Steve,
I hope it's viewed that I'm not pushing any strategy change for the
sake of variance reduction, or for most other purposes as well.
I think your message is clear -- "don't deviate from max-ER for
any reason. Those who do are trained professionals. This should
not be attempted by anyone else at any time. Kids, don't try this
at home." That would be fine if we were playing "Fear Factor"
instead of VP 
The thing I wish to stress most is that for all but the very strongest
players, adhering to max-ER strategy in mostcases is the best approach
to vp ... "keep it simple".
I think we have a choice here. We can either tell players a
simple lie, or we can tell players a slightly more complicated truth.
I feel that "max-ER strategy in most cases is the best approach"
is overly simplistic, to the point that it is actually deceptive. I know
that isn't your intent, but I really think that is what it amounts to.
I think a big part of the difficulty is that a lot of people are used to
thinking that "max-ER is the best way to play" is a true statement.
It is what they were told when they were learning to play, and they
were told by all of the experts that max-ER was the "one true way"
to play. But a closer look at the math reveals a surprise --
there are other ways to play, and these alternate strategies are
BETTER than max-ER for the particular purpose for which they
are designed. In short, there isn't any "one strategy fits all"
approach to VP. The best way to play depends on what you
want to achieve. That is not simply an opinion, it is mathematical
fact.
Take DB 10/7 for example. Suppose a player comes to you and
says "I want to have the best chance of making my bankroll last
until I hit a royal flush". By telling them "just use max-ER strategy,
it really is the best approach for VP" you are offering them a
strategy with a royal cycle of 48048. The strategy that gives them
what they really want would reduce the royal cycle to 37139 and
would allow them to survive to hit a royal 1.8% more often. In
effect, you're telling them it is better to waste 1.8% of their bankrolls
for the sake of "keeping it simple." I think that is bad advice. It
is like saying "for one out of fifty-five trips, just stay home and burn
your bankroll in the fireplace".
You suggest that many a run-of-the-mill player might well have goals
other than max-ER and that altering strategy accordingly is prudent.
My issue with this is one of practicality.
Granted, it is harder to give good advice when there are choices. But,
to ignore the choices in favor of "just use max-ER" is to ignore the
differences that make each of us individuals.
My issue is one of allowing the players to make an informed decision.
Practicality should not be used as an excuse to suppress the truth, and
the truth is that there are meaningful choices available to VP players.
In this case, simplification requires that we deprive players of the
opportunity to choose what is best for *them*. I'm not willing to do that.
If someone asks me "what is the best way to play VP" I will try to find
out what "winning" means to them personally, and suggest a strategy
that is truly what *they* want. Anything short of that would be foisting
my preferences on them, and I think that would be presumptuous and
unhelpful.
I'll admit that many alternate strategies can be adopted by a player
without too great an effort. However, I think few players are really
prepared to quantify their alternative goals to max-ER, and moreso, to
assess to what degree they move closer to those goals with their
strategy changes vs. sticking with max-ER. (Think of it as "bang for
the buck".)
I see posts here all the time talking about "playing longer" or "getting
more royals" or any number of other criteria for evaluating performance.
I don't think players have much trouble figuring out what they want,
once they are freed from the mindset that they "must maximize ER".
And I _do_ think of it as "bang for the buck". The problem is that different
people have different ideas about what constitutes "bang". For some
it means playing longer on the same bankroll, for others it means getting
the best shot at a royal, for others it means having the best chance of
having their bankroll grow without ever going broke. These are all specific
goals that are NOT best achieved by playing max-ER strategy.
Shifting strategies does take work and during some interim, entails a
greater error-related cost. Thus, it's not something to be tackled
unless the rewards justify the temporary costs.
I don't think that argument holds water. If a player is used to playing
max-ER but decides they want to play for their best shot at royals, then
any mistakes they make would tend to be incorrectly reverting to max-ER
strategy instead of correctly applying the best-shot-at-royal play. The
net effect is that they would be playing a strategy that is somewhere
between max-ER and best-shot-at-royal. Thus this "temporary cost"
that you suggest doesn't really exist. Each new play they learn that
departs from max-ER but is correct for best-shot-at-royal moves them
closer to the strategy that is correct for them. Most plays will be the
same for both strategies. They only need to learn what is different and
remember to apply the better option when the new strategy is better
than what they were used to.
In fact, this should generally be much easier than shifting from a game
like JoB 9/6 to something much different like Deuces Wild.
For players with anything less than a finely developed expertise in
the game, tackling such shifts in strategy come pretty darn close to
taking a shot in the dark.
It wouldn't be at all like taking a shot in the dark. It would be more like
changing a small number of the plays that they've already learned.
You'd have us believe that it would be like going from driving a car to
flying a helicopter. In truth, it would be more like going from driving a
Ford to driving a Lexus. A few controls would be in different places,
but most of the basics would remain the same.
In practice, Steve, I think what's
entailed to be fully informed and intelligent when undertaking a
strategy change involves more theory than the typical player desires
to account for in their play.
So your advice is "don't be fully informed, better to stick your head
in the sand and just play max-ER". I'll grant you that being an informed
player takes more effort. Learning something new always takes effort.
But isn't that what this forum is all about -- learning better ways to play,
and helping players to improve their games? Players don't have to
learn all the theory behind computing ER in order to learn a max-ER
strategy. Similarly, there is no compelling need for players to learn all
of the theory behind any other strategy. All they really need is the
strategy itself and a bit of practice.
But this definitely is one that we'll continue to agree to disagree
on. I'm not trying to shift anyone's take, just expressing mine for
the sake of understanding.
That's fine, and I'm sure I haven't convinced you to change your
position on this. I think it is unfortunate that you're more interested
in maintaining the status quo than in having players become better
informed. In my view, it is better to allow players to choose what
is best for their particular situation.
ยทยทยท
On Monday 27 December 2004 09:53 pm, Harry Porter wrote: