Strategy Changes

[futrend]

Please do not miss understand my intentions. However, I was
wondering if any serious VP players ever play less than 100% perfect
strategy in some video poker sessions on some vp games. I am not
considering tournaments, but just normal video poker sessions.
     The best local video poker game is NSUD and there are a few
dealt hands that make me wonder if any players ever intentionally
play different than perfect strategy on this pay schedule of Deuces
Wild, or are willing to admit that they have at times.
     First, I must say I am not challenging any of the mathematics
and I know how to look up the numbers and graphical representations
on both WinPoker and Frugal. I am just curious! I have faithfully
followed the correct strategy to the best of my ability. However,
the few specific examples I am wondering about are:
   1. Ignoring some possible inside straights.
   2. Keeping 2 deuces and ignoring a 1 gap St.FL. with the dueces.
   3. Holding only one pair instead of two pairs.
I believe these last two are NSUD changes from full pay Deuces Wild.
     Also, I have kept track of the 2 pair vs. 1 pair example during
my last 14,200 hands of NSUD. I just added up the numbers of hands
today and they really do come out to exactly 14,200 hands. I have
received 74 full houses out of 474 opportunities during these hands.
I have received 376 full houses, so 19.78% of my full house have come
from holding 2 pair. The conversion rate of 2 pair to full houses
has been 15.48%. Not that this is all than interesting or
statistically meaningful --- just available!

Thanks.
Bob

[vpFREE4]

See vpFREE Poll on "Which of the following best describes
your decision making approach when playing non-progressive
video poker?"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/surveys?id=11909064

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/surveys?id=11909064">
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/surveys?id=11909064</a>

···

On 11 Jun 2005 at 16:13, futrend wrote:

However, I was wondering if any serious VP players ever play less
than 100% perfect strategy in some video poker sessions on some vp
games.

[nightoftheiguana2000]

I usually use min-bankroll strategy since bankroll is usually the main
limitation.

How do you get min-bankroll strategy?

First you have to solve for R(1). One way to get that number is to use
the wizard of odds tool to get the 10%ror bankroll. Then R(1)=
e^(ln(.1)/bankroll). Then you adjust each win amount using: new win =
(1-R(1)^win)/(1-R(1)). For example, fpdw R(1)=.999347, new royal win =
623 instead of 800. Then plug the new win values into a strategy
generation tool like vpsm. You can also plug the strategy into
frugalVP and get the new ER and Var. For that matter, if you want to
play with strategies and see what the result is, frugalVP lets you do
that.

···

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

     Please do not miss understand my intentions. However, I was
wondering if any serious VP players ever play less than 100% perfect
strategy in some video poker sessions on some vp games.

[futrend]

Thanks
     I am continually amazed at how much all of you contribute to
this site. I did vote for line 3 from the top. The key work
is "try". I know I am not close to an expert player, but I try.
     I guess I would still like to now if any of those who make
special plays consider themselves expert or serious VP player and
I also would like to know if any serious and successful NSUD players
make any of the 3 mentioned special plays. Again, a special thanks
to you, but also thanks to all other contibutors. Unfortunately the
most I have been able to contribute is in the form of questions!

Bob

···

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

On 11 Jun 2005 at 16:13, futrend wrote:

> However, I was wondering if any serious VP players ever play less
> than 100% perfect strategy in some video poker sessions on some vp
> games.

See vpFREE Poll on "Which of the following best describes
your decision making approach when playing non-progressive
video poker?"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/surveys?id=11909064

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/surveys?id=11909064">
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/surveys?id=11909064</a>

[Harry_Porter]

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

I usually use min-bankroll strategy since bankroll is usually the
main limitation.

How do you get min-bankroll strategy?

First you have to solve for R(1). One way to get that number is to
use the wizard of odds tool to get the 10%ror bankroll. Then R(1)=
e^(ln(.1)/bankroll). Then you adjust each win amount using: new win
= (1-R(1)^win)/(1-R(1)). For example, fpdw R(1)=.999347, new royal
win = 623 instead of 800 ...

This is a little ambiguous given the scope of the original question.
Are you saying that you use alternate stategies to max-ER in your
general play, or just when a particular play presents a bankroll stretch?

Most strategy alternatives seem to trade off relatively modest ER
sacrifices in exchange for equally modest bankroll requirements.
Steve Jacobs has impressed upon me the advantage in adopting a
min-loss strategy when pursuing an attractive, but risky progressive.

However, I've been dubious of the advantages of adopting alternate
strategies for mainstream play.

In any case, would you be willing to run the numbers for an example of
10/7 DB w/ .4% cb? Compare standard and min-bankroll strategies for
bankroll and ER. Also, for 2% ROR and 5% ROR bankrolls (std
strategy), what would the corresponding ROR be for the adjusted strategy?

