vpFREE2 Forums

VP Training Software - FVP

#1

<<<<The time
it takes to learn penalty card situations can be more profitably spent
looking for loose change. >>>>>

In the time it takes to compose a post pontificating the unimportance of
penalty card situations, one could probably have learned a couple more
penalty card plays too. :slight_smile:

Has a controlled study every been performed to see if playing a game
using penalty card strategy actually results in more playing errors of a
greater magnitude or is it just antidotal? Many people say they make
more errors playing Pick 'Em because it is so boring. Maybe too
simplified strategies are in a similar fashion too boring to attain
maximum concentration. Who would have guessed that talking on a
hands-free mobile car phone would result in no fewer accidents then the
hand-held model? Maybe we need a Skip Hughes / Bob Dancer invitational
challenge. I bet Rob Singer would love to emcee!

I think this argument is like abortion, everyone has an opinion but
arguments probably are not going to change many minds.

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

···

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:25:52 -0700 Skip Hughes <skiphughes@earthlink.net> writes:

#2

johnfiske@juno.com wrote:

I think this argument is like abortion, everyone has an opinion but
arguments probably are not going to change many minds.

Hey John;
I do agree that the argument that people may actually play more a more complicated strategy more accurately is a matter of opinion. And I am very skeptical of it.

  However, the theoretical cost of not using penalty card situations in a strategy is not a matter of opinion. It's a mathematical question that can be calculated exactly with FVP. And in most cases, it's really not what I (and I suspect, most), consider significant.
  I hear some people say the difference becomes significant for the high limit player. For JB, (the most likely high limit game) the difference is .001% (99.5429 versus 99.5439). For a 5-dollar player who averages, let's say, 800 hands ($20,000) an hour, that amounts to a loss of twenty cents an hour. For the 10-dollar player who will play at slower rate (since each quad is a w2) the cost is probably about 50-cents an hour (for someone who is cranking through $25K an hour).

For the average quarter player, with the game of choice usually being FPDW, the .004% difference amounts to about a nickel an hour for a 1,000 hand an hour player. For the dollar 10/6 DDB player the difference (.002%) is about ten cents an hour. All this is based on 1,000 hands an hour. Most people play much slower than that, so the cost is reduced.

Pretty much the the worst case scenario is a person playing two-dollar 10/7 DB (which has tons of pen card situations). The .005% difference with cost a 1,000 HPH two-dollar 10/7 player fifty cents an hour. Those who play two-dollar DB recreationally over a weekend are probably less likely to consider that significant than the everyday "serious" player.

To put all this in perspective, let's consider the V and The B. Most people would base their choice of Bellagio or Venetian on something other than cashback, figuring that .33% (Bellagio) is not all that much different than .30% (Venetian). They would make their choice based on the rooms, the food, the host, or many other items. But that cashback difference between the Venetian and Bellagio is 30 times the difference in playing Jacks or Better with or without penalty card situations.

Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com

#3

At the risk of sounding blasphemous, I will chime in here too.

Periodically I would (note past tense) play All American at the Hilton. This game if played perfectly is 100.7221%. There is absolutely no way that I could play even close to this level without significant practice everytime before I went to the casino. The main (only) reason I would even played the game was because of the .66 cash back (past tense) and the .2 to .8 (or more)comps it generated (past tense). The cash back/comps constituted a significant portion of the reason I was playing the game. Therefore I determined it was more important for me to play FAST and generate as many of these residual benefits as I could in the shortest time possible. Using Frugal and VPSM I created a simplified, modified, no penalty All American strategy card that according to Frugal returned 100.67%. as far as I was concerned it was close enough. Perhaps if I believed the game etc had a greater future I would have invested more time in learning a more accurate strategy. However by slowing down my play to try and figure out the absolute best play I was losing more in cash & comps (per hour) than I could ever make by playing the perfect strategy.

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Skip Hughes" <skiphughes@earthlink.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: VP Training Software - FVP

johnfiske@juno.com wrote:

I think this argument is like abortion, everyone has an opinion but
arguments probably are not going to change many minds.

Hey John;
I do agree that the argument that people may actually play more a more
complicated strategy more accurately is a matter of opinion. And I am
very skeptical of it.

