Short Pay Strategy Question? - TRANSFERRED to FREEvp

[vpFREE4]

This post espouses Rob Singer's video poker methods and
isn't a can of worms that we're going to open on vpFREE.

I'm deleting quadacesatl's message and reposting it on
FREEvpFREE, where I will briefly respond to it. This topic
may be disucussed there ad infinitum, sans moderation.

FREEvpFREE

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/">
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/</a>

Messages can be read on FREEvpFREE without becoming
a member, but you must be a member to post.

Any further messages in this thread will be deleted and
posted on FREEvpFREE.

If you want more information about Rob Singer, see #49 in
the vpFREE FAQ.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 19 Mar 2004 at 4:09, quadacesatl wrote:

Hmmm, they didn't PAY short last time I was in Vegas, when I walked
out of the Mirage with a $300 profit after about 15 minutes, as well
as NYNY for another dealt SF on $1 BP, as well as 4s after holding a
single 4.

Then there was Harrah's Tunica where I nailed 2s after holding a
lone 2. Time & time again it pays off, pretty much every time out,
either Aces or 2-4. They're a bonus quad....why on EARTH would you
not snipe for them the times you have nothing else to hold? If you
throw them away on the draw obviously you have no chance at all of
hitting them. I'd rather take the chance then hoping for a measly
jacks or better payoff over & over.....booorrrrring.

As I said, I don't play for hours & hours, nor without a goal. Going
for the Bonus hands clearly makes the most common sense.

[Bill_Velek1]

vpFREE wrote:

> Hmmm, they didn't PAY short last time I was in Vegas, when I walked
> out of the Mirage with a $300 profit after about 15 minutes, as well
> as NYNY for another dealt SF on $1 BP, as well as 4s after holding a
> single 4.

> Then there was Harrah's Tunica where I nailed 2s after holding a
> lone 2. Time & time again it pays off, pretty much every time out,
> either Aces or 2-4.

Holding a lone deuce in a hand that mathematics indicates is junk?? And then the quads are nailed "pretty much every time out"?? For those who are interested in the math regarding that last statement, the chances of holding a single deuce and then drawing 4 cards from the remaining 47 cards to make your quad deuces is only 44 out of 178365 which is 1 in 4053.75. This is a bad bet; there are too many junk hands (razgus) with slight variations to be able to give a mathematically precise answer, so I'm going to just grab a junk hand at random and compare the difference in EV in keeping the deuce versus discarding the entire hand, so I'll use 2c 5d 6s 8h 9d. The EV for a complete discard is 1.7923 versus only 1.5622 when holding the lone deuce, with a difference of 0.2301 betting units. There is a world of difference between that and holding a lone high-card, which not only has a shot at the Royal, but also a very good shot at making a pair in order to at least collect for Jacks or Better. Making just a pair of deuces gives you nothing without something else to go with them.

> They're a bonus quad....why on EARTH would you
> not snipe for them the times you have nothing else to hold? If you
> throw them away on the draw obviously you have no chance at all of
> hitting them. I'd rather take the chance then hoping for a measly
> jacks or better payoff over & over.....booorrrrring.

Well, I can't fault you there. If you know that you are wasting money taking the long shot, but get enjoyment from doing that ... then that's you're business. It would be nice, though, when you give that advice to newbies, that you also explain to them that this strategy is going to cost them money in the long-run; they might not find measly jacks or better to be boring, no matter how often then get them. I don't.

> As I said, I don't play for hours & hours, nor without a goal. Going
> for the Bonus hands clearly makes the most common sense.

This post espouses Rob Singer's video poker methods and
isn't a can of worms that we're going to open on vpFREE.

I just assumed that it _is_ Rob -- in disguise -- or at least one of Rob's disciples; he had noted in a previous post that he is more of a singer than a dancer. Heh, heh -- I did like the clever way that that was put Anyway, just in case I was wrong I did not automatically filter the poster; I don't filter just because folks don't understand or believe the math because often times they have valuable contributions in other respects. I did, however, note the name for purposes of being sure to ignore all posts regarding strategy. It's their business how they play; I'm just not interested in learning those methods because I don't believe them to be true or worthwhile.

I'm deleting quadacesatl's message and reposting it on
FREEvpFREE, where I will briefly respond to it. This topic
may be disucussed there ad infinitum, sans moderation.

Good move.

Bill Velek

···

On 19 Mar 2004 at 4:09, quadacesatl wrote:

[quadacesatl]

Wow, did you read my post? I said on RAZGUS, if there is a 2 or 3
or 4, I'll pick one and hold it. A RAZGU, in my definition anyway,
is not a hand where there is a lone high card. Of course if there
is a lone high card amongst junk, I will hold the lone high card and
hope for at the very least an even money win for JoB after the draw.

There is a world of difference between that and holding a lone
high-card, which not only has a shot at the Royal, but also a very
good
shot at making a pair in order to at least collect for Jacks or
Better.

Nope, I'm not Rob. I'm not anyone's disciple either. I think for
myself, I'm open to at least listening to different opinions,
evaluating them and trying new ways of playing. And after reading
and understanding Rob's views, it's plainly obvious that his stuff
holds water, and after trying it in real play AND on Winpoker, it
works. We all do only play in the short term, period, not only on
VP either. If you don't want to win TODAY, then why go in a casino?

Unless you have literally a multi-million $ bankroll, then you are
playing in the SHORT-TERM. The casinos OWN the long-term. They
have to.

I was open-minded enough to buy Winpoker, read Bob's book, and play
like Dancer disciples. And I lost consistenly, like most do,
because going back to that long-term thing, the more you play, the
more you will lose. Yes, the math is undisputible in the theory
that you SHOULD be a winner because you're playing a 100% machine,IF
you can play througout infinity with close to an unlimited bankroll
which nobody has except Casinos. But it's NOT a guarantee, and I
can't play for infinity anyway. ANYTHING can happen in the short-
term, including pulling three more 3's when deviating from "expert"
strategy and giving up those laughable .000003 cents per hour and
holding that lone 3 in a otherwise crappy deal.

Newbies need to understand that banging away on expert strategy on
full-pay machines for countless hours chasing an indefinable long-
term is not a guarantee of riches, and deviating from "expert"
strategy on short-pay machines is not a guaranteed trip to the poor
house. Both strategies have their place in real-life play in the
short-term, which is where EVERYONE is playing whether they face up
to it or not.

End of rant.

···

I just assumed that it _is_ Rob -- in disguise -- or at least one

of
Rob's disciples; he had noted in a previous post that he is more
of a
singer than a dancer. Heh, heh -- I did like the clever way that
that
was put Anyway, just in case I was wrong I did not automatically
filter
the poster; I don't filter just because folks don't understand or
believe the math because often times they have valuable
contributions in
other respects. I did, however, note the name for purposes of
being
sure to ignore all posts regarding strategy. It's their business
how
they play; I'm just not interested in learning those methods
because I
don't believe them to be true or worthwhile.