vpFREE2 Forums

"The Video Poker Edge" and Linda Boyd's Strategy Cards

#1

Good Morning!

I couldn't help but notice that there were a lot of posts about both my book and strategy cards.

"The Video Poker Edge" is a guide to playing video poker. It's for both beginners and experienced players who want to improve their skills and long term returns.

The things you'll need to play smart: Mechanical (including how a random number generator works), how to find the best games by using pay tables (removable pay tables for around 200 games in the appendix), rules of thumb for mentally computing the ER on progressives as the meter changes, rule of thumb to mentally determine the ER for a different version of the game and much more. You'll find insets throughout my book dealing with related topics: A few examples are video lottery terminals, selecting a venue, keeping tax records and much more. I make use of tables and charts to explain the game's variance, hierarchy variations, game volatility and other concepts that might not be fully understood.

I focus on the 8 games that I recommend based on their availability, good returns, and easy-to-use strategies throughout my book.

My book is organized so that I take you through each step of playing the game of video poker. To include other important information I used insets. You'll find the most important points on the page along the book's margins. That's so you'll have a quick reference of the material if you want to refresh your memory.

The Appendix at the back of my book has: A glossary, removable pay charts, resource list and an index. The last thing in my book, after the appendix, are removable strategy cards. I wrote these cards so that they could be taken to the casino and used during play.

Video Poker Strategy:

The chapter on strategy includes pay tables, explanation of game variance (use of a table to make it clear), game volatility (diagrams so it can be understood), game's expected value (detailed explanation along with examples) game's expected return (detailed explanation along with examples). There are rules of thumb as well so much of the computation can be done without the use of a device not allowed on the casino's floor.

I used an inset to provide a detailed and easily understood explanation for penalty cards.

Within this chapter I have a section entitled, " Using the Home Study Strategy Tables" on page 69 of my book. There is a detailed explanation of both what they are and how they are to be used. These are not strategy cards, nor are they presented as such. These are charts for each of the 8 games I recommend that are to be used during home practice in conjunction with the software you have selected. This is explained in detail, along with how to use them.

Home Study Tables: Pages 70-81 includes a detailed study guide in the form of a table for each of the 8 games I recommend. One of the columns I include on the table is labeled "Taboos". These are mistakes frequently made by beginners and if just these things are avoided their play will improve. The first three columns are to be used while you are practicing on your software. The last column,"Taboos", are to be studied during home practice.

Home Practice:

You should use software to practice at home. The more you practice, the better you'll get. I use WinPoker but Optimum and FVP are also recommended in my book. I have a section on this topic. I state: "While you may think that strategy cards or strategy tables alone will enable you to play a perfect or near-perfect game of video poker, unfortunately it doesn't work that way." (Page 80) Readers are encouraged to practice on their software if their goal is to get the same ER as perfect play. You will not find advantage players or pros using a strategy card. I don't need a strategy card to play any of the games I recommend or several others and neither do many people in this group.

Video Poker Strategy Cards:

Strategy cards are designed to be used during play while at the casino. There are two considerations when writing a strategy card for a game. Ease of use and accuracy. If you have a card that is computer perfect, something I can do right now with algorithm checks after each version, the card becomes too difficult to decipher during play and is of no use to the player. The difficult part of writing a strategy card is making sure it is usable. I encourage the player to use the card with the software before they go to the casino so they will not have a problem using it during play. There is definitely a trade-off. When I write strategy cards I have to be mindful of how easy they are to use during play. If my card includes every penalty card situation, then people will find it too difficult and won't be able to use it during play. I did incorporate both penalty cards and exceptions on my cards. I did not incorporate every penalty card situation because when I did that and tried to use it in front of my computer it was too difficult.

9/6 JOB Strategy Card:

There was some interest in the degree of accuracy of my 9/6 JOB strategy card. As I said before, my strategy cards are located in the back of my book and can be removed and used inside the casino. Dean Zamzow did an algorithm check on the card using his WinPoker software. The results of such a check are an ER. If you play the game computer-perfect, then your ER will be 99.54%. If you play the game using only my strategy card, then the ER will be 99.4510%.

I include free strategy cards for the 8 games I recommend.

Also, there seemed to be interest in future cards. Right now I have a 10/7DB card, not an easy game to play, with an ER of 100.14%. My card is very easy to use, reducing the number of lines on a computer-generated table to 14 lines. An algorithm check was done after each version so I could continue to improve the ER. I could get the additional .03, bringing the ER to 100.17 (that's the same as the ER during perfect play), but would have to sacrifice too much in terms of the level of difficulty involved in using the card.

I believe that my book, "The Video Poker Edge", is a good product and hope people purchase it due to the merits.

Let's get back to the upbeat and fun group I joined!! Linda

Linda Boyd
Author: "The Video Poker Edge"
amazon.com/major bookstores
"Boyd's Eye View": Free Forum
http://www.midwestgamingandtravel.com
Best Software:www.videopokerpractice.com

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

#2

Thanks for the great email, Linda. I just bought your book via Amazon.com.

···

On 6/24/07, Linda Boyd <maggie2194@comcast.net> wrote:

Good Morning!

I couldn't help but notice that there were a lot of posts about both my
book and strategy cards.

"The Video Poker Edge" is a guide to playing video poker. It's for both
beginners and experienced players who want to improve their skills and long
term returns.

