Bob Dancer wrote the following to me privately, with copy to the vpFREE administrator. You will see that he gave me permission to post it on vpFREE. He obviously thinks I'm afraid to post it here, but you read it and see who it makes look foolish.
Bob wrote:
Dan:
Attached is my good-faith response to your insistence that you
never said you should cut down to one coin if things aren't going well
at Deuces Wild. I'm quite sure everyone on vpFREE is getting tired of
this thread. Including me. I am cc'ing the administrator. If I publish
this on vpFREE, I believe that you will look foolish. People will see
that you did say what you swore you didn't. Although there will be mixed
opinions (as you and I each have both fans and non-fans), a sizeable
number of people will conclude that I paraphrased your position
accurately enough. I'd rather not take it there. There are no winner's
in a pissing contest. If you wish your day in "vpFREE court", so be it.
Feel free to post this if you think it will do you any good. If you are
doubtful about whether or not to pursue it, I suggest you contact the
adminstrator. He (she?)and I have not spoken about this and I believe
that he doesn't wish to take sides and wishes peace on vpFREE.Video Poker Times --- Volume 2.4 --- Page 4 --- Copyright 1994 Dan
Paymar --- I'm not sure I'm quoting it by Dan's permission, but I
certainly am by his insistence. The column is unsigned, but there was
only he and I writing on that issue and this definitely wasn't my work.
I manually transcribed this. It's possible I made a transcription error,
but I think it's correct. I capitalized the phrase I remembered for
emphasis --- it was not capitalized in the original. I am quoting the
entire article, as there are hedging phrases in the article that could
be interpreted as Dan considering this option rather than endorsing it.Subjective Observation
Another anomaly has been reported on the Deuces Wild machines, including
Loose Deuces and Bonus Deuces. After getting four-of-a-kind or better,
the next play seems to be another set of quads somewhat more often than
probability predicts, perhaps as much as twice as often. (The chance of
quads on any one play of standard Deuces is theoretically about one in
15.5)More frequently, however, the next play yields either a non-pay of a
3-of-a-kind push, followed by a long string of non-pays (often including
one-deuce zilch hands.) If the play after the quads yields any pay
higher than trips then the following deals seem normally random, but
this "normal" case seems rare.This has been so consistent on so many machines that it's scary. If you
observe this anomaly then you might be tempted to make one more 5-coin
play after getting quads or better. If you get anything better than
trips, then keep playing normally, BUT IF THAT PLAY YIELDS TRIPS OR
ZILCH THEN DROP TO PLAYING ONE COIN UNTIL PAYOFFS START SHOWING UP
AGAIN. (Caps added by Bob Dancer to indicate the phrase he was referring
to in his November 8, 2005 column).Such a change in play would be a tactic, not a strategy, and it would
reduce your expected payback. It's difficult to imagine how a random
number generator could exhibit such characteristics, but I do feel that
such apparent aberrant warrants investigation.
Bob very conveniently ignores the first five words, "Another anomaly has been REPORTED..." (emphasis mine). In other words, it was from a letter from a reader. Many of my articles have been responses to readers' letters.
But more importantly, he ignores the last paragraph, which is what I added to the letter. I said, "Such a play...would reduce your expected payback." The rest of the paragraph is also significant. Does that sound like I'm recommending dropping to single coin play? The only way I can read that is that I was recommending against it.
My November 8 article said: "Paymar also wrote that if four-of-a-kinds
weren't coming around frequently enough in Full Pay Deuces Wild, you
should cut back to one coin at a time until the machine starts rewarding
your adequately."I hadn't seen the "Subjective Observation" article in 10 years, but I
feel my paraphrasing was reasonably close. I believe that most people
who don't have a preconceived idea about who is right in this will
agree.
Bob's "paraphrasing" totally turned things around. A reader reported a perceived anomaly, which I published, with my comment that your expected payback would be reduced if you followed the reader's suggestion. Bob said that I recommended such a tactic.
Also, as Bob said, the article was unsigned. I always put "by Dan Paymar" under an article's heading if I am the author.
My "error" was in not stating explicitly that the only part of the article that I wrote was the last paragraph. I think that most people reading it would understand that unless they were intentionally trying to embarrass me.
Now I wonder if Bob has the intestinal fortitude to post all of this on his web site. He has my permission provided it is posted verbatim.
Dan
ยทยทยท
--
Dan Paymar
Author of best selling book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor/Publisher of VP newsletter "Video Poker Times"
Developer of VP analysis/trainer software "Optimum Video Poker"
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com
"Chance favors the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur