RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 18 NOV 2014

 

Rich asked: Isn't this alternative strategy discussion worth a column or two? Excuse
me if it is in the archives already. I promise not to complain if i
don't like the column.

Thanx for the suggestion, but I'll pass. Before I write about something, I need to know more about it than I do about this subject.

Right now I don't know enough know whether "this is great---go for it" or "this is a load of B.S. Avoid it at all costs" is the right thing for me to recommend. All I can say is I personally use the maxEV strategy for everything except tournaments, and there I usually use some sort of "maxRoyal + Max aces" strategy. Is that the best thing for me to be doing? I'm not positive, but obviously I'm putting my money where my mouth is and doing what I preach.

I really have no more to add. Maybe someday I'll understand them better and be able to explain well why I do or don't use them. And who should or should not use them.

Bob

.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@hotmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (18)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 18 NOV 2014

 


Bob, I'll intercede for NOTI and note that you've misread his reply ...

In short, he would never suggest it was worth giving up 0.4% ER on an alternate strategy.

He indicated that using min-loss strategy, you would expect to be AHEAD 50 cents per hand vs playing max-EV strategy.

The offset to this is you lengthen the RF cycle, with some offsetting ER cost. The net of these two impacts is typically a thin shave to overall ER, in exchange for the bankroll preservation benefit.

I don't knpw the specifics offhand, but expect the net ER cost on the 5000 hand session you suggest is more in the magnitude of $250-$500, not $2500 ... with the benefit of an expectation of coming away with $2500 more on any non-RF hit session.

Since I believe you are well bankrolled for $25 play, and engage in it with not insignificant frequency, I don't think the strategy is advisable for you.

But the gist of the strategy does have its attractions.

- H.


---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <bobdancervp@...> wrote :

50 cents a hand times 5000 hands means I would give up $2,500 playing the min Royal strategy. I agree it's a matter of opinion --- but to me that's clearly significant. Voluntarily giving up 0.4% on a play that is possibly worth less than that is against my religion. The play itself was worth 100.15% or thereabouts --- plus one-time-only matching offer of seed money plus an unknown amount (when I was making the play) of comps and mailers.

For it to make sense I would have to believe that using the strategy would improve my mailers in the future by more than $2,500. I'm nowhere close to believing that. Whether or not it "would have been true" is unknowable.

bob




[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 (17)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 18 NOV 2014

 

Isn't this alternative strategy discussion worth a column or two? Excuse me if it is in the archives already. I promise not to complain if i don't like the column.




Rich






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: cdgnpc@aol.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (16)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] SLS $100 Rebate

 



In Oct then would not let you do the rebate unless you were a local or if you were staying there, then they would look at your play record.
We questioned then on two different days and got same answer


-----Original Message-----
From: georgew@cogeco.ca [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 11:51 am
Subject: [vpFREE] SLS $100 Rebate

Can anyone confirm this is still active? Last read it was to expire end of Oct.
Thanks!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: Sharon Serres <RSe4149104@aol.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 18 NOV 2014

 



50 cents a hand times 5000 hands means I would give up $2,500 playing the min Royal strategy. I agree it's a matter of opinion --- but to me that's clearly significant. Voluntarily giving up 0.4% on a play that is possibly worth less than that is against my religion. The play itself was worth 100.15% or thereabouts --- plus one-time-only matching offer of seed money plus an unknown amount (when I was making the play) of comps and mailers.

For it to make sense I would have to believe that using the strategy would improve my mailers in the future by more than $2,500. I'm nowhere close to believing that. Whether or not it "would have been true" is unknowable.

bob



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@hotmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (15)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: No Kickers Vegas Trip Report - Oct 2014

 

Day 5 we checked into 3 hotels including Delano, which is pretty nice, very
different. It's split into 5 parts, busy day!
http://tinyurl.com/kk77qbv
http://tinyurl.com/lqwc6ru
http://tinyurl.com/lgv7wd2
http://tinyurl.com/lgo5zbr
http://tinyurl.com/lszwa67

If you want, you can view the first page and use the Next button to go
through.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: Royal Flusher <royalflusher@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (5)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 18 NOV 2014

 

AP wrote: "For a recreational player it is hard enough to master one strategy, to try and add a second one is inviting mistakes ..."