However, the theoretical cost of not using penalty card situations in
a strategy is not a matter of opinion. It's a mathematical question that
can be calculated exactly with FVP. And in most cases, it's really not
what I (and I suspect, most), consider significant.

#4

I agree with Skip and Ednar especially on AA for occasional (3-4 trips a year) players like myself. I've practiced AA on WP and OVP for at least 200,000 plays using the perfect play strategy card and achieved a .995 overall average accuracy (100.21 return) and played about 50,000 plays usng a modified strategy (about 100.6) and achieved a .998 overall average accuracy (100.4 return). Also, my speed is faster (550 hph) on modified vs perfect (<500 hph).

Also, it's been my experience (limited as it is) that that it is easier to move between games using less-than-perfect strategies and maintain a .997 plus overall average accuracy. I now feel comfortable playing 3 games - FPDW (my fav), JOB (easy to find), and AA (challenging and tough to find).

Bob

Periodically I would (note past tense) play All American at the Hilton. This
game if played perfectly is 100.7221%. There is absolutely no way that I
could play even close to this level without significant practice everytime
before I went to the casino. .... Therefore I
determined it was more important for me to play FAST and generate as many of
these residual benefits as I could in the shortest time possible. Using
Frugal and VPSM I created a simplified, modified, no penalty All American
strategy card that according to Frugal returned 100.67%. as far as I was
concerned it was close enough. Perhaps if I believed the game etc had a
greater future I would have invested more time in learning a more accurate
strategy. However by slowing down my play to try and figure out the absolute
best play I was losing more in cash & comps (per hour) than I could ever
make by playing the perfect strategy.

···

ednar <ednar@kconline.com> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Skip Hughes" <skiphughes@earthlink.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: VP Training Software - FVP

johnfiske@juno.com wrote:

I think this argument is like abortion, everyone has an opinion but
arguments probably are not going to change many minds.

Hey John;
I do agree that the argument that people may actually play more a more
complicated strategy more accurately is a matter of opinion. And I am
very skeptical of it.

However, the theoretical cost of not using penalty card situations in
a strategy is not a matter of opinion. It's a mathematical question that
can be calculated exactly with FVP. And in most cases, it's really not
what I (and I suspect, most), consider significant.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
  
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

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

#5

Hi Skip,

Thanks for confirming to this (.25/.50/1.00) rec player, what I've
always believed to be true; that is, trying to play most vp games
"perfectly", which includes strictly adhering to all penalty cards
situations, costs so little EV as to be negligble.

The profusion of penalty card situations which are so abundant in
DB, is what causes me to usually shy away from this game. Were it
not for this fact, 10/7DB would be close to the top of my list of
favorites. As it is, if I am playing DB, and immediately spot a
penalty card, w/o having to slow down to think about it, I will
always take the PC into consideration.

To this player, who plays mostly for fun, while still maximizing my
best chance for profit by playing the most advantageous pay tables,
utilizing ALMOST all of the tenets of basic strategy and taking
advantage of the best comps/CB/FP, your conclusions make perfect
sense.

If this is heresy to some others, so be it. "You pays yer money, and
you makes yer choice"!

Babe

···

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

............However, the theoretical cost of not using penalty card
situations in a strategy is not a matter of opinion. It's a
mathematical question that can be calculated exactly with FVP. And
in most cases, it's really not what I (and I suspect, most),
consider significant...................
              <snip>

..........For the average quarter player, with the game of choice
usually being FPDW, the .004% difference amounts to about a nickel
an hour for a 1,000 hand an hour player. For the dollar 10/6 DDB
player the difference (.002%) is about ten cents an hour..........
Thanks!
Skip

#6

SORRY, that first sentence should have stated: "NOT trying to play
most vp games "perfectly".......etc. It's certainly best not to leave
out a pertinent word, when you are trying to make a point!

Babe
-------------------------------------------- In
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...> wrote:

Thanks for confirming to this (.25/.50/1.00) rec player, what I've
always believed to be true; that is, trying to play most vp games
"perfectly", which includes strictly adhering to all penalty cards
situations, costs so little EV as to be negligble........

#7

Robert Romanyshyn wrote:

I agree with Skip and Ednar especially on AA for occasional (3-4
trips a year) players like myself.

