vpFREE2 Forums

vpFREE] Best Strategy Cards???

#1

Linda wrote: There's truly one and only one way to determine the degree
of accuracy of my cards or anybody else's and that's to have Dean Zamzow
check each and every hand using the software. Bob, either each and every
hand can be checked on your cards or they can't. Which is it?

Of course strategies can be checked. The FVP software has a limited
capability to do this, but it only prints out numbers to two decimal
places and you have to juggle instructions already existing in the
current strategies. If you want to split an instruction in half because
not all components of the instruction are equal, you can't do it. And
there's no provision in FVP to enter penalty cards into the discussion.
If you want to pay Dean Zamzow, Jazbo, Jim Wolf, or some other
programmer to do this work, go right ahead. If this work is done, you'll
find the Dancer/Daily strategies come in at 99.54390%. I suspect yours
will come in somewhere around 99.2%, but that's just an estimate. That
will completely nullify a 0.33% slot club. For a 600-hands-an-hour
dollar player, your strategy will come in around $10 per hour shy. There
are a lot of players here who play hundreds of hours a year. Using your
strategies will cost them an extra thousands of dollars annually, even
if they find them easy to use.

Trying to shift the discussion to the Dancer/Daily strategies is making
a big fuss over nothing. If there were errors in the Dancer/Daily Level
4 strategies, they would have been pointed out by several experts here.
Like it or not, if you ask intermediate or stronger video poker players
who has the most accurate strategies, most will mention my name, with or
without Daily's. Sometimes people prefer other formats, and some people
may well prefer yours once you clean up the errors, but I've
consistently talking accuracy here, even though you keep changing the
subject. Like it or not, I am well qualified to evaluate how good your
strategies are (or Jean's or Dan's or anyone elses). Your discussion in
this thread appears to indicate you are not qualified to evaluate mine.
If you were qualified, you'd know that the Dancer/Daily 9/6 Jacks Level
4 strategy was perfect.

Even if the Dancer/Daily 9/6 strategy were imperfect (which it isn't),
that doesn't change the fact that yours have very significant errors in
them. I presented 9 sample hands for you to evaluate. Go ahead and
defend the way your strategy plays those hands if you can.

You are spending a lot of time not answering rather direct questions.
There are a lot of people on vpFREE who are not Bob Dancer fans and
nobody, so far as I know, has had anything bad to say about you
personally. But nobody has spoken up and given any specifics as to how
my criticism of your work was unfair. (One retired dentist did suggest
that I was picking on you and she wanted to assault me with dental
tools, but she mentioned no hand that I was unfairly criticizing.)

I know being backed into a corner is not fun. As soon as you admit the
mistakes and promise to fix them in the next edition, I'll back off
completely.

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

#2

Bob, the query should be whether Linda's strategy is accurate, not
better or worse than one you publish. I think it detracts fromt he
point you're trying to make. To my train of thought, there is one way,
and one way only to play (flattop) Jacks, there's either the right
play or the wrong play. No one has ownership rights to the right
strategy. For example, when I pick up AKT6c Th, I don't say to myself,
"what would Bob and Liam do with this hand?", I draw to the flush and
move on.

···

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

Linda wrote: There's truly one and only one way to determine the degree
of accuracy of my cards or anybody else's and that's to have Dean Zamzow
check each and every hand using the software. Bob, either each and every
hand can be checked on your cards or they can't. Which is it?

Of course strategies can be checked. The FVP software has a limited
capability to do this, but it only prints out numbers to two decimal
places and you have to juggle instructions already existing in the
current strategies. If you want to split an instruction in half because
not all components of the instruction are equal, you can't do it. And
there's no provision in FVP to enter penalty cards into the discussion.
If you want to pay Dean Zamzow, Jazbo, Jim Wolf, or some other
programmer to do this work, go right ahead. If this work is done, you'll
find the Dancer/Daily strategies come in at 99.54390%. I suspect yours
will come in somewhere around 99.2%, but that's just an estimate. That
will completely nullify a 0.33% slot club. For a 600-hands-an-hour
dollar player, your strategy will come in around $10 per hour shy. There
are a lot of players here who play hundreds of hours a year. Using your
strategies will cost them an extra thousands of dollars annually, even
if they find them easy to use.

Trying to shift the discussion to the Dancer/Daily strategies is making
a big fuss over nothing. If there were errors in the Dancer/Daily Level
4 strategies, they would have been pointed out by several experts here.
Like it or not, if you ask intermediate or stronger video poker players
who has the most accurate strategies, most will mention my name, with or
without Daily's. Sometimes people prefer other formats, and some people
may well prefer yours once you clean up the errors, but I've
consistently talking accuracy here, even though you keep changing the
subject. Like it or not, I am well qualified to evaluate how good your
strategies are (or Jean's or Dan's or anyone elses). Your discussion in
this thread appears to indicate you are not qualified to evaluate mine.
If you were qualified, you'd know that the Dancer/Daily 9/6 Jacks Level
4 strategy was perfect.

Even if the Dancer/Daily 9/6 strategy were imperfect (which it isn't),
that doesn't change the fact that yours have very significant errors in
them. I presented 9 sample hands for you to evaluate. Go ahead and
defend the way your strategy plays those hands if you can.

