vpFREE2 Forums

USING JOB STRATEGY FOR 10/7 DB

I'm making a slow transition from JOB to 10/7 DB. I've heard that simply
using JOB on 10/7 is worth .2%

But it seems (using Winpoker and VPSM) that two simple modifications of JOB
would bring me closer to EV breakeven on DB:

    1. Holding a 3 card Flush with 1 hi card over a 3 STFL with 2 gaps and
0 hi cards;

    2. Holding a 3 Flush with 2 hi's over a 4 inside straight with 2 hi's.

Since I don't know how to tweak WP and VPSM to analyze a simplified DB
strategy, could some of you math people figure it out?

Thanks.

Rick

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

richardrick7 wrote:

I'm making a slow transition from JOB to 10/7 DB. I've heard that
simply using JOB on 10/7 is worth .2%
Since I don't know how to tweak WP and VPSM to analyze a simplified
DB strategy, could some of you math people figure it out?

Rick,

I'm writing this in the middle of yet another restless night so it's
gonna be pretty q & d. Hopefully someone will take you up on your
challenge of detailing a simplified DB strategy.

Playing 10/7 DB with 9/6 JB strategy gives you an ER that's about .1%
over that of 99.54%. Having said that, I don't advise anyone to head
for the nearest 10/7 machine unless they've got a good grasp of the
game fundamentals.

You need as much of the .6% ER advantage of 10/7 DB over 9/6 JB to
help grapple with the much higher volatility of double bonus. (Of
course, there are some volatility fiends out there who'll race past a
trusty ol' 9/6er to scramble for a 9/7 DB just about any day ...)

If you've got vpsm, then you have a decent strategy in hand (and I
TRUST that you're using the basic one, not the advanced! :wink:

···

------

You've identified two hold changes as being ones that will
significantly improve your EV. They aren't the ones that would pop
out at me ... in fact the first one is a little flawed:

you write:

But it seems (using Winpoker and VPSM) that two simple modifications
of JOB would bring me closer to EV breakeven on DB:

    1. Holding a 3 card Flush with 1 hi card over a 3 STFL with 2
gaps and 0 hi cards;

What you're describing here is a hand with 3 STFL, all low cards, and
yet apparently you have another suited high card. No question of what
to hold here, it's the 4 card Flush.

Don't think I'm making fun ... that's the problem with ranked strategy
cards -- they often have you comparing two holds which either can't
appear together or, if they do, it means that an even better hold is
present.

------

Digesting strategies in this way can actually be an excellent way to
get a handle on a game because it forces you to construct actual hands
that meet the criteria. Do that enough and the process of identifying
best holds within a dealt hand becomes a snap since you've become
skilled at building hands around the holds.

You could try to approach DB from a simplified strategy as you
suggest. I think there indeed are some that will get you most of the
way to full ER with a limited subset of holds. But I'd recommend
mastering a basic strategy such as the vpsm one. When you get to the
point where in your vp software practice the ER cost of your errors is
less than .4%, you might want to start tackling it in the casino. But
frankly, I don't throw my money at any game until my proficiency
against theo is 99.8% (.2% error cost).

I'll stress that I'm not talking about error rate (play errors per 100
hands). That's a useless stat as far as I'm concerned. I'm only
concerned with what my errors will cost me on average.

------

I strongly recommend that you lay out the bucks to purchase Frugal
Video Poker (FVP).

"Perfect" Double Bonus strategy (you know, that "advanced" mess in
vpsm :wink: involves a good number of frequently occurring penalties (aka
"interferences", having to do with things like Aces and 10's in the
same hand and the like). The penalties call for modest changes in
some holds if you're going to play absolutely 100% optimally.
However, you can ignore the penalties and still play at well over
99.9% of the game expected return. You want to ignore penalty
situations and play basic strategy. However, unless you tweak the
winpoker error level setting properly, winpoker will flag every one of
these penalty situations when played by basic strat.

FVP has a play mode so that the only errors it flags are those that
are indicated by the basic strategy as well.

Note: FVP can produce its own strategy cards, a nice bonus. You'll
want to print one from FVP just to make sure the software is
consistent with the strategy you use. There may be a minor difference
or two between it and the one produced by vpsm. I've never compared
... may be that they're identical.

------

Take these steps and you'll be in good shape, Rick. I really don't
advise stepping into casino play with a simplified strategy. Double
Bonus is a difficult beast to get your hands around. But if you stick
to your practice you'll find there will come a time when you crest the
hill and the rest falls into place pretty quickly.

