vpFREE2 Forums

"The Video Poker Edge" and Linda Boyd's Strategy Cards

Hello all.

I am new to the group and I am going to throw my two
cents in here. (puts on hard hat) Please hang with
me, as there really is a point to this story.

About 8 years ago (I think), I bought Mr. Dancer's
book "Deuces Wild Video Poker; A complete guide How to
beat the Casino". Before that I had only played JOB
with no luck whatsoever.

I have not visited Las Vegas for 4 years now. And I
only ventured out thar yonder about once a year before
that. My last trip resulted in me needing to clear my
head after going through a difficult divorce. Trip
included my mom and sister. (no comments from the
gallery please)

Anyway, my stake was 700 dollars for three days. I
divided it up into roughly three parts, one for each
dAY, and I planned to play Mr. Dancer's intermediate
strategy (100.70 percent, I think). The "quick and
dirty" strategy couldn't be that much more difficult
than the once under discussion here, and the "pro"
strategy was just too much for me, and would likely
result in more mistakes and kill any theoritical
advantage anyway.

The first two days were dismal, and only on the second
evening did I get four deuces. Anyone that plays FPDW
will tell you that you can loose very quickly at
times, even at the quarter level, so even 4 deuces was
a nice break. The last day, with only a few hours from
leaving town. I was playing the progressives at the
Palms and I was down to my last 20 dollars. Then,
WHAM, the royal for over 1300 bucks. I got paid, then
walked back to Aladdin to pack. I had about and hour
left before the shuttle was to pick us up, and I
walked accross the street (Once of the Coast casinos,
I think), and within 10 minutes I did it again for
another grand.

My questions (and potential point) is this: I know
that some don't think that 1 percent is much to give
up by learning Boyd's strategy. But, would a large
portion of the percent you give up learning Boyd's
strategy be in something other than the Royal being
delayed. And, had I given up even half of a percent,
would I have been in the game when those royals came
up? My guess is that my last 20 dollars would have
been lone gone, and Lady Luck would have been stood up
on her date (And back then, I sure need a good date).

I rarely get to Vegas, but I am heading out there
again on July 1. When I get there, my strategy is
this: lose slowly enough that when lady luck shows up
I can be there to enjoy it. In my experience one half
to one percent can be huge.

Just my two cents.

B

I am new to the group and I am going to throw my two
cents in here. (puts on hard hat)

Welcome to the group, Bolen, and sorry you've had to don the hard
hat so early.

I know that some don't think that 1 percent is much to give
up by learning Boyd's strategy.

1.0% is quite a bit to give up in vp. As I understand it, if I'm
using the figures that have been thrown around in the past few days,
we're discussing a difference closer to .1% which, for the majority
of recreational players, is not so much to be concerned about.

I rarely get to Vegas, but I am heading out there
again on July 1.

Good luck to you, and I hope you have a great time! Let us know how
you do.

Drew

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bolen Bradley <Bolen88@...> wrote:

Thanks!

Good thing I stated up front I am a newbie...I have been so obsessed with FPDW that I can
scarely remember that that is but one game out there! I should have been more careful of
the game being discussed. Hopefully my little story about losing more slowly is still valid,
and hopefully I will study my strategy more closely than I did the post I reponded to. Doh!

Yes, I will let the good folks know how the trip comes out.

Thanks again!

B

  Yes, for >

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bolen Bradley <Bolen88@> wrote:

> I am new to the group and I am going to throw my two
> cents in here. (puts on hard hat)

Welcome to the group, Bolen, and sorry you've had to don the hard
hat so early.

> I know that some don't think that 1 percent is much to give
> up by learning Boyd's strategy.

1.0% is quite a bit to give up in vp. As I understand it, if I'm
using the figures that have been thrown around in the past few days,
we're discussing a difference closer to .1% which, for the majority
of recreational players, is not so much to be concerned about.

> I rarely get to Vegas, but I am heading out there
> again on July 1.

Good luck to you, and I hope you have a great time! Let us know how
you do.

Drew

I am a recreational player. My annual coinin is in the order of
$600,000. I would prefer to have the $600 that that 0.1% represents in
my pocket rather than the casino's.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Sterling" <vpdeuces@...> wrote:

> we're discussing a difference closer to .1% which, for the majority
of recreational players, is not so much to be concerned about.

I am a recreational player. My annual coinin is in the order of
$600,000. I would prefer to have the $600 that that 0.1%

represents in

my pocket rather than the casino's.