The things you'll need to play smart: Mechanical (including how a random
number generator works), how to find the best games by using pay tables
(removable pay tables for around 200 games in the appendix), rules of thumb
for mentally computing the ER on progressives as the meter changes, rule of
thumb to mentally determine the ER for a different version of the game and
much more. You'll find insets throughout my book dealing with related
topics: A few examples are video lottery terminals, selecting a venue,
keeping tax records and much more. I make use of tables and charts to
explain the game's variance, hierarchy variations, game volatility and other
concepts that might not be fully understood.

I focus on the 8 games that I recommend based on their availability, good
returns, and easy-to-use strategies throughout my book.

My book is organized so that I take you through each step of playing the
game of video poker. To include other important information I used insets.
You'll find the most important points on the page along the book's margins.
That's so you'll have a quick reference of the material if you want to
refresh your memory.

The Appendix at the back of my book has: A glossary, removable pay charts,
resource list and an index. The last thing in my book, after the appendix,
are removable strategy cards. I wrote these cards so that they could be
taken to the casino and used during play.

Video Poker Strategy:

The chapter on strategy includes pay tables, explanation of game variance
(use of a table to make it clear), game volatility (diagrams so it can be
understood), game's expected value (detailed explanation along with
examples) game's expected return (detailed explanation along with examples).
There are rules of thumb as well so much of the computation can be done
without the use of a device not allowed on the casino's floor.

I used an inset to provide a detailed and easily understood explanation
for penalty cards.

Within this chapter I have a section entitled, " Using the Home Study
Strategy Tables" on page 69 of my book. There is a detailed explanation of
both what they are and how they are to be used. These are not strategy
cards, nor are they presented as such. These are charts for each of the 8
games I recommend that are to be used during home practice in conjunction
with the software you have selected. This is explained in detail, along with
how to use them.

Home Study Tables: Pages 70-81 includes a detailed study guide in the form
of a table for each of the 8 games I recommend. One of the columns I include
on the table is labeled "Taboos". These are mistakes frequently made by
beginners and if just these things are avoided their play will improve. The
first three columns are to be used while you are practicing on your
software. The last column,"Taboos", are to be studied during home practice.

Home Practice:

You should use software to practice at home. The more you practice, the
better you'll get. I use WinPoker but Optimum and FVP are also recommended
in my book. I have a section on this topic. I state: "While you may think
that strategy cards or strategy tables alone will enable you to play a
perfect or near-perfect game of video poker, unfortunately it doesn't work
that way." (Page 80) Readers are encouraged to practice on their software if
their goal is to get the same ER as perfect play. You will not find
advantage players or pros using a strategy card. I don't need a strategy
card to play any of the games I recommend or several others and neither do
many people in this group.

Video Poker Strategy Cards:

Strategy cards are designed to be used during play while at the casino.
There are two considerations when writing a strategy card for a game. Ease
of use and accuracy. If you have a card that is computer perfect, something
I can do right now with algorithm checks after each version, the card
becomes too difficult to decipher during play and is of no use to the
player. The difficult part of writing a strategy card is making sure it is
usable. I encourage the player to use the card with the software before they
go to the casino so they will not have a problem using it during play. There
is definitely a trade-off. When I write strategy cards I have to be mindful
of how easy they are to use during play. If my card includes every penalty
card situation, then people will find it too difficult and won't be able to
use it during play. I did incorporate both penalty cards and exceptions on
my cards. I did not incorporate every penalty card situation because when I
did that and tried to use it in front of my computer it was too difficult.

9/6 JOB Strategy Card:

There was some interest in the degree of accuracy of my 9/6 JOB strategy
card. As I said before, my strategy cards are located in the back of my book
and can be removed and used inside the casino. Dean Zamzow did an algorithm
check on the card using his WinPoker software. The results of such a check
are an ER. If you play the game computer-perfect, then your ER will be
99.54%. If you play the game using only my strategy card, then the ER will
be 99.4510%.

I include free strategy cards for the 8 games I recommend.

Also, there seemed to be interest in future cards. Right now I have a
10/7DB card, not an easy game to play, with an ER of 100.14%. My card is
very easy to use, reducing the number of lines on a computer-generated table
to 14 lines. An algorithm check was done after each version so I could
continue to improve the ER. I could get the additional .03, bringing the ER
to 100.17 (that's the same as the ER during perfect play), but would have
to sacrifice too much in terms of the level of difficulty involved in using
the card.

I believe that my book, "The Video Poker Edge", is a good product and hope
people purchase it due to the merits.

Let's get back to the upbeat and fun group I joined!! Linda

Linda Boyd
Author: "The Video Poker Edge"
amazon.com/major bookstores
"Boyd's Eye View": Free Forum
http://www.midwestgamingandtravel.com
Best Software:www.videopokerpractice.com

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

#3

Linda Boyd wrote: Dean Zamzow did an algorithm check on the card using
his WinPoker software. The results of such a check are an ER. If you
play the game computer-perfect, then your ER will be 99.54%. If you play
the game using only my strategy card, then the ER will be 99.4510%.

First of all, 99.45% is pretty bad. I've criticized Dan's strategy for
"only" being 99.53+%. 99.45% is considerably worse. Using baseball
leagues as an analogy, if Dan's strategies are Triple A (a notch below
the major leagues), 99.45% would be high school level.

