From: haskd89052
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: 9-6 JOB QQ
Nudge, I think you are misreading the Wizard's line 13. He does say hold one pair with a kicker but as the examples show, he means along with the pair, hold two cards which together could result in a QQ. The term kicker as he is using it is a little misleading, since we usually think of it as being one card. The hands where a single card kicker is held are covered in line 22.
Hask
----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Hask. As I studied and compared the two authors versions of the strategies, I came to the same conclusion. However, just to be clear here, I did not misread anything. In Rocky Mount, where I come from, what Mr. Shackelford typed on his site is just plain wrong, not misleading. If I read a sentence in a book that clearly states " The dog is brown " and you ask me what I have just read and I tell you that the line that I read stated that " The dog is
black ", then I have misread the line. That is not the case. Among other differences that I spotted, the Dancer/Richards report says an Ace is more valuable than an unsuited JK, and the Wizard says exactly the opposite. In their updated version of the game available here:
http://www.videopoker.com/insideScoop/strategy/docs/qq/9-6%20Jacks%20or%20Better%20QQ%20Strategy.pdf ,
the Dancer/Richards method shows TA suited as a viable hold and the Wizard's chart does not. If what the Wizard meant to say on line 13 was, hold two kickers, then that is what he should have said. One also has to be able to decipher the difference in meaning between a forward slash and a comma when used in separating cards. Plus, as time went by and most players referred to this type of hand as quick trips, his website could have been proofread and corrected then, and the term quick trips added for clarity. I would think that all of our members here would have hope that our appointed "gurus" should at least agree on a strategy for a specific game. On websites that they represent, these strategies are available for free, but lets face it, they are all trying to sell you product on the sites. This is how they make money. In the past, when I see a topic that I think I may have experience and or expertise in, I have recommended changes to an existing strategy in order to play a different game. I have commented on why strategies for similar games are different. I have made extensive posts on strike numbers for a number of different progressive games. Since I have no desire to make money for sharing what I think may be valuable information to some, I am not that concerned if I make an error here and there. I can safely drag up the old adage, you get what you pay for. Please don't misinterpret what I just stated, as I have nothing against anyone making money from internet commerce, and I can say that I consider Bob Dancer as a friend, but I think that anyone in the gaming business, even when they offer something for free, should be a little more adept at a task than they seemed to be in this one. Bottom line, at least for me, I'm going back to my original decision from a couple years back of avoiding the quick quad games. Until software exists that can be used to check and verify as we do on most other games, the marginal gains that are offered on the QQ games just don't seem to be worth the extra volatility that comes with that extra coin bonus purchase. Just my two cents—err aah, ok 25 cents.
Nudge
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