Granted, you've provided the info by which to perform these
calculations and I'm showing myself to be pretty lazy But I figure
you're more than a little more versatile in dealing with the numbers
(and likely have facilitating spreadsheets at the ready).

These numbers would offer a decent means by which to assess how strong
a modified strategy is as a tool in managing play. (Feel free to add
any other comparisons that you find illuminating.)

- Harry

[nightoftheiguana2000]

For what it's worth, I'll give you my opinion:

     The best local video poker game is NSUD and there are a few
   1. Ignoring some possible inside straights.

reduces er and increases variance, loser in my book

   2. Keeping 2 deuces and ignoring a 1 gap St.FL. with the dueces.

ditto, definite variance increaser

   3. Holding only one pair instead of two pairs.

ditto.

If you buy Frugal VP, you can modify the strategy and calculate how
that would affect er and variance.

···

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

[nightoftheiguana2000]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

This is a little ambiguous given the scope of the original

question.

Are you saying that you use alternate stategies to max-ER in your
general play, or just when a particular play presents a bankroll

stretch?

What play doesn't present a bankroll stretch? (OK, I'll concede there
are some, but they are becoming very rare these days.) Yes, I'm saying
I use "alternate strategies" in general play. There, I said it. Now I
suppose I must submit to trial by fire or dunking or some other
medieval torture? :^)

Most strategy alternatives seem to trade off relatively modest ER
sacrifices in exchange for equally modest bankroll requirements.

Yes. The gains are modest.

Steve Jacobs has impressed upon me the advantage in adopting a
min-loss strategy when pursuing an attractive, but risky

progressive.

I believe min-loss is the same as min-bankroll, but I'll let Steve
handle that.

However, I've been dubious of the advantages of adopting alternate
strategies for mainstream play.

Why?

In any case, would you be willing to run the numbers for an example

of

10/7 DB w/ .4% cb? Compare standard and min-bankroll strategies for
bankroll and ER. Also, for 2% ROR and 5% ROR bankrolls (std
strategy), what would the corresponding ROR be for the adjusted

strategy?

I think this stuff has all been done, way back in the archives.
I can throw a quick figure at you, I believe this is for db+1%:
100.14%var27.03 (FrugalVP)
kelly bankroll (which has an ror of around 11%) = var/(er-1), so that
gives you an easy way to track the effect on bankroll, i.e.
(27.03/.0114)/(28.26/.0117)=.98=2% reduction in bankroll
granted it's not much in quarters, but it can add up, say in $10 machines

Granted, you've provided the info by which to perform these
calculations and I'm showing myself to be pretty lazy But I

figure

you're more than a little more versatile in dealing with the numbers
(and likely have facilitating spreadsheets at the ready).

I'm feeling pretty lazy myself. B^)

These numbers would offer a decent means by which to assess how

strong

a modified strategy is as a tool in managing play. (Feel free to

add

···

any other comparisons that you find illuminating.)

[Drew_Sterling]

You'd be surprised how many of our esteemed members have been spotted
holding 3RF rather than a high pair at JoB.

Stop watching me when I play!

Drew

···

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

wondering if any serious VP players ever play less than 100% perfect
strategy in some video poker sessions on some vp games.

[Harry_Porter]

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

Thanks for the quick run through ... it works for me.

What play doesn't present a bankroll stretch? (OK, I'll concede
there are some, but they are becoming very rare these days.)

Well ... I'm thinking in terms of 10%+ ROR types, where anything that
might make a modest dent in that number would be appealing.

Yes, I'm saying I use "alternate strategies" in general play. There,
I said it. Now I suppose I must submit to trial by fire or dunking
or some other medieval torture? :^)

I thought the prescribed torture for heretics in the max-ER church was
a 10-hour uninterupted Jacks or Better session (with Barry Manilow on
the house speakers) ... or more likely, greeted with a simple shrug of
the shoulders.

> Most strategy alternatives seem to trade off relatively modest ER
> sacrifices in exchange for equally modest bankroll requirements.

Yes. The gains are modest.

> However, I've been dubious of the advantages of adopting alternate
> strategies for mainstream play.

Why?

...
I can throw a quick figure at you, I believe this is for db+1%:
100.14%var27.03 (FrugalVP)
kelly bankroll (which has an ror of around 11%) = var/(er-1),
so that gives you an easy way to track the effect on bankroll, i.e.
(27.03/.0114)/(28.26/.0117)=.98=2% reduction in bankroll
granted it's not much in quarters, but it can add up, say in $10
machines

Ok, I hear what you're saying. But say I'm hitting a play where my
desired bankroll (defined by desired ROR) is $80K. (This is
hypothetical, mind you, it should be clear that I fly in much more
modest circles.) Altering strategy to cut that by 2% doesn't make the
play appreciably more approachable in my book.

Frankly, since you're not likely talking much of a cut in ER (although
at these kind of stakes, it again adds up when talking $10 credits),
I'm not terribly worked up about it one way or the other.