I pretty much straddle both sides of the argument here (not that I'm a
"fence sitter", mind you :wink:

In my DB play, I found that it was helpful in developing my overall
play accuracy (referring to my non-penalty related error rate) when I
incorporated key penalty considerations -- those that crop up with
frequency, such as 2RF/3F holds. It honed my attention to hand
details and I quickly began making fewer basic errors, dropping my
error cost that had plateued at .2% to less than .05%. Of course,
there's no doubt that my use of winpoker prompted this move and that
it would never have been considered were I using FVP stratgegy mode
for practice at that time (this predated FVP) -- as helpful as it
likely would still have proved (note, I long turned off immediately
error flagging in bdwp, so minor errors didn't interrupt my practice).

In general, I look at penalty considerations to be a novelty for
anything less than a $2 player. In my experience, there are only a
handful of players who have their game honed to such an extent that
the ER to be gained is even 10% of their basic error cost.

It's generally a mistake for a player to pay any attention to
penalties in their play unless they've got the game down cold. I find
it too easy to be distracted from the big picture by the penalty hunt.
That's definitely likely to always be the case for me with a game
like AA, where situations in which a hand has up to 3 strong viable
holds (say, 4 iStr, 3 SF, low pair). It's simply the case where one
basic play error cancels out as many as a 100 penalty card situations
played perfectly.

Anytime I read of someone who takes considerable pride in dealing with
penalty card situations in their play, I strongly suspect that they've
blinded themselves to vulnerabilities in their play unless they've
demonstrated themselves to be among the very most proficient and
knowledgable players.

- Harry

#8

jackessiebabe wrote:

The profusion of penalty card situations which are so abundant in
DB, is what causes me to usually shy away from this game. Were it
not for this fact, 10/7DB would be close to the top of my list of
favorites. As it is, if I am playing DB, and immediately spot a
penalty card, w/o having to slow down to think about it, I will
always take the PC into consideration.

The ability to hone strong strategy play that ignores penalty
considerations is what makes Frugal an exceptional practice tool.
(I'm sure that Paymar's product is strong in this respect as well, but
cannot vouch for it since I have no exposure.)

I will say, though, that I strongly prefer the "look and feel" of
winpoker, so for myself it's still my and my wife's preferred practice
program. But trust me, were it not for Frugal, she'd have inflicted
grievous harm to our PC long ago when learning penalty "prone" games.

I heartily recommend both programs to novice and experienced players
alike. (I hope for a future Frugal version that is sufficiently
intuitive in design and feel that I can consign Winpoker to the
archive of "interesting" artifacts -- you know, like Stanford Wong's
Villa Crespo vp tutor.)

- Harry

#9

Robert Romanyshyn wrote:

I agree with Skip and Ednar especially on AA for occasional (3-4
trips a year) players like myself.

···

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

I pretty much straddle both sides of the argument here (not that I'm
a "fence sitter", mind you ;).......................
             <snip>

In general, I look at penalty considerations to be a novelty for
anything less than a $2 player. In my experience, there are only a
handful of players who have their game honed to such an extent that
the ER to be gained is even 10% of their basic error cost. It's
generally a mistake for a player to pay any attention to penalties
in their play unless they've got the game down cold. I find it too
easy to be distracted from the big picture by the penalty hunt.......
              
                  <snip>

Anytime I read of someone who takes considerable pride in dealing
with penalty card situations in their play, I strongly suspect that
they've blinded themselves to vulnerabilities in their play unless
they've demonstrated themselves to be among the very most proficient
and knowledgable players.
- Harry
----------------------------------------------

Harry, IMO, the statements above indicate rather conclusively, that
you're hardly "straddling" the fence, but leaning over heavily
enough to fall off. (in the direction of the views of Skip and
others who posted on this thread).

Babe

#10

.......... (I hope for a future Frugal version that is sufficiently

···

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

intuitive in design and feel that I can consign Winpoker to the
archive of "interesting" artifacts -- you know, like Stanford Wong's
Villa Crespo vp tutor.)

- Harry

#11

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

...........(I hope for a future Frugal version that is sufficiently
intuitive in design and feel that I can consign Winpoker to the
archive of "interesting" artifacts -- you know, like Stanford Wong's
Villa Crespo vp tutor.)

