Harry wrote:
>What I find a bit perverse is that typically when there's discussion of minimizing bankroll risk for a game, what has been advocated by some is "min-cost-royal". For 9/6 JB, this actually involves playing a little more aggressively for the royal, eschewing all 4 card F's in preference for 3RF holds.
That sounds like at least approximately the strategy that would
minimize bankroll risk. There was a 10s or better progressive at
Harvey's that had a huge hold and huge meter movement. They were so
huge that it was basic strategy to keep 2 to a royal over a low pair
because we didn't play it until it was far over the breaking numbers
for those hands and since those breaking numbers were below the break
even for the game, doing so, besides adding to expected value, reduced
the cost of hitting the royal. One player, for the sake of minimizing
bankroll requirement, wanted to play "conservatively" and keep the
pair until I explained this to him. That he ended a royal drought of
several cycles by hitting a big jackpot on this kind of hand is a
nearly meaningless anecdote, but it's why I remember it.
Posted by: 007 <007@embarqmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (18) |
