vpFREE2 Forums

Strategies - Just Wondering

#1

These strategies discussion made me wonder about some things.

It seems like a lot of the discussions were about different levels
of approaching perfection at the expense of ease of use. How does
Linda's card compare to each of Bob Dancer's 4 strategy levels.
Obviously, he was saying they do not match up with his Level 4,
but maybe they are better than some of his other strategy levels.
Just wondering.

Part of the defense was that simpler strategy rules might means
faster play. I would think, since the game being discussed was
(JoB), that increased speed is relevant in only a few situations.
What is the hurry to play a negative game faster? Did the
additional comp and cash back make JoB positive? Because of my
location and travel cost, it is difficult to find and get JOB
worth more than 100%. Especially when honestly evaluating the
value of comps. I feel very fortunate when I can coordinate a
travel opportunity with any significant comp or cash back
opportunity. Just wondering.

Let me first say that I preferred to use VPSM Advance Strategy
print outs. I have them available when I play, but I very seldom
need to refer to them. Some players have shrunk these sheet and
laminated them to fit a pocket. I just print them out on a sheet
of paper, but hardly ever need them. I do refer to them while
practicing at home.. I remember one time when I had to asked a
friend to watch my machine while I went to my room to check on 5
of a kind with 3 deuces in FPDW in order to be confident of the
correct decision. I was a little confused between FPDW and NSUD
strategies. I try to play both FPDW and NSUD at the advance
level. However, these discussions did make me think about how
close to perfect does one need to get. Just wondering.

I think that I play, or at least understand how play, JoB at 100%.
I have Dancer's JoB Winner's Guide and I believe the Advance
Strategy in VPSM is consistent with that guide. However, I now
realize that I do tip with hand paid royals. Does this change
anything? Yes it does. I need to now learn a few changes in
order to try to play perfect. To keep these changes to a minimum
I had to be consistent in how much I pay for hand pays. I guess
in the future it will need to be $10 for $1,000, $40 for $4,000
and $200 for $20,000, or one percent. This makes all the
strategies changes the same. Now a dilemma is what about the
$1,000 royal? With the new ticket machines no hand pay probably
now the norm. However, will it be a hand play or not? I now need
to learn two $.25 machine strategies depending on the location
and each casino policy. All of this sure makes perfection hard!
Just wondering!

Bob

#2

Futrend wrote: It seems like a lot of the discussions were about
different levels
of approaching perfection at the expense of ease of use. How does
Linda's card compare to each of Bob Dancer's 4 strategy levels.
Obviously, he was saying they do not match up with his Level 4,
but maybe they are better than some of his other strategy levels.
Just wondering.

No they don't, by a long shot, and that's really been the reason for
this thread. My reason for questioning her strategies had nothing to do
with mine. She was the one who questioned mine and didn't have the tools
to do it.

It is all right for a beginner strategy to make a few simplifications.
But she had several out of place instructions and several skipped
instructions. It wasn't a matter of being simplified. It was a matter of
being very wrong. Choosing J, Q, and K over 'JT', 'QT', and 'KT' is not
a reasonable simplification. Choosing KQ from 'AK'Q (where the ace and
the king are suited) is not a reasonable simplification. This is not a
"near miss" (which is how I would characterize a strategy that is only
within 0.01% or so). It is a "miss by a mile".

There were people on vpFREE who suggested this thread was a good use of
anyone's time, but there was no respected member of vpFREE who pointed
out any error in my criticism of her strategy. (I ignore mroejacks and
his erroneous posts. I encourage you to do the same.)

Although I will answer reasonable questions on the subject, I'm no
longer continuing this thread. Anyone who wants to get the message that
"Bob Dancer thinks Linda Boyd's strategies are VERY insufficient" has
gotten the message.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#3

(I ignore mroejacks and

his erroneous posts. I encourage you to do the same.)

Dick's posts were not "erroneous". As he pointed out, yours were.

TR

#4

TR wrote: Dick's posts were not "erroneous". As he pointed out, yours
were.

If you study Linda's book, you'll see that this is not the case. But if
you prefer to believe Dick (mroejacks) over me, that's your perogative.
I strongly believe my posts were correct and no knowledgeable player on
vpFREE has shown that anything I wrote about her strategies was
misstated.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#5

If you study Linda's book, you'll see that this is not the case.

But if

you prefer to believe Dick (mroejacks) over me, that's your

perogative.

I strongly believe my posts were correct and no knowledgeable

player on

vpFREE has shown that anything I wrote about her strategies was
misstated.

An interesting approach, Bob. Attack me as not being a "knowledgeable
player" and ASSERT nothing you have written has been "misstated". You
do realize that these kind of fabrications can't possbily help you?

If you want anyone to believe you, you will need to do more than
claim you were right. Of course, you know, I know, and everyone else
knows this can't be true or you would have defended your statements
already. So, once again, let's go over one example from your post
(75194):

"there is no category saying you hold 'KT', 'QT', or 'JT'. In
her "High Cards" category, ..."

