Poker Poker Poker!: [vpFREE] Re: Basic Fundamentals

futrend wrote:
> I am far from an expert on video poker. However, at times
> I am asked questions and/or try to explain some basic questions
> about VP to someone who knows even less than I do.
>
> My first question is how do you explain why you follow a
> specific play strategy? If the expected return is the theoretical
> return you can expect from a game if you play it correctly for
> the long term, why do you use this same strategy in the short
> term? In other words, once you discuss how long the long term
> might be, how do you rationalize why you also play the same
> strategy in the short term? Is it accurate to give the answer
> that even thought many people might only play a game for the
> short term, the perfect long term strategy play is still the
> best guess for the short term? and this is the reason you do
> not deviate from the perfect long term play strategy in the
> short term.

You have some strong replies to this already. I'll put my thoughts on
this down in my own words; the concepts echo what have been expressed
by others here.

For any dealt 5 card hand, there are 32 ways to play it ... involving
discarding all 5 cards, holding all 5, and everything in between.
Each alternate selection has a known probability of yielding one or
more paying hands. When the value of those payouts are weighted by
the probability of receiving them, you can establish an average
expected payout from going with a given hold.

A player who has a goal of minimizing the average loss they can expect
on their play (or maximizing their win, when playing with an advantage
over the house) will always go with the hold with the strongest payout
expectation (EV).

Some players may, however, hold other goals. For example, they may
wish the added excitement at going for royal hands (and other
jackpots). They may wish to go for 4 of a kinds (and similar high
paying hands) more frequently, reasoning that if they should enjoy a
little better than normal success in doing so, they have much stronger
prospects of leaving a session a winner.

There's nothing to criticize in these alternate choices -- provided
the player understands that the expectation is that they will incur a
greater loss on average than were they to opt for the best EV hand.
Such choices, in having a specific focus on the results for the
immediate session (as opposed to how results can be expected to
average out in the "longer run") can be deemed to be "short run"
strategy decisions.

However, players who deviate from "max EV" play often do so without
having a firm grasp of the implicit costs involved. The same is
sometimes true of players who choose to play something other than the
strongest games/paytables available to them.

> I am looking for the best simple statement as to why each
> hand dealt has only one hold for the short term also. I
> understand that some hands can have equal expected long term
> expectation. If so, a related question would be how do you
> explain and discrimination between two hands of equal expected
> long term results?

As Dick stresses, you will do your friends a favor be downplaying the
"short term"/"long term" distinction. It's largely an artificial one
that's invoked to convey that results do behave differently over the
longer stretch vs. the next few sessions -- among other things,
playing a fairly strong (positive) game you still expect to come out
of any session or weekend with a loss, yet over the longer term expect
to come away profitable.

"EV" isn't about length of expectation. The idea of "short term"
tends to be driven by considerations such as, "if I improve my chances
for a royal in a session, then I improve the odds that I'll be a
winner for the session". (Which can often be true.)

I'll hold this somewhat analogous (with great exaggeration) to, "if I
run the next 10 stop signs, I'll get to my destination faster". The
point is that just because there's a stated advantage doesn't mean
that it's advisable to follow a given course of action -- it's a
matter of weighing trade offs. Most importantly, improving the odds
for a win within a given session does not improve your odds of a win
over a large number of sessions ... ultimately just the opposite (and
that "large number" likely represents something considerably short of
100, in most examples).

------

The two-hand/equal expectation question has a fairly trivial response:
if you wish, flip a coin. If two choices have the same EV, then for
the practical purposes of a recreational play, either hand is an
equally strong hold. In a game such a FPDW, where you always hold
just one pair of two dealt, some players simply choose to hold the
higher pair (or lower, or just go with gut "feel").

> Again, I am hoping for the best simple explanation that a
> beginner might understand, or at least, might logically accept.

Hopefully the discussion above is simple ... but it is a little
extensive. One liners on this subject are unlikely to yield true
comprehension, much less be persuasive.

This said, in my experience in the casino (where I'm reasonably social
with other players), I can think of only one encounter where I've been
inclined to delve into the basic concepts.

Players have to come to the table pretty intellectually hungry to have
any desire to absorb even these basics. Sometimes they may be
curious, but they tend not to be really interested in hearing anything
that might run contrary to how they currently choose to play.

I refer players to groups such as this when the subject of play
strategy arises and they seem to have an earnest interest. But a
discussion in the casino on topics of this nature generally aren't
rewarding unless the player has already drunk "the kool-aid".

- Harry

- Harry