I don't mean to pick on you. This note is intended for anyone who
looks at these paybacks and think they are the whole story.

There appears to be an epidemic of ignoring the real world of Video
Poker. No one plays perfectly and no one reads strategy cards
perfectly. I have personally witnessed VP Pros pull out a card and
then proceed to make the wrong play. It happens. So, I will state it
again. It is truly impossible to determine the real value of any
strategy card. Ignoring the potential for errors may be a bigger
mistake than actually making them. Several recent posters have been
guilty of ignoring this fact.

Dick

···

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

" No one plays perfectly and no one reads strategy cards
perfectly. I have personally witnessed VP Pros pull out a card and
then proceed to make the wrong play. It happens. So, I will state it
again. It is truly impossible to determine the real value of any
strategy card. Ignoring the potential for errors may be a bigger
mistake than actually making them. Several recent posters have been
guilty of ignoring this fact."

Agreed. No one plays perfectly. That said, it seems to me that it is
better to have 99.54% as the starting point, rather than 99.45%.

Neil

···

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

I already covered this in my response to vegasvpplayer. Message number
75540. There is no definable "starting point".

Dick

···

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

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

" No one plays perfectly and no one reads strategy cards
perfectly. I have personally witnessed VP Pros pull out a card and
then proceed to make the wrong play. It happens. So, I will state it
again. It is truly impossible to determine the real value of any
strategy card. Ignoring the potential for errors may be a bigger
mistake than actually making them. Several recent posters have been
guilty of ignoring this fact."

Agreed. No one plays perfectly. That said, it seems to me that it is
better to have 99.54% as the starting point, rather than 99.45%.

I already covered this in my response to vegasvpplayer. Message

number

75540. There is no definable "starting point".

Dick

Well, I read message 75540, (I had not done so before posting my
comment about a starting point), but I couldn't really see a concise
statement to that effect.

In any case, I respectfully disagree. Yuor personal starting point
is whatever you choose it to be. If, for simplicity, you choose to
use a strategy, that, if followed perfectly, yields a return of
99.4%, that, it seems to me, is the starting point, and you go down
in return from there when errors occur.

It has to be better to be aiming for a somewhat higher return. How
can you play perfectly if you don't try? Why forgo additional
return, unless the effort to achieve it is monumental, and the
incremental increase in return is small?

To me, this is the crux of it. If a small amount of effort is needed
to achieve a significant gain, few people will not put in that
effort. On the other hand, a miniscule increase in return requiring
hours and hours of practice to attain is hardly worth the effort.

To assist us all in decisions on this, it would be extremely helpful
if the authors of strategies indicated on each one what its expected
return is compared to computer-perfect play.

Neil

···

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

In any case, I respectfully disagree. Yuor personal starting

point

is whatever you choose it to be. If, for simplicity, you choose

to

use a strategy, that, if followed perfectly, yields a return of
99.4%, that, it seems to me, is the starting point, and you go

down

in return from there when errors occur.

It has to be better to be aiming for a somewhat higher return.

No it doesn't. It can be worse to be aiming for a higher return.
If aiming for a higher return leads to more errors or slows you down
too much in a positive EV game, then it is most definitely
not "better".

How
can you play perfectly if you don't try? Why forgo additional
return, unless the effort to achieve it is monumental, and the
incremental increase in return is small?

You just gave two good reasons to forego additional return. It's
hard to imagine that anyone can play a more complex strategy as fast
and as error-free as he/she can play a simpler strategy.

To me, this is the crux of it. If a small amount of effort is

needed

to achieve a significant gain, few people will not put in that
effort. On the other hand, a miniscule increase in return

requiring

hours and hours of practice to attain is hardly worth the effort.

Doesn't this contradict your original contention? At any rate, I
agree with the idea that some small increases are not worth the
effort.

To assist us all in decisions on this, it would be extremely

helpful

if the authors of strategies indicated on each one what its

expected

return is compared to computer-perfect play.

Neil

Yes! I completely agree with your last sentence. One of the good
things to come out of this thread is having a value for the cost of
the strategy simplifications in Linda Boyd's JOB strategy. (Thanks
go to Boyd and Dean Zamzow for making that fig public.) Another
good thing from the thread was nightoftheiguana's confirmation of
the EV of Paymar's "Precision Play" JOB strategy. Ideally, any
published strategy should include an accurate EV that shows how
close the strategy approaches perfect play.

--Dunbar

···

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