You are spending a lot of time not answering rather direct questions.
There are a lot of people on vpFREE who are not Bob Dancer fans and
nobody, so far as I know, has had anything bad to say about you
personally. But nobody has spoken up and given any specifics as to how
my criticism of your work was unfair. (One retired dentist did suggest
that I was picking on you and she wanted to assault me with dental
tools, but she mentioned no hand that I was unfairly criticizing.)

I know being backed into a corner is not fun. As soon as you admit the
mistakes and promise to fix them in the next edition, I'll back off
completely.

_______________________________________________________________________

paladingaming.net

#3

Paladin wrote: Bob, the query should be whether Linda's strategy is
accurate, not better or worse than one you publish. I think it detracts
fromt he point you're trying to make. To my train of thought, there is
one way, and one way only to play (flattop) Jacks, there's either the
right play or the wrong play. No one has ownership rights to the right
strategy. For example, when I pick up AKT6c Th, I don't say to myself,
"what would Bob and Liam do with this hand?", I draw to the flush and
move on.

I have no argument with what you say. Linda is the one who wants to keep
bringing the Dancer/Daily strategy into the discussion. I keep bringing
the discussion back to her published strategy and the errors in it.

The particular hand you cite is clearly an advanced hand where the
4-card flush is worth about a half-cent more than the 3-card royal. This
hand is properly omitted by authors not discussing penalty cards. That
is why you'll find it on Level 4 of the Dancer/Daily cards, but not
Levels 1, 2, or 3 (or on the VPW or FVP or Paymar strategies). If that
were the only error Linda was making, we wouldn't be having this
discussion.

You, Paladin, are clearly an expert and have been very critical of me in
the past. Wouldn't you agree that a strategy that tells you to hold J
from 'JT'xxx is hopelessly insufficient?

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

Bob, I've never been critical of your accomplishments, those speak for
itself. But to be honest with, I think I am a pretty good judge of
talent, and compared to some of the things I've done in the past, VP
is really a walk in the park. So, it's kind of hard to take the
writers seriously, at least since Lenny Frome died.

It's your continued desire to educate the gaming public* that has cost
me tens of thousands of dollars in expectation. Not to worry, that
figure pales in comparison what your idol, Stanford Wong, cost me, but
the reality is Stanford really doesn't affect the truly top talents.
Moreover, the truly top talents don't publish. Somehow, I'm still
making a pretty good living from this, although I'm becoming the James
Brown of VP, if you get my drift.

I haven't seen Linda's book, I'm really busy these days, and I kind of
have the feeling there isn't much I could learn from it. She seems
knowledgeable enough and a nice enough lady. Paymar's book is in many
ways superior, but the first edition was written many years ago, the
programming has gotten a lot better since then, and there's no excuse
for the many errors in his strategies (although if I remember
correctly, the Jacks was perfect).

I will say this, I can think of no situation where holding the J would
be correct from JTs in 9-6 Jacks.

*note to gaming public-it's never personal, it's just business.
Remember, your hobby is my profession. Try to be respectful of that. I
know it's a totally cool thing to walk into a casino and knowing where
you have the edge. However, it's a totally uncool thing to wise up the
casino where the holes are. Keep that in mind when playing or posting,
because the suits read the board too.

···

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

Paladin wrote: Bob, the query should be whether Linda's strategy is
accurate, not better or worse than one you publish. I think it detracts
fromt he point you're trying to make. To my train of thought, there is
one way, and one way only to play (flattop) Jacks, there's either the
right play or the wrong play. No one has ownership rights to the right
strategy. For example, when I pick up AKT6c Th, I don't say to myself,
"what would Bob and Liam do with this hand?", I draw to the flush and
move on.

I have no argument with what you say. Linda is the one who wants to keep
bringing the Dancer/Daily strategy into the discussion. I keep bringing
the discussion back to her published strategy and the errors in it.

The particular hand you cite is clearly an advanced hand where the
4-card flush is worth about a half-cent more than the 3-card royal. This
hand is properly omitted by authors not discussing penalty cards. That
is why you'll find it on Level 4 of the Dancer/Daily cards, but not
Levels 1, 2, or 3 (or on the VPW or FVP or Paymar strategies). If that
were the only error Linda was making, we wouldn't be having this
discussion.

You, Paladin, are clearly an expert and have been very critical of me in
the past. Wouldn't you agree that a strategy that tells you to hold J
from 'JT'xxx is hopelessly insufficient?

#5

"paladingamingllc" wrote:

Somehow, I'm still making a pretty good living from
this, although I'm becoming the James Brown of VP,
if you get my drift.

Do you mean to say you are a persistent felon and
beat your wife? Yuk, yuk, yuk.

Seriously though, when I see emails on this topic
from 3 and 4 am I get the sense some folks are probably
feeling pretty bad about these conversations. That's
too bad.

Can someone lend some light and less heat on this
debate? Every strategy has compromises to simplify
or steamline. Look up the work diminishing returns.
The measure of that is strictly personel and would
vary greatly between a ploppy and someone with OCD.

Can some 3rd party do an objective analyis and share
the outcome?