vpFREE2 Forums

vpFREE] Best Strategy Cards???

#1

Linda Boyd Wrote:

Wait a minute--you're saying that your work can't be checked,
but we're supposed to accept that it's 100% correct?
Are you saying that Dean Zamzow ran an algorithm check on
your cards and they were 100% correct? If not there's no way
to compare it with anything.

Could we stop this and just agree that your work can't be
checked--that's close to 2.6 million hands--but you're saying
they're 100% correct anyway?

Bob claims his 9/6 JoB strategy is 100% accurate.

All it would take to prove him wrong is one example.

Can you provide a single example where his strategy is wrong?

Just one?

Meanwhile, he provided many hands where he claims your strategy is wrong.

Do you dispute the accuracy of what he claimed?

#2

Meanwhile, he provided many hands where he claims your strategy is

wrong.

Do you dispute the accuracy of what he claimed?

You, and many others, obviously know very little about strategy
generation. You keep coming back to the question as to whether a
particular situation is right or wrong. Like I said before, all you
need to do to find ERRORs in Bob's beginner's strategy is to compare it
to his advanced strategies. Essentially, Bob is claiming Linda's
strategy has errors by comparing them to a MORE detailed strategy. This
is a bit dishonest.

THE ONLY WAY TO COMPARE STRATEGIES IS TO DETERMINE THE PAYBACK ... MAKE
AN OBJECTIVE CALL AS TO THE USABILITY AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

Bob refuses to state a payback for Linda's strategies because he isn't
smart enough to figure out how to do it. Of course, that did not stop
him from attacking Linda's strategies in the first place. Until he
steps up to the plate and answers these critisms he is only fooling
himself that he won't get caught in his obvious an attempt to discredit
Linda and make himself look good.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "King Fish" <vpkingfish@...> wrote:

#3

THE ONLY WAY TO COMPARE STRATEGIES IS TO DETERMINE THE PAYBACK ... MAKE
AN OBJECTIVE CALL AS TO THE USABILITY AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

Thanks for the caps lock. It really helps reinforce your point.

But if everyone decides for themself, it's subjective, not objective.

Using your criterion, I could create a strategy of one line ("HOLD
NOTHING") and its ease of use might trump its loss of EV for someone.

Bob refuses to state a payback for Linda's strategies because he isn't
smart enough to figure out how to do it.

Can Linda? I've not seen her book - perhaps she does there.

···

On 6/21/07, mroejacks <rgmustain@aol.com> wrote:

#4

> THE ONLY WAY TO COMPARE STRATEGIES IS TO DETERMINE THE

PAYBACK ... MAKE

> AN OBJECTIVE CALL AS TO THE USABILITY AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

Thanks for the caps lock. It really helps reinforce your point.

That was the idea.

But if everyone decides for themself, it's subjective, not

objective.

Now you're catching on. Except for ONE perfect strategy everything
else is a simplification. That does not mean there can't be errors
but quite often it's subjective just as you stated.

Using your criterion, I could create a strategy of one line ("HOLD
NOTHING") and its ease of use might trump its loss of EV for

someone.

That would be one possible strategy. The payback can be computed and
people can make a decision as to whether that is acceptable for the
increased simplicity. I don't think anyone would choose that strategy
but it is possible to come up with ones that are quite simple and
much better than the average player plays. The big problem with Bob's
approach is that he is claiming HIS way (simplifications) is the ONLY
way and that is simply not true.

> Bob refuses to state a payback for Linda's strategies because he

isn't

> smart enough to figure out how to do it.

Can Linda? I've not seen her book - perhaps she does there.

Linda is not the one making the claims that her strategy is wrong
without providing any information to back up that claim.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "King Fish" <vpkingfish@...> wrote:

On 6/21/07, mroejacks <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#5

Bob's way (maxER strategy) is the ONLY way if you're trying to
maximize ER. Of course, those in the know, know that Kelly optimal
strategy is actually the best:

http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_S.htm#KO

Kelly was a WWII navy pilot and Bell Labs scientist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Larry_Kelly%2C_Jr

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

The big problem with Bob's
approach is that he is claiming HIS way (simplifications) is the ONLY
way and that is simply not true.

#6

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

> The big problem with Bob's
> approach is that he is claiming HIS way (simplifications) is the

ONLY

> way and that is simply not true.

Bob's way (maxER strategy) is the ONLY way if you're trying to
maximize ER.

Even that is debateable. The more complex the strategy the higher the
liklihood that confusion will lead to mistakes. There is really no way
to quantify this problem without a large random study group with
separate strategy cards given to each group and all misplays (from an
absolute perfect maxER strategy) recorded. I don't think that's going
to happen anytime soon :wink:

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@> wrote: