I imagine kiwiboy/wayne is right (post appended below); a context of 1% ER cost seems more likely than erring on holds 1 out of 100 times, given the overall article focus. But, then, I'm not sure Bob kept straight what he meant.
He also remarks, "I retain in my memory 99% accurate strategies for perhaps 25 different video poker games".
Clearly this is a reference to % of hands played correctly ... not a suggestion that the strategies yield only 99% of optimal ER (I doubt Bob would commit the latter to memory ;)
Bottom line, the thrust of the article is on the money, but seems to fall short of Bob's normal execution (of all gambling writers, he's certainly the most precise and exact ... at least in my book)
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <waynes@...> wrote :
I am sure this is what Bob means by 99% accurate. Not that 99 out of 100 hands are right but that for every $100 in coin-in you make $1 worth of error.
Accuracy measured this way means you are giving up 1% of EV and thus it's costing you 1%. My goal when training is an error rate of 0.1% accuracy. If I can get to that level then I am good. I know Bob likes it closer to 0.0001% :)
As Dan points out good VP software will measuring accuracy this way (most do).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (6) |