The fact is that exception 2) in the "High Cards" category from
Linda's strategies states: "Hold two to a Royal Flush …". It
appears Bob is claiming that JT is NOT two to a Royal flush???
Bob, please admit your errors, make that apology and move on. You
will only embarrass yourself further by making false assertions.

In addition, you also stated "If anyone wishes to defend
her strategies, please explain how each of the items in this note is
incorrect. " ... I have done exactly as you asked and yet you refuse
to admit your mistake. Like I said ... an interesting approach!

One more thing. I have a degree in mathematics. Your ecomonics degree
probably had a little math also, but claiming that I am
not "knowledgeable" is going to be a little tough to prove :slight_smile:

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

#6

You never addressed the specific errors that Dick pointed out. I have
Linda's book and Dick is correct and you are not. You just ignored
him. Pretty much exactly what you are claiming Linda did with your
original post.

Seems you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

TR

And I do believe Dick is a "knowledgeable" player.

TR wrote: Dick's posts were not "erroneous". As he pointed out,

yours

were.

If you study Linda's book, you'll see that this is not the case.

But if

you prefer to believe Dick (mroejacks) over me, that's your

perogative.

I strongly believe my posts were correct and no knowledgeable

player on

vpFREE has shown that anything I wrote about her strategies was
misstated.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video

poker

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#7

Futrend wrote: It seems like a lot of the discussions were about
different levels
of approaching perfection at the expense of ease of use. How does
Linda's card compare to each of Bob Dancer's 4 strategy levels.
Obviously, he was saying they do not match up with his Level 4,
but maybe they are better than some of his other strategy levels.
Just wondering.

No they don't, by a long shot, and that's really been the reason for
this thread. My reason for questioning her strategies had nothing

to do

with mine. She was the one who questioned mine and didn't have the

tools

to do it.

It is all right for a beginner strategy to make a few

simplifications.

But she had several out of place instructions and several skipped
instructions. It wasn't a matter of being simplified. It was a

matter of

being very wrong. Choosing J, Q, and K over 'JT', 'QT', and 'KT' is

not

a reasonable simplification.

I have already shown this to be untrue yet Bob keeps making this
assertion. It's kind of like a little kid with chocolate all over
their face saying they hadn't eaten the candy bar :wink:

Choosing KQ from 'AK'Q (where the ace and
the king are suited) is not a reasonable simplification.

I have also shown this to be untrue. Bob, you are digging yourself
into a very deep hole here. It's one thing to make a mistake (we all
do that), it quite another thing to continue making the same mistake
over and over. Your credibility is now very close to ZERO. If that's
OK with you then it's OK with me.

This is not a
"near miss" (which is how I would characterize a strategy that is

only

within 0.01% or so). It is a "miss by a mile".

I think that pretty much describes ALL of your posts on this topic. I
think the most telling aspect of this is that you won't admit your
mistakes.

There were people on vpFREE who suggested this thread was a good

use of

anyone's time, but there was no respected member of vpFREE who

pointed

out any error in my criticism of her strategy. (I ignore mroejacks

and

his erroneous posts. I encourage you to do the same.)

Of course you ignore me. Otherwise you'd have to face up to your
mistakes. You have now added that I am not "respected". In other
words, you have now resorted to name-calling. It appears the only
argument you can assert is "I'm Bob Dancer and you're not". If you
want this discussion to get down to credentials then you better step
lightly. VP strategies (in fact, VP in general) is primarily applied
MATHEMATICS. And, pretty simple math at that. However, no one has
seen me attempt to use my accomplishments as a reason to accept what
I say. I only ask they read my arguments and reach their own
conclusions.

Although I will answer reasonable questions on the subject, I'm no
longer continuing this thread. Anyone who wants to get the message

that

"Bob Dancer thinks Linda Boyd's strategies are VERY insufficient"

has

gotten the message.

I think I can explain this paragraph pretty simply. Bob is looking
for a reason to "get out of town quick". You can run, Bob, but it
will only reinforce everything I have said.

Also, I beleive that Linda Boyd thinks Bob Dancers strategies
are "VERY insufficient". It's only natural that they would think
their approaches are better or they wouldn't have taken them. But,
neither of those OPINIONs provide answers to anyone seeking knowledge
on what strategy would be BEST for THEM. There is NO "one size fits
all" in the VP strategy business. There is room for different
approaches with different trade-offs for simplicity/accuracy. For one
person (Bob Dancer) in the strategy business to attack another
person's strategies with gross misrepresentations shows me a lot
about that person's character. I would NEVER buy a product with the
Dancer name on it for this reason alone.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

#8

These lengthy detailed posts one after another right after Linda Boyd
said she would say no more all in the same "voice" as Linda Boyd ie:
seething with anger and invective has made me wonder something. IS
mroejacks actually Linda Boyd? Please tell me the answer is no as
that would be incredibly lame but still looking at the record it
makes one wonder. The timing would be a heck of a coincidence, right
after Linda Boyd said she would say no more this constant stream of
lengthy postings by mroejacks begins.