Dean Zamzow is an excellent programmer and clearly qualified to analyze
a strategy --- although he must use additional tools than WinPoker to do
so. Many strategies have ambiguities in them where reasonable people can
differ on how to translate a given strategy into specifics. (If that
weren't the case, Jazbo and NOTI would not have determined different
percentages for Paymar's strategy. I believe NOTI, and possibly Jazbo as
well, misanalyzed Dan's Rule 6, which is convoluted and difficult to
understand.) I strongly suspect Zamzow gave Boyd a "charitable ruling"
on places where there were ambiguities and that an equally-valid more
literal ruling would be quite a bit lower than 99.45%.

Some people on vpFREE have recently announced they were buying Linda's
book --- possibly out of sympathy. That's fine. It definitely has better
information on certain aspects of Class II gaming than you'll find
anywhere else. Anyone who uses her strategies as their only source of
strategies, however, is giving up a huge amount to the casinos that they
don't have to.

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

#4

I don't think it's clear that we came up with different numbers.

As for Paymar Rule 6:

"Draw to any 3-card straight flush (even a double inside draw) unless
it requires breaking a made pay, any pair, or any 4-flush or open-end
straight, except draw to one or two high cards rather than a double
inside straight flush with no high cards."

Seems pretty straightforward to me:

PAT & Pair & 4FL & 4STo > 3SF, except di no high cards < 1 or 2 high cards

It's an approximation because it lumps all the 3SF's together with the
exception of the double inside no high. But it turns out that this
approximation doesn't make much of a difference in over all return. I
think the only exception is 3SF di 1H with a straight penalty card <
4STi3H. VPSM has 3SFdi1HnoP=0.5375, 4STi3H=0.5319, 3SFdi1H1P=0.5227 .
That's not a lot of cases:
AKQT & AKJT > KT9s
AQJT > QT8s
KQJ9 > Q98s

···

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

(If that
weren't the case, Jazbo and NOTI would not have determined different
percentages for Paymar's strategy. I believe NOTI, and possibly Jazbo as
well, misanalyzed Dan's Rule 6, which is convoluted and difficult to
understand.)

#5

Bob,

I am one of the people who posted that I recently bought Linda's book
and I am very excited to read - for myself - what everyone has been
discussing.

Since I am one of those that you referred to in your post, I think that I
have
the right to ask you to please tell me exactly how much is the "huge amount"
that I am "giving up to the casinos" (that I don't have to). Could you be
referring to the fraction of one percent difference between Linda's strategy
and yours? If so, then "huge" means something entirely different to you
than it does to me!

Luke

···

On 6/24/07, Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:

Linda Boyd wrote: Dean Zamzow did an algorithm check on the card using
his WinPoker software. The results of such a check are an ER. If you
play the game computer-perfect, then your ER will be 99.54%. If you play
the game using only my strategy card, then the ER will be 99.4510%.

First of all, 99.45% is pretty bad. I've criticized Dan's strategy for
"only" being 99.53+%. 99.45% is considerably worse. Using baseball
leagues as an analogy, if Dan's strategies are Triple A (a notch below
the major leagues), 99.45% would be high school level.

Dean Zamzow is an excellent programmer and clearly qualified to analyze
a strategy --- although he must use additional tools than WinPoker to do
so. Many strategies have ambiguities in them where reasonable people can
differ on how to translate a given strategy into specifics. (If that
weren't the case, Jazbo and NOTI would not have determined different
percentages for Paymar's strategy. I believe NOTI, and possibly Jazbo as
well, misanalyzed Dan's Rule 6, which is convoluted and difficult to
understand.) I strongly suspect Zamzow gave Boyd a "charitable ruling"
on places where there were ambiguities and that an equally-valid more
literal ruling would be quite a bit lower than 99.45%.

Some people on vpFREE have recently announced they were buying Linda's
book --- possibly out of sympathy. That's fine. It definitely has better
information on certain aspects of Class II gaming than you'll find
anywhere else. Anyone who uses her strategies as their only source of
strategies, however, is giving up a huge amount to the casinos that they
don't have to.

Bob Dancer

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

#6

Linda Boyd wrote: Dean Zamzow did an algorithm check on the card

using

his WinPoker software. The results of such a check are an ER. If you
play the game computer-perfect, then your ER will be 99.54%. If you

play

the game using only my strategy card, then the ER will be 99.4510%.

First of all, 99.45% is pretty bad. I've criticized Dan's strategy

for

"only" being 99.53+%. 99.45% is considerably worse. Using baseball
leagues as an analogy, if Dan's strategies are Triple A (a notch

below

the major leagues), 99.45% would be high school level.

Dean Zamzow is an excellent programmer and clearly qualified to

analyze

a strategy --- although he must use additional tools than WinPoker

to do

so. Many strategies have ambiguities in them where reasonable

people can

differ on how to translate a given strategy into specifics. (If that
weren't the case, Jazbo and NOTI would not have determined different
percentages for Paymar's strategy. I believe NOTI, and possibly

Jazbo as

well, misanalyzed Dan's Rule 6, which is convoluted and difficult to
understand.) I strongly suspect Zamzow gave Boyd a "charitable

ruling"

on places where there were ambiguities and that an equally-valid

more

literal ruling would be quite a bit lower than 99.45%.

