vpFREE2 Forums

"The Video Poker Edge" by Linda Boyd--Comments on Review

#1

Somebody told me Rob was reviewing my book--ventilator, aspirin and tranqs, please!

Next, I got an email telling me to breathe-- this from a vpFREE good Samaritan. I, then, used the link provided by vpFREE and read what he had to say about my book, "The Video Poker Edge".

I already knew that Rob didn't agree with my approach--mine matches vpFREE's stated philosophy--in short, nobody outruns the numbers over time. You need to find the best game available within your chosen casino and play it mathematically correct. I focus on 8 specific games throughout my book and include my own strategy cards for the games I recommend--free with the book. (Writing my own strategy cards and revising them so they were good for casino use took years plus lots of revisions. These are for beginners and experienced players--if you switch games my cards make it easy to play correctly. I've included penalty cards and exceptions--it's simple to either use or ignore these with my format . I've tested and re-tested till I'm cross-eyed--they are accurate.)

I would like to address one point Rob made in his review--I think I'm at fault for not making an important issue clearer.

Rob's comment:
  
"And one more thing. She rejects what she calls the 'myth' of machines being programmed to run in hot and cold cycles - a parameter which I have very credible information on (and experienced-based results) that it does in fact occur - yet she produces a chart that identifies a percentage where the machines are not allowed by law to go below in their hold. So then how do these machines get back above that percentage if too many bad players sit down or if a machine just goes on one of those 'terrible' losing streaks for the casino? Magic?"

Machines are not "programmed" to do anything if they have a RNG--random number generator. Although we agree that there are streaks, this information can't be used to predict future events--there are no discernable patterns with the algorithms used. (I'm not getting into the lack of close to true randomness outside the field of quantum physics--unnecessary information for video poker.)

The chart Rob's referring to states the maximum/minimum mandates by state--this is very important to players. Why, for example, would you choose to play in a state that mandates low returns, or worse yet, no minimum return? These statutory requirements are based on the ER provided by the manufacturer--they assume accurate play. Rob's right, sometimes the actual results dip below the expected return, but this data must fall within a pre-determined range. It's my belief--unsubstantiated--that a radical departure from the expectation will bring on an unwelcome GLI--Gaming Labs International--check.

My mistake was not making it clear enough that the statutory requirements make allowances for reasonable results outside the legislated range--of course, this is a given with a RNG. ( However, the results on a VLT, video lottery terminal, will be exactly as programmed--the people due slices of pie don't want crumbs falling into someone else's hand. VLT's have not found there way into commercial casinos--yet. A racino is different from a commercial casino--that's another story.)

I really do appreciate the fair review from Rob--even though the anticipation shaved a few years off my life! Linda

Linda Boyd: Author, "The Video Poker Edge"
Square One Publishers
www.squareonepublishers.com
Games/Gambling Link
Toll Free:1-877-900-BOOK
Amazon link.
Gambler's Book Shop
630 South 11th Street, Las Vegas
Phone:702-383-7555
Barnes and Noble/Borders
If not stocked, they will order it for you.

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

#2

Linda Boyd wrote:

I really do appreciate the fair review from Rob--even though the
anticipation shaved a few years off my life! Linda

Nobody believes me, Linda, when I tell them that Rob's just a puppy
with a nasty snarl ...

(trust me when I say I haven't tried scratching his tummy yet :wink:

- H.

#3

Harry Porter wrote:

Nobody believes me, Linda, when I tell them that Rob's just a puppy
with a nasty snarl ...

I believe you're right Harry...

Nobody believes you.
:slight_smile:

#4

In Singers review of Linda's book he notes a important distinction
between the two ... Linda states it's inevitable that some sessions are
going to be losers whereas he doesn't accept that premise. He believes
every session can be a winner. What isn't clear (to me anyway) is how
to do it.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@...> wrote:

Harry Porter wrote:
> Nobody believes me, Linda, when I tell them that Rob's just a puppy
> with a nasty snarl ...
I believe you're right Harry...

#5

brumar_lv wrote:

···

In Singers review of Linda's book he notes a important distinction
between the two ... Linda states it's inevitable that some sessions
are going to be losers whereas he doesn't accept that premise. He
believes every session can be a winner. What isn't clear (to me
anyway) is how to do it.