- Harry

i'll take a wack at a simplified strategy:

job (and most games that return 2 for 2 pair):
4RF>PAT>4SF>HP>3RF>4FL>LP>4STo>3SF0>2RF2H>4STi4-
3H>3SF1>KQJ>2H>JT>QT>1H>3SF2

10/7db:
4RF>PAT>4SF>HP>4FL>3RF>4STo>LP>3SF0>4STi4-3H>3FL2H>2RF2H>3SF1>4STi2-
1H>KQJ>QJT>QJ>3SF2>JT>3FL1H>QT>2-1H>4STi>3FL

(on the 3 card straight flushes, the last number is the number of
gaps minus the number of high cards, so JT8suited is a 3SF0,
A23suited is a 3SF1)
(4STi4-3H is an inside gap straight with 4-3 high cards: AKQJ, AKQT,
AKJT, AQJT, KQJ9)
(4STi2-1H includes A low straight: A345, A245, A235, A234)
(with 3 high cards, one of them an ace, not 4STi, drop the ace)

Lost your e-mail address. Please e-mail me privately.

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
for VP software and strategy cards; "frugal" books;
and the NEW "Tax Help for the Frugal Gambler."

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

slight modification:

job (and most games that return 2 for 2 pair):
5SF>4RF>PAT>4SF>HP>3RF>4FL>LP>4STo>3SF0>2RF2H>
4STi4-3H>3SF1>KQJ>2H>JTs>QTs>1H>3SF2

10/7db:
5SF>4RF>PAT>4SF>HP>4FL>3RF>4STo>LP>3SF0>
4STi4-3H>3FL2H>2RF2H>3SF1>4STi2-1H>

···

3SF2>3FL1H>2H>QTs>1H>4STi>3FL

I strongly recommend that you lay out the bucks to purchase Frugal
Video Poker (FVP).

Fully agree . . especially because of its practice-mode facilities.
These include recording of the detail of all errors, and the ability
to display--for a specific hand--the ER resulting from all 32
possible combinations of held cards.
  

Note: FVP can produce its own strategy cards, a nice bonus. You'll
want to print one from FVP just to make sure the software is
consistent with the strategy you use. There may be a minor

difference

or two between it and the one produced by vpsm. I've never compared
... may be that they're identical.

Both FVP and VPSM actually generate strategy CHARTS, as opposed to
CARDS. Printed out, these tend to occupy a full page or two. Bob
Dancer (and others) have done a very nice job, for selected games, of
condensing the CHART information onto pocket-sized CARDS; these
indicate, with very nearly 100 percent accuracy, what to hold.

It would "seem logical" that a program, to automate the condensation
process, could be developed. This would be especially useful where
progressives are involved; as the value of an RF increases, strategy
changes need to be made. The so-generated cards might not be quite
as attractive as Mr. Dancer's product, but the information content
would be very-nearly as useful and accurate.

I might also note that the charts from VPSM are slightly more
accurate than those from FVP. VPSM appears to be giving full
consideration to penalty-card conditions, while FVP does not. FVP
does, however, disclose the difference in ER; for DB 10/7, its chart
returns 100.167% while perfect play would return 100.173%.
  

------

Take these steps and you'll be in good shape, Rick. I really don't
advise stepping into casino play with a simplified strategy. Double
Bonus is a difficult beast to get your hands around. But if you

stick

to your practice you'll find there will come a time when you crest

the

···

hill and the rest falls into place pretty quickly.

- Harry

With Frugal Video Poker you can transfer the strategy chart to a
microsoft word file and then change the font to fit a 4"x6" card.

If you need help I can post a step by step process for this.

Hans "not really from Germany" Jurgent

> I strongly recommend that you lay out the bucks to purchase

Frugal

> Video Poker (FVP).
Fully agree . . especially because of its practice-mode

facilities.

These include recording of the detail of all errors, and the

ability

to display--for a specific hand--the ER resulting from all 32
possible combinations of held cards.
  
>
>
> Note: FVP can produce its own strategy cards, a nice bonus.

You'll

> want to print one from FVP just to make sure the software is
> consistent with the strategy you use. There may be a minor
difference
> or two between it and the one produced by vpsm. I've never

compared

> ... may be that they're identical.
>
Both FVP and VPSM actually generate strategy CHARTS, as opposed to
CARDS. Printed out, these tend to occupy a full page or two. Bob
Dancer (and others) have done a very nice job, for selected games,

of

condensing the CHART information onto pocket-sized CARDS; these
indicate, with very nearly 100 percent accuracy, what to hold.