Some people on vpFREE have recently announced they were buying

Linda's

book --- possibly out of sympathy. That's fine. It definitely has

better

information on certain aspects of Class II gaming than you'll find
anywhere else. Anyone who uses her strategies as their only source

of

strategies, however, is giving up a huge amount to the casinos that

they

don't have to.

It's really too bad that Bob couldn't leave this alone. I was going
to after Linda demonstrated her good will. Of course, Bob realizes
that Dean's computation validates everything I said and demonstrates
beyond any doubt that I have been correct all along (even to those
die hard Dancer fans). His estimate of .3% was obviously wrong all
along after I pointed out his analysis was in error. Everyone should
realize his post is just another attempt to save face. Pathetic!

In addition, Bob has never attempted to respond to the issue of
simpliciy vs. accuracy. I think this also demonstrates a lack of
understanding of how VP strategies are used and how many errors the
average person makes. He also must think that people use strategy
cards on every single hand when in a casino. That is not how I use
them nor do I believe it is how anyone else uses them. If used in
conjunction with a software trainer, as Linda recommended, the return
of the card is immaterial. This is another place where simplicity
helps. You can work your way through many more hands with a simple
strategy card and reach a higher level of accuracy. Bob, it's not all
in the details.

Once again, I call on Bob to apologize for his mistakes. Let's see if
he's a big enough person to admit them after there is no doubt left.

Dick

···

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

#7

Bob,

I am one of the people who posted that I recently bought Linda's

book

and I am very excited to read - for myself - what everyone has been
discussing.

Since I am one of those that you referred to in your post, I think

that I

have
the right to ask you to please tell me exactly how much is

the "huge amount"

that I am "giving up to the casinos" (that I don't have to). Could

you be

referring to the fraction of one percent difference between Linda's

strategy

and yours? If so, then "huge" means something entirely different

to you

than it does to me!

     I think the significance of the difference depends somewhat on
your usual denomination of play. Today I was playing $1 Jacks or
Better Fifty Play in a casino. The difference between a 99.544% and
a 99.451% strategy is clearly 0.093%. At $250 per hand this is a
difference of 23.25 cents per hand. Assuming 600 hands per hour and
we are talking $139.50 per hour. Even on a $5 single line game or a
$1 Five Play game at this slow rate of play you would be sacrificing
$13.95 per hour. At the $5 and up denomination, it is pretty rare to
find opportunities that return much more than a 0.2% edge (unless
your name is Paladin). I wouldn't want to give up almost half my
advantage with an inferior strategy when a penalty dependent strategy
is so easily obtainable.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Luke Fuller" <kungalooosh@...> wrote:

#8

great reply. i also didn't want to use inferior vp strategies. it
would bother me to know that i was giving up ER back to the casino
because i was too lazy or uninformed or stubborn to use a penalty
dependent strategy. that is why i have been 100% satisfied using bob
dancer's strategy cards as well as vpsm and winpoker for years.

re jean scott, i believe i saw her using a bob dancer strategy card on
one of those travel channel vegas episodes. please correct me if it
wasn't a dancer card.

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

     I think the significance of the difference depends somewhat on
your usual denomination of play. Today I was playing $1 Jacks or
Better Fifty Play in a casino. The difference between a 99.544% and
a 99.451% strategy is clearly 0.093%.

snip

I wouldn't want to give up almost half my

advantage with an inferior strategy when a penalty dependent

strategy

···

is so easily obtainable.

#9

I'm entering this discussion late in the game. I returned yesterday
from an extended weekend away. I've digested the related threads in
bits and pieces.

I'm reticent to wade in -- in part because I sense that Linda
considers the continued discussion unfortunate and would be content to
see it die out. However, I'm dissatisfied with what what's been
expressed and am airing my take, for what it's worth.

···

------------------

The greatest deficiency I see in this discussion is a failure to
assess what Linda's book strives to achieve, in terms of intended
audience and what best serves them. Absent that, any benchmark lacks
substance.

I posted my observations on her book, "Video Poker Edge", shortly
after publication last year.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/58545

I'm very complimentary. The core of my enthusiasm is that no other
book adequately serves the body of new players who have little casino
experience or may be turning from slot play for the first time.

Jean Scott/Viktor Nacht text, "Frugal Video Poker", is the strongest
general vp resource book to date. (A Bob Dancer offering would vie
for that standing.) However, put it in the hands of someone whose
thirst for knowledge hasn't been fortified from a fair degree of
hands-on casino experience and I expect many will be intimidated by
the extensive compendium.

On the other hand, Linda's book is immediately approachable and
provides valuable vp insights for the first time vp player. It was
particularly satisfying to lay a copy in the hands of an intelligent
friend with no casino exposure. After thumbing through it for an hour
she expressed a keen fascination and demonstrated that, for the first
time, she "got" what drives Bev's and my treks to AC -- including a
notable recognition applied intellect is a factor in the play; not
just dumb luck ... even more satisfying was that she recognized that
you weren't simply at the mercy of a fixed casino edge.

------

The consequence is I've assessed Linda's strategies in terms of
whether they represent something that will lend a new player a
reasonably strong entree into play strategy. I allow leeway to vary
from perfect strategy ER by something more than the .01% that I would
expect from a "basic" strategy that is to be used by someone who has
taken the training wheels off from their play.