- Harry

···

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

Sorry about that last incomplete post!

Though I've been nothing but nice this Saturday morning, my computer
is behaving in a different manner. I've just given it one upside the
head and hope that stops it's bad behavior.

Harry, I thought that you were just a youngster. I'm amazed to learn
that you did your initial computer vp practice, as I did on Wong's VP
Tutor. Did you have the really old original version that was not in
color? I loved to play FPDW on this program, but I do remember, that
after a few hours of trying to differenciate suits on a black &
white screen, that my eyes would cross!

Babe

#12

<<I will say, though, that I strongly prefer the "look and feel" of
winpoker, so for myself it's still my and my wife's preferred practice
program. But trust me, were it not for Frugal, she'd have inflicted
grievous harm to our PC long ago when learning penalty "prone" games.

I heartily recommend both programs to novice and experienced players
alike. (I hope for a future Frugal version that is sufficiently
intuitive in design and feel that I can consign Winpoker to the
archive of "interesting" artifacts -- you know, like Stanford Wong's
Villa Crespo vp tutor.)>>

Harry: I wonder if you like the "look and feel" of WinPoker better because you used it first. I find it hard to change any computer program even if they are supposed to be "better." We get used to one way and it isn't easy to change. It would be interesting if someone learned VP on FVP and then tried WinPoker - I wonder what their feelings on this matter would be??

By the way, Jim is working on a new VP software program - I forwarded him your post - maybe he will take your observations into consideration!

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards.
  NEW - Blackjack Strategy Cards +
              Updated Second Edition of
             "The Frugal Gambler."

#13

Harry, I thought that you were just a youngster. I'm amazed to learn
that you did your initial computer vp practice, as I did on Wong's
VP Tutor. Did you have the really old original version that was not
in color? I loved to play FPDW on this program, but I do remember,
that after a few hours of trying to differenciate suits on a black &
white screen, that my eyes would cross!

Come'on, Babe -- even today's "toddlers" in their 30's were messing
about with first generation pc's long after being out of diapers.

"Not in color"? Gee, sure you just didn't have an appropriate
graphics driver installed?

This version is dated 1991 -- I purchased it in 1995. (I still have
the floppy and also dutifully transfer it from PC to PC).

Picking it up during my AC-JW playing days (my, don't we all come from
such humble origins! That's a game for which no quantity of booze can
appreciably harm performance and only improves the experience ;),
Wong's program was no less than a revelation of the glory of the vp
gods -- I progressed onto any number of "better" games in the casino
until true enlightenment struck in the form of Skip Hughes group and
subsequently acvpp.

For the very first time I was able to construct my own strategy cards
(using an empirical "lets try this" trial and error of constructing
hands and testing one hold against the other). Trust me when I say
that "penalty" cards weren't an element of my strategies.

Babe, you hold the all time "Die Hard" title in my book. Black and
white tutor play?? The closest I can come to that cross-your-eyes
experience is dabbling with the "4 color suits" option in winpoker
(later versions only, I think).

- Harry

#14

By the way, Jim is working on a new VP software program - I

forwarded him

your post - maybe he will take your observations into consideration!

could you give us an idea about the major new features and when it
might be available?

#15

<<could you give us an idea about the major new features and when it
might be available?>>

Too early for those answers! Jim will let us all know at the right time!

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards.
  NEW - Blackjack Strategy Cards +
              Updated Second Edition of
             "The Frugal Gambler."

#16

Jean Scott wrote:

Harry: I wonder if you like the "look and feel" of WinPoker better
because you used it first. I find it hard to change any computer
program even if they are supposed to be "better." We get used to
one way and it isn't easy to change. It would be interesting if
someone learned VP on FVP and then tried WinPoker - I wonder what
their feelings on this matter would be??

Jean, while it's true that I'm likely suffering the brain cell
equivalent of "hardening of the arteries" these days, I still consider
myself pretty adaptive -- except when it comes to video games ...
where I've given up all pretense of being able to hold my own with my
nieces and nephews and have tired of coming across as a doddering old
fool (hey, maybe I was still getting points for just trying late in
the game but the impatient glances -- that spoke, "ok, who's gonna
take him out this time?" -- as I bumbled about the screen aimlessly
became a bit much to take).

