Hi,
You don't want to argue about the several points you have raised in
your message, so I won't.
I like mathematics, but I sometimes take issue with 1 + 1 = 2. I
agree with the preceding arithmetic statement in general, but when
you apply it to real life you have to be careful. One apple plus
another apple is not two apples that you might eat if one of them is
rotten. I will not eat the rotten apple just because it is the
mathematically correct thing to do, it is not.
I must say I'm puzzled by some comments in your message. For example,
even though I have read many articles by Rob Singer, I have not been
able to elucidate exactly what his play strategy is; yet you seem to
assume said strategy is common knowledge. I do think RS's comments
are frequently entertaining and amusing, and his grasp of the long
term is mathematically more correct than what sometimes one sees
written in different places. He does become at times a little
uninteresting in his articles, but so does Bob Dancer. Look at the
latter's column this week, what is there? Essentially a statement
that it is better to play 10/6 DDB instead of 9/5 DDB because if you
play long enough, you do get full houses and flushes often, and they
count. Well, that was hardly more interesting than finding out that
Rob Singer got a mailing from Tuscany. In any case I mean no offense
to either individual with these comments. I know it must be tough
writing something up each week and they do a good job. I'm thankful
both have their columns because it is always nice reading about VP;
maybe reading them their luck will rub off, LOL.
I believe as you do in attaining "a strong, sound grasp of the very
basics of video poker", and I also believe that "it takes
considerable concerted effort to attain that". But I believe the
previous is not a sufficient condition to "successful play". On the
other hand, luck is both necessary and sufficient to successful play,
even though such concept is elusive.
I hope we don't start a religious VP war, LOL. Religious wars are
ghastly! Cheers.
E
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
To extend your reasoning, any play in a casino that deviates from
perfect strategy the can be rationalized in some manner is "correct
and reasonable". I have two problems with this.
The first is that invariably the person engaging in deviant play has
little idea of the theoretical cost. The second is that if you want
to have a reasonable shot at play without turning your bankroll over
to the casino, a disciplined approach is essential.
When a player is impelled to deviate from strategy to satisfy some
intermediate goal (e.g., shortening the RF cycle) it suggests that
the
player has some difficulties with acceptance of the most basic
concepts of video poker and that it may simply not be the game for
them.
Now, there are always going to be players who are inclined to play
using strategies other than those that maximize ER. Frankly, there
will be no rational argument to dissuade them from that behavior
and I
don't attempt to try. It's very much akin to a religious debate.
It bears mentioning that I have considerable respect for Rob Singer
inasmuch as I believe that he is disciplined in following a specific
play strategy and doesn't play on hunches or whims. But as my
remarks
indicate, I don't think that his play is advisable. (Of course,
there
are damned few here to whom Rob would advocate his strategy given
the
large bankroll requirements.)
Bottom line, I find myself a bit aggravated when players choose to
obsess over aspects of play such as whether games are fair, whether
they have hot and cold cycles, or seek out alternate strategies that
are of dubious value, at best. Hopefully I'll get a clue and get
over
it. I recognize that for some these are areas of significant
concern.
However, a strong, sound grasp of the very basics of video poker is
essential to successful play and it takes considerable concerted
effort to attain that. Any concern aside from this is a distraction
that I think is very much to the player's detriment.
Again, I acknowledge that there will be those who demur at the
points
···
I've raised here and there's no need to argue them. This is not a
debate of your post, Ed. Rather, I've used it as an offshoot from
which to express my thoughts on the subject.
- Harry