While my interpretation of Linda's Jacks strategy, when run through
Frugal VP for analysis, comes up with something a little greater than
the roughly .1% deviation that Dean Zamzow found, the difference is of
a magnitude that I'm entirely comfortably putting in the hands of a
novice player. I think it's unrealistic to assess Linda's strategies
against something more stringent. The key question is whether they
adequately serve a new player.

I see some room for debate on the strength of her format, but view it
mostly a matter of preference. I find merit in her outline and much to
commend it, viewing it to be the most approachable for someone
grappling with vp logistics for the first time.

There may be enhancements that would appropriately strengthen the
strategies. I deem them acceptable as is, but certainly expect that
Linda would refine them in any future edition.

Some will disagree on both counts; I wouldn't draw exception to that,
in itself.

------

I grasp Bob's objections to Linda's work. While I won't question
them, I largely find them misguided.

Bob should be considered to be in the strongest position to assert
what serves novice players best -- his continued exposure to them via
his classes is sufficient alone. I'm hesitant to second guess his
experience. I don't expect he'll find merit in any disagreement, but
hope there's room for respect nonetheless.

I've sat in on Bob's introductory Jacks class and reviewed his
materials. The presentation is strong, yet I look for the eyes of a
player having only cursory vp exposure to glaze over. This doesn't
reflect a deficiency in the course. However, the material is narrowly
focussed and lacks the broader perspective that better eases a player
into the subject.

That's necessarily the case -- Bob's class is limited to one hour and
not a weekend survey of introductory video poker topics. This is
where Linda makes a contribution that is unique and deserves
recognition; it's an ideal avenue through which casual players will
take a more serious interest in the game ... ultimately leading some
to advance their knowledge via resources such as those offered by Bob,
not to mention Jean and others.

It's unfortunate that Bob doesn't value her book from this
perspective, but certainly unreasonable for me to expect that he'd
necessarily have that take.

-------

I've rambled longer than ideal, but I necessarily spew my thoughts --
a more edited version would require inordinate time. You can trust
that I feel a little full of myself when I rave in this manner.

Bottom line, I'm secure that much scrutiny of Linda's strategies in
this thread is poorly targeted.

I can't speak for Linda's own perspective -- she may feel her
strategies are adequate for use by someone who has a advanced into a
solid grasp of the basics. However, within the confines of a player
with little expertise beyond being able to identify winning hands, I
find Linda's book dead on in what they need and from which they'll
benefit. (As discussed in my earlier comments re her book, there's
much to recommend to more experienced players as well.)

- Harry

#10

I think the significance of the difference depends
somewhat on your usual denomination of play. Today I
was playing $1 Jacks or Better Fifty Play in a casino.
The difference between a 99.544% and a 99.451% strategy
is clearly 0.093%. At $250 per hand this is a difference
of 23.25 cents per hand. Assuming 600 hands per hour and
we are talking $139.50 per hour.

I couldn't agree more. On the flip side, for a quarter
level recreational tourists, playing 4 hours a day, on a
4 day trip at 600 hands/hour You'd give up about $11
(or 0.69 cents/hour) a trip.

At 3 trips a year, that's $33. At that pace,
in a couple of decades you're talking some real
scratch :wink:

This assumes perfect appliction of the strategy
and no lose of speed or mistakes based on
complexity.

Not to side with anyone here, but if you're a low
roll'in tourist your world view is a lot different
than if you're running 7 figures through machines
on an annual basis, play for a living or are just
natually detail oriented. Many of us are just
playing for fun. I really think this is part (but
only part) of the disconnect in the recent
debate. Personal context makes a lot of difference
in how you see these things and where the cost
benefit of different tools comes into play.

#11

Your point is right on-- that 0.1% is a vey significant decrease in EV-- but your example
ain't quite right in practice. I find that one isn't likely to get in 600 hands/ hour at 50-play
JoB (for any sustained time period, say hours)-- and that's a good thing. If you are really
losing and on a fast machine (and IMO, there are only a couple in all of LV that are fast
enough) it can be done, sure enough. But, at 50 hands, you typically get a lot of w2-g's
and even with an attendant writing on the consolidated forms right there (and "resetting"
the machine), its been my experience that 600 hph is, well, optimistic. I find that my total
number of hands is usually higher (deals/hour x number hands /deal) if I play 39 hands
(due to dealt FH's). And on a day I am winning a lot with "big" dealt hands (quads), 26
hands/deal would be faster yet. (Another choice that could work would be to play 2
machines, or have one ready to go when you hit a jackpot at 39+ hands). But excellent
point nonetheless. A small drop in EV on a single hand is a much less signifanct than a
similar change in overall game EV (simply becuase that single hand probably doesn't occur
that often)

Has anyone else's experience been different?

···

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

      I think the significance of the difference depends somewhat on
your usual denomination of play. Today I was playing $1 Jacks or
Better Fifty Play in a casino. The difference between a 99.544% and
a 99.451% strategy is clearly 0.093%. At $250 per hand this is a
difference of 23.25 cents per hand. Assuming 600 hands per hour and
we are talking $139.50 per hour.

#12

Have to hand it to you Harry; you are one powerful writer/speaker.
Great insight. You have helped me decide which strategy book to
purchase. Maybe Linda will even autograph it for me.... :slight_smile:

Terry

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

I'm entering this discussion late in the game. I returned yesterday
from an extended weekend away. I've digested the related threads in
bits and pieces.