It would "seem logical" that a program, to automate the

condensation

process, could be developed. This would be especially useful

where

progressives are involved; as the value of an RF increases,

strategy

changes need to be made. The so-generated cards might not be

quite

as attractive as Mr. Dancer's product, but the information content
would be very-nearly as useful and accurate.

I might also note that the charts from VPSM are slightly more
accurate than those from FVP. VPSM appears to be giving full
consideration to penalty-card conditions, while FVP does not. FVP
does, however, disclose the difference in ER; for DB 10/7, its

chart

returns 100.167% while perfect play would return 100.173%.
  
> ------
>
> Take these steps and you'll be in good shape, Rick. I really

don't

> advise stepping into casino play with a simplified strategy.

Double

> Bonus is a difficult beast to get your hands around. But if you
stick
> to your practice you'll find there will come a time when you

crest

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "sphboc2003" <sphboc@a...> wrote:

the
> hill and the rest falls into place pretty quickly.
>
> - Harry

hansjurgent wrote:

With Frugal Video Poker you can transfer the strategy chart to a
microsoft word file and then change the font to fit a 4"x6" card.

If you need help I can post a step by step process for this.

Both you and bshiffrin (prevous poster) have both missed the point that Sphboc2003was making, and that is that the prepared strategy cards have manipulated and consolidated the various lines to make the cards easier to use than the charts by making the actual list of hands substantially shorter. If I had to rely on just a printed list from VPSM or FrugalVP, I'd shoot myself first.

Bill Velek

Bill Velek wrote:

If I had to rely on just a printed list from VPSM or FrugalVP,
I'd shoot myself first.

Then there are the "do-it-yourself'ers" like myself who don't seem to
mind frittering away 40 minutes or so to export, format, condense, and
print abbreviated strategies (not to mention gluing or laminating the
output to index cards) for each tailored strategy pulled from the
software.

You might think I work for minimum wage to be unwilling to part with
the modest bucks for Dancer's cards (or Jean's/Skip's, or whoever).

But the very act of reducing the strategies helps me nail them cold --
you really have to think them through to get a clean condensation.
Plus, I can read my cards at a glance, having prepared them myself. I
tend to find that with other cards I've seen, I scratch my head over
the abbreviated formats for quite awhile until I get my hands around them.

To each their own ... :wink:

- Harry

True! :slight_smile:

···

--- Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:

---------------------------------
But the very act of reducing the strategies helps me
nail them cold -- you really have to think them
through to get a clean condensation.

Congatulations, Harry. So glad to hear that you got that raise this
year after all.

Pete

···

I work for minimum wage....

- Harry

Harry Porter wrote:

Bill Velek wrote:
> If I had to rely on just a printed list from VPSM or FrugalVP,
> I'd shoot myself first.

Then there are the "do-it-yourself'ers" like myself who don't seem to
mind frittering away 40 minutes or so to export, format, condense, and
print abbreviated strategies (not to mention gluing or laminating the
output to index cards) for each tailored strategy pulled from the
software.

snip

Correct, Harry. I wasn't implying that a person needs a commercially produced card, but rather that they ought to use something other than just a long list of hands like those produced by VPSM. I don't care if they condense the list themselves, get a free list from someone else, or purchase one -- but the thought of someone tediously scrolling down that long list just makes my hair hurt.

Bill Velek

dirtyroyal2004 wrote:

10/7db:
5SF>4RF>PAT>4SF>HP>4FL>3RF>4STo>LP>3SF0>
4STi4-3H>3FL2H>2RF2H>3SF1>4STi2-1H>
>>>>3SF2>3FL1H>2H>QTs>1H>4STi>3FL

You've surfaced some interesting strategies in the last couple of days.

Since I'm sure your intent is to offer them up for the benefit of
others, you may wish to consider providing more than just a bare bones
presentation.

For example, those looking for simplified strategies tend to do so
because they haven't had the opportunity to get their hands around
fully detailed ones -- in other words, they're likely to be relatively
less experienced players. They might not familiar with the
abbreviations you're using and a brief explanation would be helpful.

Also, in recommending a strategy it's assumed that you represent it as
maintaining most of the ER of "perfect" strategy.

Others would be more inclined to consider the strategies if you noted
the actual strategy ER. For example, the above 10/7 strategy analyzes
to 100.13% (using Frugal Video Poker software) -- which is very
respectable.