Winpoker has the advantage of being much simpler in scope than FVP.
The software is pretty much plug and play for most people and most
advanced menu options can be incorporated into practice in short order
if desired without too much thought.

I hope it's clear from my comments that I have considerable respect
for Frugal. But when it comes to anything but the most basic
operation, I get that same feeling I formerly did when I'd sit down on
the living room floor in front of the game console with the kids.

My discussion of FVP features should make it clear that I've spent a
respectable amount of time with the software and have explored
features. But, for example, I still stumble about when I use it for
the occasional analysis of a game with alternative strategy or look to
glean a few statistics from it. To put it plainly, the thing
frustrates the **** out of me at times.

I'll also add that when it comes to basic practice, the are what might
seem modest differences that serve to make winpoker practice easier.
Differences in the size of cards and, more importantly to me, the
relative size of the gaps between cards to the cards themselves, make
my FVP practice more error prone. The card dimensions are broader in
FVP and yield a card that is atypically proportioned -- for whatever
reason, this proves to be a modest strain on my eyes when scanning a
hand. And, since I often swap between activities, the resolution
resizing for full screen play is absolutely maddening.

Look, at the core I think the software is entirely sound. But,
speaking for myself, the features aren't intuitive in access and/or
function. There's no doubt that if I took the time to meticulously
review features and make careful notes that I'd be able to maneuver my
way around flawlessly. But I prefer to pick up the ball and run with
it, without much concern I'll fumble it because I tripped over my own
shoelaces.

I couldn't ask a stronger set of features. But, as one example, I
suspect that I'm not the only one who finds the current set up of the
"Player Control Center" sufficiently cumbersome that I don't take
advantage of it's real power -- instead, simply skirting around it's
edges so as not to have it interfere with my practice.

Truth is that as often as I levy design criticism along with my
praises, it's incumbent upon me to prove I might do better. Designing
intuitive interfaces for in-house financial applications was a key
element of my work some 20 years ago. I've been tempted by it as an
intellectual exercise and have looked at it sufficiently to realize
that a thoroughly clean structure to the myriad of features is
challenging. But it can be better.

Bottom line, Jean, in truth there's no reasonable fair comparison of
the overall structure of FVP and winpoker. FVP is a program of an
entirely additional dimension. But I'll still suggest that the ideal
interface would be clean, crisp and beg the user, by it's very nature,
to explore all the software has to offer.

- Harry

#17

Again, Harry, I appreciate your thorough analysis - and again, I am forwarding your suggestions on to Jim Wolf.

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards.
  NEW - Blackjack Strategy Cards +
              Updated Second Edition of
             "The Frugal Gambler."

#18

Come'on, Babe -- even today's "toddlers" in their 30's were messing
about with first generation pc's long after being out of diapers.
"Not in color"? Gee, sure you just didn't have an appropriate
graphics driver installed? This version is dated 1991 -- I purchased
it in 1995. (I still have the floppy and also dutifully transfer it
from PC to PC)...................................

<snip>

Babe, you hold the all time "Die Hard" title in my book. Black and
white tutor play?? The closest I can come to that cross-your-eyes
experience is dabbling with the "4 color suits" option in winpoker
(later versions only, I think).
- Harry

···

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

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

Well Harry, your mention of not having the "appropriate graphics
driver" installed, got me to thinking about those olden days, when I
did indeed have an old relic monitor w/o color. However, we got rid
of that monitor in the 80's.

I located my original Video Poker Analyzer by Stanford Wong/Pi Yee
Press/copyright 1991, and found a letter with the floppy, signed by
the president of Villa Crespo Software, Daniel A. Sejzer, CDP. In
the letter he thanked me for the order I placed through Casino
Player Magazine, for a copy of "Stanford Wong Video Poker". He said
that my software would be shipped to me in Oct., 1991. The letter
also explained that my order had been delayed because "we are
taking extra time to polish and test the powerful professional
features we have designed". The letter then went on to state that,
as compensation for not receiving my software on a timely basis,
they were enclosing, free of charge, Dr. Wong's original
software, "Video Poker Analyzer", which was the basis for
for the new one that I had ordered. Furthermore, they said, this
software "contains all the features of the new one, EXCEPT
GRAPHICS, sounds, etc....." Soooooo, I guess I do really remember
playing DW in Black & wh.......er green!