I'm reticent to wade in -- in part because I sense that Linda
considers the continued discussion unfortunate and would be content

to

see it die out. However, I'm dissatisfied with what what's been
expressed and am airing my take, for what it's worth.

------------------

The greatest deficiency I see in this discussion is a failure to
assess what Linda's book strives to achieve, in terms of intended
audience and what best serves them. Absent that, any benchmark

lacks

substance.

I posted my observations on her book, "Video Poker Edge", shortly
after publication last year.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/58545

I'm very complimentary. The core of my enthusiasm is that no other
book adequately serves the body of new players who have little

casino

experience or may be turning from slot play for the first time.

Jean Scott/Viktor Nacht text, "Frugal Video Poker", is the strongest
general vp resource book to date. (A Bob Dancer offering would vie
for that standing.) However, put it in the hands of someone whose
thirst for knowledge hasn't been fortified from a fair degree of
hands-on casino experience and I expect many will be intimidated by
the extensive compendium.

On the other hand, Linda's book is immediately approachable and
provides valuable vp insights for the first time vp player. It was
particularly satisfying to lay a copy in the hands of an intelligent
friend with no casino exposure. After thumbing through it for an

hour

she expressed a keen fascination and demonstrated that, for the

first

time, she "got" what drives Bev's and my treks to AC -- including a
notable recognition applied intellect is a factor in the play; not
just dumb luck ... even more satisfying was that she recognized that
you weren't simply at the mercy of a fixed casino edge.

------

The consequence is I've assessed Linda's strategies in terms of
whether they represent something that will lend a new player a
reasonably strong entree into play strategy. I allow leeway to vary
from perfect strategy ER by something more than the .01% that I

would

expect from a "basic" strategy that is to be used by someone who has
taken the training wheels off from their play.

While my interpretation of Linda's Jacks strategy, when run through
Frugal VP for analysis, comes up with something a little greater

than

the roughly .1% deviation that Dean Zamzow found, the difference is

of

a magnitude that I'm entirely comfortably putting in the hands of a
novice player. I think it's unrealistic to assess Linda's

strategies

against something more stringent. The key question is whether they
adequately serve a new player.

I see some room for debate on the strength of her format, but view

it

mostly a matter of preference. I find merit in her outline and much

to

commend it, viewing it to be the most approachable for someone
grappling with vp logistics for the first time.

There may be enhancements that would appropriately strengthen the
strategies. I deem them acceptable as is, but certainly expect that
Linda would refine them in any future edition.

Some will disagree on both counts; I wouldn't draw exception to

that,

in itself.

------

I grasp Bob's objections to Linda's work. While I won't question
them, I largely find them misguided.

Bob should be considered to be in the strongest position to assert
what serves novice players best -- his continued exposure to them

via

his classes is sufficient alone. I'm hesitant to second guess his
experience. I don't expect he'll find merit in any disagreement,

but

hope there's room for respect nonetheless.

I've sat in on Bob's introductory Jacks class and reviewed his
materials. The presentation is strong, yet I look for the eyes of a
player having only cursory vp exposure to glaze over. This doesn't
reflect a deficiency in the course. However, the material is

narrowly

focussed and lacks the broader perspective that better eases a

player

into the subject.

That's necessarily the case -- Bob's class is limited to one hour

and

not a weekend survey of introductory video poker topics. This is
where Linda makes a contribution that is unique and deserves
recognition; it's an ideal avenue through which casual players will
take a more serious interest in the game ... ultimately leading some
to advance their knowledge via resources such as those offered by

Bob,

···

not to mention Jean and others.

It's unfortunate that Bob doesn't value her book from this
perspective, but certainly unreasonable for me to expect that he'd
necessarily have that take.

-------

I've rambled longer than ideal, but I necessarily spew my thoughts -

-

a more edited version would require inordinate time. You can trust
that I feel a little full of myself when I rave in this manner.

Bottom line, I'm secure that much scrutiny of Linda's strategies in
this thread is poorly targeted.

I can't speak for Linda's own perspective -- she may feel her
strategies are adequate for use by someone who has a advanced into a
solid grasp of the basics. However, within the confines of a player
with little expertise beyond being able to identify winning hands, I
find Linda's book dead on in what they need and from which they'll
benefit. (As discussed in my earlier comments re her book, there's
much to recommend to more experienced players as well.)

- Harry

#13

Terry Boerner wrote:

Have to hand it to you Harry; you are one powerful writer/speaker.
Great insight. You have helped me decide which strategy book to
purchase. Maybe Linda will even autograph it for me.... :slight_smile:

I hope you meant to write "which strategy book to purchase FIRST" :wink:
There are many excellent resources you'll want to advance on to (most
of which are detailed within the "vpFREE Links/Commercial Products"
page here).

In particular I consider Jean Scott's/Viktor Nacht's "Frugal Video
Poker" book to be an outstanding follow up resource to continue your
education.

- Harry

#14

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

     I think the significance of the difference depends somewhat on
your usual denomination of play. Today I was playing $1 Jacks or
Better Fifty Play in a casino. The difference between a 99.544%

and

a 99.451% strategy is clearly 0.093%. At $250 per hand this is a
difference of 23.25 cents per hand. Assuming 600 hands per hour

and

we are talking $139.50 per hour. Even on a $5 single line game or

a

$1 Five Play game at this slow rate of play you would be

sacrificing

$13.95 per hour. At the $5 and up denomination, it is pretty rare

to

find opportunities that return much more than a 0.2% edge (unless
your name is Paladin). I wouldn't want to give up almost half my
advantage with an inferior strategy when a penalty dependent

strategy

is so easily obtainable.