- Harry

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

Others would be more inclined to consider the strategies if you

noted

the actual strategy ER. For example, the above 10/7 strategy

analyzes

to 100.13% (using Frugal Video Poker software) -- which is very
respectable.

thanks, i don't have fvp, so it's not so easy for me to figure out
the exact return, does fvp also give you the variance (or the hand
probabalities)?

just to summarize in one post:

beginner: (99.5%?) (also works for most 2pair returns 2 games)
5SF>4RF>PAT>4SF>HP>3RF>4FL>LP>4STo>3SF0>2RF2H>
4STi4-3H>3SF1>KQJ>2H>JTs>QTs>1H>3SF2

intermediate: (100.1%?)
5SF>4RF>PAT>4SF>HP>4FL>3RF>4STo>LP>3SF0>
4STi4-3H>3FL2H>2RF2H>3SF1>4STi2-1H>

3SF2>3FL1H>QTs>2H>KTs>1H>4STi>3FL

advanced min-bankroll: (100.15%?)
5SF>4RF>PAT>4SF>2A>4FL3H>HP>4FL>3RF>4STo>

JT9s>QJ9s>LP>AKQJ>3SF0>4STi3H>QJs>2RFKnoSP>

3SF1noSP>3FL2H>2RF2H>4STi2H>3SF1>KQJ>QJT>QJ>
4STi1H>JTs>3SF2noSP>QTsnoFP>KHnoSP>3FL1H>

3SF2>KTs>1H>4STi>3FL

on the 3 card straight flushes, the last number is the number of
gaps minus the number of high cards, so JT8suited is a 3SF0,
A23suited is a 3SF1)
(4STi4-3H is an inside gap straight with 4-3 high cards: AKQJ, AKQT,
AKJT, AQJT, KQJ9)
(4STi2-1H includes A low straight: A345, A245, A235, A234)
(with 3 high cards, one of them an ace, not 4STi, drop the ace)
(AH=ace plus a high card)
(AnoFP=ace no flush penalty)
(KHnoSP=king plus a high card and no straight penalty)

dirtyroyal2004a wrote:

thanks, i don't have fvp, so it's not so easy for me to figure out
the exact return, does fvp also give you the variance (or the hand
probabalities)?

FVP is a must buy for you.

It does provide the resulting hand frequencies when strategies are
"tweaked". However, I can't give you a definite answer on whether it
provides a variance statistic for modified strategies.

Sadly, I still find some aspects of the FVP menus/program flow for
advanced analysis rather non-intuitive and have difficulty putting my
hands on some features.

If the variance is provided for a "tweaked" strategy, I can't find it
when looking at the program right now. I suspect it's there.
Furthermore, to date, no one else seems to report the difficulties
I've encountered with the menus so it would seem that I simply have
some type of mental block when it comes to navigating my way through
them. (Note: For basic analysis/practice use, the software is
crystal clear and easy to use.)

Of course, so long as hand frequencies are available, the variance for
a game can readily be calculated manually.

Concerning your min-bankroll strategy: What method did you use to
optimize and do you have a comparison of bankroll requirement vs.
standard strategy? (and assuming what ROR?)

- Harry

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

Concerning your min-bankroll strategy: What method did you use to
optimize and do you have a comparison of bankroll requirement vs.
standard strategy? (and assuming what ROR?)

basically it's the sorokin optimized strategy at 0.5% cashback
but you can also look at any strategy decision in this manner: a
choice with higher advantage (return - bet) is justified if the
increase in variance is not greater than the increase in advantage
because bankroll is proportional to variance/advantage

10/7db+0.5%cb, maxER strategy:
ER=100.67%, VAR=28, R(1)=0.999491, 10%ror bankroll=4521bets

10/7db+0.5%cb, minBankroll strategy (657/49/154/78/49):
ER=100.66%, VAR=27, R(1)=0.999481, 10%ror bankroll=4437bets

dirtyroyal2004a wrote:

10/7db+0.5%cb, maxER strategy:
ER=100.67%, VAR=28, R(1)=0.999491, 10%ror bankroll=4521bets

10/7db+0.5%cb, minBankroll strategy (657/49/154/78/49):
ER=100.66%, VAR=27, R(1)=0.999481, 10%ror bankroll=4437bets

I'm curious if there are any first hand reports from those who use a
minBankroll strategy in their play for standard games (vs. certain
progressives, for example).

