I can know the correct strategies for multiple games. But, Bob
thinks that I'm not very competent, if I switch back and forth
between these games that I know so well.Bob is wrong about his presumption.
What is the meaning of "competent"? Bob's presumption stems from an
assumption that the purpose of playing is extrinsic gain. A player who is
"competent" in Bob's sense is effectively pursuing that goal. It's rare
that switching games serves that purpose. But there are exceptions: when a
promotion is changing the values of the games; when the availability or
unavailability of a second machine changes the desirability of hitting a
hand-pay; when changing games is a useful tactic in the greater game of
avoiding countermeasures by the casino. There's also the possibility that
bankroll changes invert the relative risk-adjusted values of two alternatives.
All would be considerations that Bob would naturally accept as justifying a
strategy switch.
Other considerations, such as "I'm running bad at DB, I'll try deuces" are a
sign of someone whose thinking on the subject does not reflect the same
values as Bob's.
I doubt Bob was intending to derogate the original poster for switching
games; he was making a point that the common "reasons" for changing games
are signs that the person is not singlemindedly pursuing the goal of
extracting money from the game, his definition of competence.
One of the most impressive displays of competence I've ever seen was someone
playing two strategies simultaneously, on the side-by-side $1 FPDW and KBJW
games at Harrahs (gone 12 years ago, don't look for them now). Given a
choice of playing 500 hands per hour on just one game, or playing 400 hands
per hour on each of the two games, he chose the latter.
···
--
Randy Hudson