Babe

thinking

#19

In addition...

The main screen of WinPoker seems to be the closest to the real vp
machine with regards to the background and foreground colors.

Multiplay screen is another area where WinPoker looks better.

Amount of pre-defined games, WinPoker has some work to do to catch
up with FVP.

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

Jean Scott wrote:
> Harry: I wonder if you like the "look and feel" of WinPoker

better

> because you used it first. I find it hard to change any

computer

> program even if they are supposed to be "better." We get used

to

> one way and it isn't easy to change. It would be interesting

if

> someone learned VP on FVP and then tried WinPoker - I wonder

what

> their feelings on this matter would be??

Jean, while it's true that I'm likely suffering the brain cell
equivalent of "hardening of the arteries" these days, I still

consider

myself pretty adaptive -- except when it comes to video games ...
where I've given up all pretense of being able to hold my own with

my

nieces and nephews and have tired of coming across as a doddering

old

fool (hey, maybe I was still getting points for just trying late in
the game but the impatient glances -- that spoke, "ok, who's gonna
take him out this time?" -- as I bumbled about the screen aimlessly
became a bit much to take).

Winpoker has the advantage of being much simpler in scope than

FVP.

The software is pretty much plug and play for most people and most
advanced menu options can be incorporated into practice in short

order

if desired without too much thought.

I hope it's clear from my comments that I have considerable respect
for Frugal. But when it comes to anything but the most basic
operation, I get that same feeling I formerly did when I'd sit

down on

the living room floor in front of the game console with the kids.

My discussion of FVP features should make it clear that I've spent

a

respectable amount of time with the software and have explored
features. But, for example, I still stumble about when I use it

for

the occasional analysis of a game with alternative strategy or

look to

glean a few statistics from it. To put it plainly, the thing
frustrates the **** out of me at times.

I'll also add that when it comes to basic practice, the are what

might

seem modest differences that serve to make winpoker practice

easier.

Differences in the size of cards and, more importantly to me, the
relative size of the gaps between cards to the cards themselves,

make

my FVP practice more error prone. The card dimensions are broader

in

FVP and yield a card that is atypically proportioned -- for

whatever

reason, this proves to be a modest strain on my eyes when scanning

a

hand. And, since I often swap between activities, the resolution
resizing for full screen play is absolutely maddening.

Look, at the core I think the software is entirely sound. But,
speaking for myself, the features aren't intuitive in access and/or
function. There's no doubt that if I took the time to meticulously
review features and make careful notes that I'd be able to

maneuver my

way around flawlessly. But I prefer to pick up the ball and run

with

it, without much concern I'll fumble it because I tripped over my

own

shoelaces.

I couldn't ask a stronger set of features. But, as one example, I
suspect that I'm not the only one who finds the current set up of

the

"Player Control Center" sufficiently cumbersome that I don't take
advantage of it's real power -- instead, simply skirting around

it's

edges so as not to have it interfere with my practice.

Truth is that as often as I levy design criticism along with my
praises, it's incumbent upon me to prove I might do better.

Designing

intuitive interfaces for in-house financial applications was a key
element of my work some 20 years ago. I've been tempted by it as

an

intellectual exercise and have looked at it sufficiently to realize
that a thoroughly clean structure to the myriad of features is
challenging. But it can be better.

Bottom line, Jean, in truth there's no reasonable fair comparison

of

the overall structure of FVP and winpoker. FVP is a program of an
entirely additional dimension. But I'll still suggest that the

ideal

interface would be clean, crisp and beg the user, by it's very

nature,

···

to explore all the software has to offer.

- Harry

#20

This is exactly why I prefer FVP to BDWP for practice even though I believe
the graphics on it actually has me making a few errors when I play quickly.

Chandler

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Harry Porter
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:58 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: VP Training Software - FVP

The ability to hone strong strategy play that ignores penalty
considerations is what makes Frugal an exceptional practice tool.
(I'm sure that Paymar's product is strong in this respect as well, but
cannot vouch for it since I have no exposure.)

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links