I'm interested in perspective and experience. As Steve Jacobs as
discussed in the past, it's not difficult to incorporate an
alternative strategy in your play/practice, once you know the
appropriate pseudo-paytable to use to develop the strategy. Both vpsm
and frugalVP will allow you to develop the strategy by keying in that
paytable, and you simply use the same paytable in your practice
(realizing, of course, that machines won't pay on that paytable ;).

However, as noted, under a 10% ror criteria the bankroll requirement
above is reduced by 84 bets (about $105 on a quarter machine, $420 on
$1). For myself, that's not sufficient reduced risk to bother. But I
have no argument with those who go with it.

I'm just curious to hear a first hand report (or whether there is one
from someone who adopts min-bankroll into their regular daily play vs.
more exceptional ones).

- Harry

How much reduced risk would make it worth the bother?

I've recently found another aspect of this min-risk strategy that
some might find interesting. The following three strategies are
very close together, yet not identical:

1) min-risk (aka min-bankroll). This strategy gives the smallest
bankroll requirement for a given risk of ruin, or equivalently gives
the least risk of ruin for a given bankroll size.

2) min-cost-royal (aka min-loss). This strategy gives the smallest
average loss between royal flushes. Equivalently, this strategy
allows the player to "pay" the least total dollar amount per royal
flush.

3) best-shot-royal. For a given bankroll size, this strategy
maximizes the probability of hitting a royal before going broke.
This strategy does not change with the payoff for the royal.
For JoB 9/6, if a single bet is played and replayed until the
player either hits a royal or runs out of credits, this strategy
gives a 1 in 1038.68 chance of eventually hitting a royal.
This is equivalent to getting a 50/50 chance of royal from
a starting bankroll of 720 units. Each additional 720 units
added to the initial bankroll will improve the chance of
reaching a royal by another factor of two.

If you have a limited bankroll and want to have the best
chance of hitting a royal with your limited funds, then the
min-risk strategy comes very close to achieving that goal.
The best-shot-royal gives a 1 in 1038.68 chance, while
the min-risk strategy gives a 1 in 1039.10 chance. The
max-EV strategy isn't terribly far behind, giving a 1 in
1042.58 chance for play from a single wager to survive
until you hit a royal (722.3 units for a 50/50 shot at a
royal).

For JoB 9/6, whether favorable or unfavorable, whether
full coin play or short coin play, the best-shot-royal
strategy is the same. The min-cost-royal has this same
property. These represent two different defintions of
"best way to play for royal flushes". One maximizes
probability of success, while the other minimizes average
cost (assuming you have unlimited funds so that you
never have to stop play before hitting a royal).

Some numbers:

                            % Royal Royal 10% RoR
strategy ER cost shot bankroll

···

On Sunday 11 April 2004 07:16 am, Harry Porter wrote:

However, as noted, under a 10% ror criteria the bankroll requirement
above is reduced by 84 bets (about $105 on a quarter machine, $420 on
$1). For myself, that's not sufficient reduced risk to bother. But I
have no argument with those who go with it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
max-ER 100.953 984.30 1042.58 5644.60
min-cost 100.953 984.31 1042.59 5644.77
True-Log-Opt. 100.947 980.94 1040.30 5583.20
best-shot-royal 100.920 976.66 1038.68 5518.57
min-risk 100.907 976.06 1039.10 5515.68
min-cost-royal 100.902 975.99 1039.40 5517.75
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The numbers for best-shot-royal are interesting. It is only
slightly higher risk than the min-risk strategy, but has a
noticeably lower impact on EV.

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

However, as noted, under a 10% ror criteria the bankroll requirement
above is reduced by 84 bets (about $105 on a quarter machine, $420

on

$1). For myself, that's not sufficient reduced risk to bother.

But I

have no argument with those who go with it.

what if it simplifies the strategy?

i play around 1000 hours/year (million hands/year) and yes i use
alternate strategies *that are mathematically sound* and yes i do ok
as the math says i should

Harry Porter wrote:

> However, as noted, under a 10% ror criteria the bankroll
> requirement above is reduced by 84 bets (about $105 on a quarter
> machine, $420 on $1). For myself, that's not sufficient reduced
> risk to bother. But I have no argument with those who go with it.

Steve Jacobs replied:

How much reduced risk would make it worth the bother?

Er ... how 'bout 800 bets?
(Ask a silly question ... :wink:

I've never held myself up as a paragon of the rational gambler (not
that I had you fooled, Steve ...)

- H.