In the short run, one might consider the probability of getting some payback, even if it is isn’t optimal.

Of course, the definitions of “short” and “long” runs are rather vague. But the house is certainly always “long run”.

    • Norma

normagirl9 wrote: “I agree that, strictly speaking, the highest EV is the correct choice, in the long run…”

The highest EV is the correct choice if you want to maximize EV, in the short or long run. Keep in mind that EV is the long term average.

If you want to minimize the number of hands it takes to double your bankroll, then Kelly strategy is the mathematically correct choice. Holding AKT2s and going for the flush instead of holding just AKTs is a typical Kelly strategy play. Someone who makes this play isn’t necessarily “making the wrong choice”, instead they may be playing Kelly strategy. Kelly strategy strongly considers the EV, but also considers the current bankroll and variance, and if done exactly also the other higher moments.

Moment (mathematics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

image

Moment (mathematics) - Wikipedia, the free encycl…
In mathematics, a moment is a specific quantitative measure, used in both mechanics and statistics, of the shape of a set of points. If the points repre…

View on en.wikiped…

Preview by Yahoo

BG wrote: “All this is academic in my case; I play games where my EV AFTER TAXES (I
don’t file as a professional gambler) is probably terrible, I have NOT learned all the penalty card variations for precisely correct play, and I
probably make enough occasional mistakes that my errors are more important – but even with all that, why give up a nickel intentionally when you know better?”

Some other things to consider: I assume you’re going to tip if you hit a royal? 1% is a typical tip, so now instead of getting 800 bets, you’re getting 792 net tip. You mentioned TAXES, if that royal is $1200 or more, you’ll be getting a W2G which likely will impact your taxes. How much does that reduce the win from the royal, I don’t know, it depends on your taxes, but the hit can be very significant, it can be more than the royal itself. What about that treasured mailer you were getting? Think that won’t be affected by your royal win? What else is affected by hitting a royal? Have you considered all the possibilities? Have you considered the Rumsfeld “unknown unknowns”?

But surely you can see that instead of setting the royal to 800 bets in your strategy generator of choice, a reduced value would be more realistic. Once you reduce the value of the royal, that nickel you thought you were giving up may actually be illusionary. Let’s say the net-net royal should be more like 400 bets. Now, what kind of strategy do you get with the royal set at 400 instead of 800?

NOTI wrote: Now, what kind of strategy do you get with the royal set at 400 instead of 800?

···

That’s easy. If the royal were 400, I would give up video poker and take up bowling!

Bob

NOTI wrote: Now, what kind of strategy do you get with the royal set at 400 instead of 800?
Bob wrote: That’s easy. If the royal were 400, I would give up video poker and take up bowling!

I imagine say a 2% slot club would bring you back? And this isn’t so hypothetical. Many slot floor managers are tightening their games but then marketing soon figures out they have no customers unless they make the slot club very generous. So you get tight games and loose slot clubs. Sometimes 8/5 Jacks doesn’t look so bad.