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

I'm going to comment because I have some strong sentiments that I
haven't taken pains to articulate until now. These remarks go well
beyond the criticism that you've cited. I hold these to be
sufficiently balanced and merited that I'll go express them in this
forum.

They might be better placed on FREEvpFREE, but because of the heavy
predomance of a specifc "debate" on that group, there's every reason
for most to avoid any active reading there.

IMPORTANT:

*** Because Singer is not an active "participant" in this group, and
any response is likely to appropriately warrant room for Singer to
comment, there should be ABSOLUTELY no reply or comment to this post
on this group. I'll cross post it to FREEvpFREE for any desired
feedback or discussion. ***

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

You're clearly mistating Singer. He allows there will be the
occasional losing session but that winning sessions will strongly
predominate in number. He's absolutely accurate in that assertion.

Like many of us here, the losing sessions don't receive nearly the
emphasis of winning ones.

He makes no bones that an overall bankroll that would choke a modest
size whale (at least one in the eyes of most of us) is required. I
respect him for that. Of course, that axiom often gets lost in the
other "noise", and he makes nebulous statements that his system (term
applied here with absolutely no cymicism) might possibly be adapted to
suit more modest bankrolls (which I think is sufficiently poorly
defined to be misleading).

He falls subject to criticism that his system is nothing other than a
Martingale version -- and few question that Martingale dooms the far
greater majority of adherents to an unfortunate demise.

I won't touch the Martingale comparison, since I think it's
unnecessary. I'll simply say that there are moderating aspects of
Singer's system that greatly reduce the insane risk of Martingale and
increases the probability that a reasonable, well defined, yet
substantial win quit point might be achieved -- though obviously with
a substantial ROR (perhaps higher that Rob's writing suggest).

The key characteristic of Singer's system is that he gives fair
opportunity for variance to express itself that an appropriate win
goal can be achieved with a significant probability. The offset is
that the downside risk is far greater than most desire to bear.

The most important assertion I have to make is that there's no
question there's a subgroup of rational players for whom Singer's
system is entirely appropriate. Mind you, that subgroup represents a
very small proportion of players in general, and of the members here
that ratio is exceedingly small given inherent play goals -- if for no
other reason due to the bankroll requirements, but for a large number
of other reasons as well.

I won't dwell on specific characteristics of that subgroup other than
to stress that I'm sincere in calling them "rational".

There is another group of players who reject "advantage play" and
gravitate toward Singer's play philosophy, but for whom his system
entirely inappropriate. I don't think Singer acts in any manner that
serves to mislead or delude that group.

It should be clear by now that I hold that there is a basis on which
to respect Singer. I draw ample fire for that position. So be it.

I choose not to stress any misgivings I have since, for those who
would have a listening, there's little need to "preach to the
converted". In any case, it's not my style. But trust that I hold
out very sizable reserves.

Finally, I expect Singer to hold ample exception to aspects of my
statements. However, from past interaction, I fully expect him to
respect my assertion of them and may likely choose to respond in a
reasoned manner (and again, he may not :wink:

AGAIN, DIRECT ANY REPLY TO FREEvpFREE.

- Harry

#6

<<Like many of us here, the losing sessions don't receive nearly the
emphasis of winning ones.>>

I talk about losing just as much - and perhaps more - than I do about winning. Starting May 12, you can read a 3-part series about losing at VP in Frugal Fridays.

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott
Frugal resources available at
http://www.FrugalGambler.biz

#7

Hmmm... Is there a VPfree guideline on how to post comments that may not be replied to?
Skip

Harry Porter wrote:

···

AGAIN, DIRECT ANY REPLY TO FREEvpFREE.

#8

Sorry, Skip. But, I can't reply to your comment on this thread because I
was told to "Direct any reply to FREEvpFREE" and I am not a member of that
Group.

···

On 4/28/06, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@earthlink.net> wrote:

Hmmm... Is there a VPfree guideline on how to post comments that may
not be replied to?
Skip

Harry Porter wrote:
>
> AGAIN, DIRECT ANY REPLY TO FREEvpFREE.

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