> If you study Linda's book, you'll see that this is not the case.
But if
> you prefer to believe Dick (mroejacks) over me, that's your
perogative.
> I strongly believe my posts were correct and no knowledgeable
player on
> vpFREE has shown that anything I wrote about her strategies was
> misstated.

An interesting approach, Bob. Attack me as not being

a "knowledgeable

player" and ASSERT nothing you have written has been "misstated".

You

do realize that these kind of fabrications can't possbily help you?

If you want anyone to believe you, you will need to do more than
claim you were right. Of course, you know, I know, and everyone

else

knows this can't be true or you would have defended your statements
already. So, once again, let's go over one example from your post
(75194):

"there is no category saying you hold 'KT', 'QT', or 'JT'. In
her "High Cards" category, ..."

The fact is that exception 2) in the "High Cards" category from
Linda's strategies states: "Hold two to a Royal Flush …". It
appears Bob is claiming that JT is NOT two to a Royal flush???
Bob, please admit your errors, make that apology and move on. You
will only embarrass yourself further by making false assertions.

In addition, you also stated "If anyone wishes to defend
her strategies, please explain how each of the items in this note is
incorrect. " ... I have done exactly as you asked and yet you

refuse

to admit your mistake. Like I said ... an interesting approach!

One more thing. I have a degree in mathematics. Your ecomonics

degree

···

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@> wrote:
probably had a little math also, but claiming that I am
not "knowledgeable" is going to be a little tough to prove :slight_smile:

Dick

#9

These lengthy detailed posts one after another right after Linda Boyd
said she would say no more all in the same "voice" as Linda Boyd ie:
seething with anger and invective has made me wonder something.

Ok, tell me how come too such a far-out conclusion that I am "seething
with anger". I already answered this when I responded to your other
post where you tried to claim essentially the same thing. I haven't
gotten angry over an internet forum in years. I learned a long time ago
that it was a waste of time.

IS
mroejacks actually Linda Boyd? Please tell me the answer is no as
that would be incredibly lame but still looking at the record it
makes one wonder. The timing would be a heck of a coincidence, right
after Linda Boyd said she would say no more this constant stream of
lengthy postings by mroejacks begins.

I've been a member of this forum for many years which a good many
others can attest to. I personally know several members of this forum
as well. All it would have taken is an easy search to see that I didn't
just start posting.

Given that you could have figured this out for yourself, what exactly
is your point? Do you have something against the truth? Do you hold Bob
Dancer in such high regard that you are blinded to the facts that I
have presented? It would be interesting to understand what prompted
these accusations. Yeah, I really want to know and email me if you'd
rather not discuss it here.

Dick

···

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

#10

Dick,

Just Wondering ... did Bob ever explain how he totally misread
Linda's strategy card? If so, I apologize for missing it.

TR

> If you study Linda's book, you'll see that this is not the case.
But if
> you prefer to believe Dick (mroejacks) over me, that's your
perogative.
> I strongly believe my posts were correct and no knowledgeable
player on
> vpFREE has shown that anything I wrote about her strategies was
> misstated.

An interesting approach, Bob. Attack me as not being

a "knowledgeable

player" and ASSERT nothing you have written has been "misstated".

You

do realize that these kind of fabrications can't possbily help you?

If you want anyone to believe you, you will need to do more than
claim you were right. Of course, you know, I know, and everyone

else

knows this can't be true or you would have defended your statements
already. So, once again, let's go over one example from your post
(75194):

"there is no category saying you hold 'KT', 'QT', or 'JT'. In
her "High Cards" category, ..."

The fact is that exception 2) in the "High Cards" category from
Linda's strategies states: "Hold two to a Royal Flush …". It
appears Bob is claiming that JT is NOT two to a Royal flush???
Bob, please admit your errors, make that apology and move on. You
will only embarrass yourself further by making false assertions.

In addition, you also stated "If anyone wishes to defend
her strategies, please explain how each of the items in this note is
incorrect. " ... I have done exactly as you asked and yet you

refuse

to admit your mistake. Like I said ... an interesting approach!

One more thing. I have a degree in mathematics. Your ecomonics

degree

···

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@> wrote:
probably had a little math also, but claiming that I am
not "knowledgeable" is going to be a little tough to prove :slight_smile:

Dick

#11

I think Bob is out of town. However, I would be surprised if he EVER
admits his mistakes. We'll see ...

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "treyrivers88" <treyrivers88@...> wrote:

Dick,

Just Wondering ... did Bob ever explain how he totally misread
Linda's strategy card? If so, I apologize for missing it.