--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@...> wrote:
>
>
> Harry wrote: I'm surprised that in Bob's discussion of the "power of the pack", that the relationship to possible straights (incl SF's, and in the case of the DW 5K vs 3W hold, WRF's) that might be formed on the draw didn't enter into the picture.
>
> Hmm . . . I thought I did (assuming it was your turn to mis-type when you spoke of straights including three deuces --- although I'm ahead because my mistake was bigger than your mistake!)My phrase of "(Even though it
> doesn’t change the play, the value of drawing to three deuces is quite a bit
> higher from W W W 3♥ 3♣ and W W W 6♥ 6♣). " was all about that very concept --- although by that time in the article I didn't think it was necessary to completely spell it out. While there will always be players whose eyes glaze over at this kind of article, I thought that anybody still following the discussion would be able to connect the dots by that point.Is this what you're talking about Harry or am I missing your point?Bob
Looking to keep things simple, what I'll observe is that I find "power of the pack" tends to obfuscate what exactly is involved in a shift to hold strategy. In most all instances, the basic principal is that when you discard at the extremes of the deck (say, 2's, 3's, K's, A's in a non-wild game) you leave a larger number of potential straights (and related hands) to be formed on the draw than is typically the case ... and, thus, the value of drawing 5 new cards (or, in a wild card game, holding only wilds) rises to a maximal value -- one that's sufficient in some cases to elevate the redraw over other holds that normally prevail in value.
And, yes, one can certainly arrive at that conclusion by "connecting the dots". I simply find it worthy of outright statement.
- H.