It sounds to me like you never make a mistake and therefore a
strategy card would be useless to you in any event. If I am mistaken
in this regard then why did you ignore the potential impact of
simplicity on your overall results? All it would take is a SINGLE
screw up from a more complicated strategy card to lose far more
than .1%.

No one can put a VALID dollar amount on ANY strategy. It is
impossible.

Dick

#15

I find that one isn't likely to get in 600 hands/ hour at 50-play

JoB (for any sustained time period, say hours)-- and that's a good

thing. >>>

I usually judge plays more by ER per hand then per hour. I often
then multiply this figure by 3000 because I find that is about the
most hands I can manage in a single day before my mind turns to mush.

For fun I just looked back at my last two $1 Jacks or Better Fifty
Play sessions and saw I averaged only about 250 hands per hour. In
both sessions I manually feed the $100 bills into a single validator
( a big proportion of the time I would estimate ), played only on one
machine, took jackpots in cash(see above, more refeeding), and just
relaxed while waiting for individual W-2G's to be generated (averaged
about 2.2 per hour).

···

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

#16

Harry, I'm disappointed in you. You appear to be trying to take the
middle of the road. While that may be politically correct it does
surprise me. There is no doubt that Bob stated Linda's strategy did
not allow for holding JT suited. There is also no doubt that her
strategy does indeed allow for this. For you to state this
as "misguided" instead of outright wrong doesn't live up to your
normal standards.

Dick

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

I'm entering this discussion late in the game. I returned yesterday
from an extended weekend away. I've digested the related threads in
bits and pieces.

I'm reticent to wade in -- in part because I sense that Linda
considers the continued discussion unfortunate and would be content

to

see it die out. However, I'm dissatisfied with what what's been
expressed and am airing my take, for what it's worth.

------------------

The greatest deficiency I see in this discussion is a failure to
assess what Linda's book strives to achieve, in terms of intended
audience and what best serves them. Absent that, any benchmark

lacks

substance.

I posted my observations on her book, "Video Poker Edge", shortly
after publication last year.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/58545

I'm very complimentary. The core of my enthusiasm is that no other
book adequately serves the body of new players who have little

casino

experience or may be turning from slot play for the first time.

Jean Scott/Viktor Nacht text, "Frugal Video Poker", is the strongest
general vp resource book to date. (A Bob Dancer offering would vie
for that standing.) However, put it in the hands of someone whose
thirst for knowledge hasn't been fortified from a fair degree of
hands-on casino experience and I expect many will be intimidated by
the extensive compendium.

On the other hand, Linda's book is immediately approachable and
provides valuable vp insights for the first time vp player. It was
particularly satisfying to lay a copy in the hands of an intelligent
friend with no casino exposure. After thumbing through it for an

hour

she expressed a keen fascination and demonstrated that, for the

first

time, she "got" what drives Bev's and my treks to AC -- including a
notable recognition applied intellect is a factor in the play; not
just dumb luck ... even more satisfying was that she recognized that
you weren't simply at the mercy of a fixed casino edge.

------

The consequence is I've assessed Linda's strategies in terms of
whether they represent something that will lend a new player a
reasonably strong entree into play strategy. I allow leeway to vary
from perfect strategy ER by something more than the .01% that I

would

expect from a "basic" strategy that is to be used by someone who has
taken the training wheels off from their play.

While my interpretation of Linda's Jacks strategy, when run through
Frugal VP for analysis, comes up with something a little greater

than

the roughly .1% deviation that Dean Zamzow found, the difference is

of

a magnitude that I'm entirely comfortably putting in the hands of a
novice player. I think it's unrealistic to assess Linda's

strategies

against something more stringent. The key question is whether they
adequately serve a new player.

I see some room for debate on the strength of her format, but view

it

mostly a matter of preference. I find merit in her outline and much

to

commend it, viewing it to be the most approachable for someone
grappling with vp logistics for the first time.

There may be enhancements that would appropriately strengthen the
strategies. I deem them acceptable as is, but certainly expect that
Linda would refine them in any future edition.

Some will disagree on both counts; I wouldn't draw exception to

that,

in itself.

------

I grasp Bob's objections to Linda's work. While I won't question
them, I largely find them misguided.

Bob should be considered to be in the strongest position to assert
what serves novice players best -- his continued exposure to them

via

his classes is sufficient alone. I'm hesitant to second guess his
experience. I don't expect he'll find merit in any disagreement,

but

hope there's room for respect nonetheless.

I've sat in on Bob's introductory Jacks class and reviewed his
materials. The presentation is strong, yet I look for the eyes of a
player having only cursory vp exposure to glaze over. This doesn't
reflect a deficiency in the course. However, the material is

narrowly

focussed and lacks the broader perspective that better eases a

player

into the subject.

That's necessarily the case -- Bob's class is limited to one hour

and

not a weekend survey of introductory video poker topics. This is
where Linda makes a contribution that is unique and deserves
recognition; it's an ideal avenue through which casual players will
take a more serious interest in the game ... ultimately leading some
to advance their knowledge via resources such as those offered by

Bob,

···

not to mention Jean and others.