My reaction is still, "Why bother?". Clearly yours is, "Why not?"
I'm not enough of a hair-splitter to sweat it either way, yet I can't
help but suspect that your true response to my "Why bother?" is,
"Because I can ;)"

- Harry

[rgmustain]

I agree with your assessment here, but it seems to me that when
straying from max ER strategy most folks only do it when it DOES
increase variance, i.e., "going for it..."

Dick

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

For what it's worth, I'll give you my opinion:
> The best local video poker game is NSUD and there are a few
> 1. Ignoring some possible inside straights.

reduces er and increases variance, loser in my book

> 2. Keeping 2 deuces and ignoring a 1 gap St.FL. with the

dueces.

···

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

ditto, definite variance increaser

> 3. Holding only one pair instead of two pairs.

ditto.

If you buy Frugal VP, you can modify the strategy and calculate how
that would affect er and variance.

[nightoftheiguana2000]

It's just a matter of optimizing, you're optimizing for ER, I'm
optimizing for smallest bankroll - another option: you can take
advantage of the two strategies to simplify: produce an inbetween
strategy that is simpler and thus less likely to produce mistakes in
actual play.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:

My reaction is still, "Why bother?". Clearly yours is, "Why not?"
I'm not enough of a hair-splitter to sweat it either way, yet I can't
help but suspect that your true response to my "Why bother?" is,
"Because I can ;)"

[Harry_Porter]

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

It's just a matter of optimizing, you're optimizing for ER, I'm
optimizing for smallest bankroll - another option.

Yep. My modest reaction stems from my own personal circumstances in
which my bankroll isn't so finely defined that adjusting the bankroll
requirement of a play downward by a couple percent or so is a
significant adjustment.

I'm not saying it isn't a fine thing to do, if you value it in that
measure (or even if not).

- H.

[John9]

Which casinos have the best promotional mailers (cashback, multipoints, etc)? I'm interested in both locals and non-locals categories, how much play is required to attain the highest level(s), and what specific offer one receives.

John

···

---------------------------------
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Steve_Jacobs]

This is the strategy that I call min-risk. However, to get a truly optimal
strategy it is usually necessary to iterate the steps you describe above.
After using vpsm (or whatever) to get the new strategy, you should
re-compute R(1) using that new strategy and adjust the payoffs again.
Lather, rinse, repeat. After a few iterations you will reach a point where
the new R(1) value does not give any new strategy changes.

I like to refer to these adjusted payoff values as "virtual payoffs". For
this min-risk case, there is a simple but meaningful way to interpret the
virtual payoffs. R(1) represents the probability of eventually going broke
when starting with a bankroll of a single unit. So, (1 - R(1)) is the
probability of success -- playing forever without going broke. If we call
this one "shot" at playing forever, then the virtual payoffs that come
from the (1 - R^win)/(1 - R) are the number of "shots" at playing forever
that you get by hitting a particular payoff. So, from your example above,
hitting a payoff of 800 units (giving you an 800 unit bankroll in place of
your initial 1 unit bankroll) increases your probability of playing forever
by a factor of 623. So, an 800 unit bankroll is only 623 times as "good"
as a one unit bankroll, in terms of risk.

···

On Saturday 11 June 2005 12:26 pm, nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "futrend" <futrend@y...> wrote:
> Please do not miss understand my intentions. However, I was
> wondering if any serious VP players ever play less than 100% perfect
> strategy in some video poker sessions on some vp games.

I usually use min-bankroll strategy since bankroll is usually the main
limitation.

How do you get min-bankroll strategy?

First you have to solve for R(1). One way to get that number is to use
the wizard of odds tool to get the 10%ror bankroll. Then R(1)=
e^(ln(.1)/bankroll). Then you adjust each win amount using: new win =
(1-R(1)^win)/(1-R(1)). For example, fpdw R(1)=.999347, new royal win =
623 instead of 800. Then plug the new win values into a strategy
generation tool like vpsm. You can also plug the strategy into
frugalVP and get the new ER and Var. For that matter, if you want to
play with strategies and see what the result is, frugalVP lets you do
that.

[Steve_Jacobs]

min-bankroll is the same as min-risk. I'm not sure what Harry means
by min-loss. There is also min-cost, but that's another concept
entirely.

···

On Saturday 11 June 2005 04:47 pm, nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
>
> Steve Jacobs has impressed upon me the advantage in adopting a
> min-loss strategy when pursuing an attractive, but risky

progressive.

I believe min-loss is the same as min-bankroll, but I'll let Steve
handle that.

[Harry_Porter]

Steve Jacobs wrote:

I'm not sure what Harry means by min-loss. There is also min-cost,
but that's another concept entirely.

Sorry ... min-cost is what I intended -- a concept I've become
somewhat enamored by in conjunction with progressive chasing since you
introduced it in the groups.

- H.