It's unfortunate that Bob doesn't value her book from this
perspective, but certainly unreasonable for me to expect that he'd
necessarily have that take.

-------

I've rambled longer than ideal, but I necessarily spew my thoughts -

-

a more edited version would require inordinate time. You can trust
that I feel a little full of myself when I rave in this manner.

Bottom line, I'm secure that much scrutiny of Linda's strategies in
this thread is poorly targeted.

I can't speak for Linda's own perspective -- she may feel her
strategies are adequate for use by someone who has a advanced into a
solid grasp of the basics. However, within the confines of a player
with little expertise beyond being able to identify winning hands, I
find Linda's book dead on in what they need and from which they'll
benefit. (As discussed in my earlier comments re her book, there's
much to recommend to more experienced players as well.)

- Harry

#17

mroejacks wrote:

Harry, I'm disappointed in you. You appear to be trying to take the
middle of the road. While that may be politically correct it does
surprise me. There is no doubt that Bob stated Linda's strategy did
not allow for holding JT suited. There is also no doubt that her
strategy does indeed allow for this. For you to state this
as "misguided" instead of outright wrong doesn't live up to your
normal standards.

In looking to soften what's been disputed there's little question that
integrity can be put on the line if I fail to "call a spade a spade"
where appropriate. However, I chose not to run down what it was in
Bob's critique with which I agreed or found fault. That wasn't
necessary and in fact would be an impediment in identifying what's of
central significance re Linda's book/cards.

FWIW, I agree ... a reasoned interpretation of Linda's Jacks strategy
calls for holding suited JT over lone J. I don't find any particular
moral victory in saying so. In any case, my reference to some of
Bob's comments as being misguided had nothing to do with technical
content -- I think he missed the mark with respect to her work.

- Harry

#18

>

It sounds to me like you never make a mistake and therefore a
strategy card would be useless to you in any event.>>>

I agree a strategy card for Jacks or Better is worthless to me since
I have memorized Dancer's computer perfect strategy from his report.
Since I am human, I obviously make mistakes when playing related to
distractions and lapses in concentration.

<<If I am mistaken

in this regard then why did you ignore the potential impact of
simplicity on your overall results?>>>

I would contend that the computer perfect strategy for Jacks or
Better is so simple with a little study and practice that the
majority of the errors that are made for the reasons listed above
will remain constant no matter which strategy is used.

<<<All it would take is a SINGLE

screw up from a more complicated strategy card to lose far more
than .1%.>>>>

I say get the extra 0.1% under your belt so you can waste it later
from making boner, I mean bone-headed mistakes when watching the
cocktail waitresses. Then you will only be 0.1% behind expectation
instead of 0.2%.

No one can put a VALID dollar amount on ANY strategy. It is
impossible.

Perhaps, but why start at EV - 0.1% in a situation where EV is so
achievable. We're not talking One Eyed Jacks here, we're talking
Jacks or Better. I can't see why anyone would have to chose Jack
over Jack-Ten suited for "simplicity".

···

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

#19

Bravo Harry! Let's end this thread. Harry has said what many of us are
lurkers are thinking. Most of us are here to learn, explore and when
we get brave enough, share experiences. It's not necessary to saber
rattle or wade through mathematical calculations understood only by
computer mavens to glean who is actually helping us on our path to
video poker "enlightenment." My thanks to ALL of you who've shared
your experiences and have taken the time to educate us. A bigger
thanks to Skip H. whose strategy cards have helped me obtain an IRS
spotlight.
Connie

···

Bottom line, I'm secure that much scrutiny of Linda's strategies in
this thread is poorly targeted.

#20

Harry, thanks for the honest answer. This is more like the Harry I
know :wink:

The reason I can't be as forgiving is this is the 3rd time in the last
couple of years that Bob has chosen to attack a recognized VP author.
As far as I'm concerned 3 strikes and yer out. For all the new members
out there this is why I choose to respond with such vigor. I think Bob
should be held accountable for malicious (and erroneous) attacks like
these or he will continue with them in the future. If we continue to
let him get away with this kind of behavior then we are effectively
endorsing it. I will not do that.

Dick

PS. It didn't help him much when he attacked me personally rather than
defend his own statements. His claim that I am the one who is
not "knowledgeable" has now backfired. Since I was right, what does
that make him? Not to mention his claim that I am not "respected". I
sure hope the readers of this forum are starting to see the real Bob
Dancer.

PPS. You may be giving Bob too much credit for understanding new VP
players. I know someone who attended one of Bob's classes and claimed
it was a complete waste of time. If you're already knowledgeable then
there's nothing of merit, if you're not, then he assumes too much is
already understood. I'll add that this was 3 years ago so Bob may have
made some improvements ... or may not.

···

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

In looking to soften what's been disputed there's little question that
integrity can be put on the line if I fail to "call a spade a spade"
where appropriate. However, I chose not to run down what it was in
Bob's critique with which I agreed or found fault. That wasn't
necessary and in fact would be an impediment in identifying what's of
central significance re Linda's book/cards.

FWIW, I agree ... a reasoned interpretation of Linda's Jacks strategy
calls for holding suited JT over lone J. I don't find any particular
moral victory in saying so. In any case, my reference to some of
Bob's comments as being misguided had nothing to do with technical
content -- I think he missed the mark with respect to her work.