Would you use or recommend maxEV strategy for a video poker tournament? If so you are likely at a significant disadvantage as maxRoyal strategy is almost always the correct strategy in that situation (play each hand to maximize chance of hitting a royal).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (14)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 18 NOV 2014

 


I understand exactly where you're coming from NOTI. Alternative, risk-preserving strategies seem apropos for any atypical play that represent disproportionate bankroll risk.

But simply because a single play may represent a very limited opportunity is no reason, alone, to employ alternate strategy. If a play has similar (even if not identical) risk/reward characteristics in common with plays you're likely to engage with meaningful frequency down the road, then there's no need to consider the risk of the play in isolation and it's much more likely that maxEV is appropriate strategy (with N0 hands of play being a reasonable hurdle).

My impression of Bob's SLS play is that this latter description is a fairer take on it.



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote :

I think I would say that it is a judgment call, how desperately do you want that royal? If you're playing for a long time (at least over N0) then maxEV is the appropriate amount of royal chasing aggression for optimal net EV. But what about one hand? One $125 hand of 10-6 DDB with maxEV and ignoring the royal yields an average return of 0.98 x $125 = $122.50 . One $125 hand of 10-6 DDB with minRoyal strategy and ignoring the royal yields an average return of 0.984 x $125 = $123.00 . 50 cents more average return per hand for minRoyal strategy (if you ignore the royal). Is that significant? That's your call. How desperately do you want that royal?

[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 (13)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 18 NOV 2014

 

I think I would say that it is a judgment call, how desperately do you want that royal? If you're playing for a long time (at least over N0) then maxEV is the appropriate amount of royal chasing aggression for optimal net EV. But what about one hand? One $125 hand of 10-6 DDB with maxEV and ignoring the royal yields an average return of 0.98 x $125 = $122.50 . One $125 hand of 10-6 DDB with minRoyal strategy and ignoring the royal yields an average return of 0.984 x $125 = $123.00 . 50 cents more average return per hand for minRoyal strategy (if you ignore the royal). Is that significant? That's your call. How desperately do you want that royal?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (12)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 18 NOV 2014

 

I read this blog for information. Some of it is good and some of it is not.  Some people like Jean Scott. Bob Dancer, and coach V post a lot and keep the site alive.  If I open a post I am not interested I delete it, but most of what these people post I read. This site has been active for years and the above mentioned have been long term posters. I have met all three. Cant those complaining about off topic posts just use the delete button rather that griping about some of our most interesting posters 
Cheers,
Henry

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: hkhenry <hkhenry@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (21)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 18 NOV 2014

love Jean!!!!

From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:13:33 -0800
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 18 NOV 2014


























Make that three. I, too, am a lurker.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
vpFREE-digest@yahoogroups.com
vpFREE-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

Re: [vpFREE] Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 18 NOV 2014

 

Make that three. I, too, am a lurker.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: justmare111@aol.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (19)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Jean Scott

 

With all the Jean Scott talk going on I wanted to chime in and give her a plug. I've been on this video poker train since before Skip Hughes and John Kelly created their web sites, much less the rise and fall of Video Poker Player magazine. Skip, we miss you.

For pretty much all that time Jean has been involved in forums like this of various sorts. I've met her a few times and had dinner with her and Brad when some groups have met up. Don't know her personally really, but what I will say is that in all that time she has been one of the nicest and most willing to help people in Video Poker. The idea that she is somehow exploiting people by getting information from them then profiting from it in some sinister way doesn't ring true to me at all.

I ended up with her phone number after an event at the Venetian where we were coordinating some stuff and on a later Vegas trip to the LVH to play All American I forgot my strategy card. Not knowing where else to turn I called Jean and she was nice enough to let a (mostly) stranger come over and printed me off an AA strategy card (and no she didn't charge me).

Now has she profited from her work as well as Bob, Skip, John and others? Sure. Has their work likely hurt pay tables and comps? Sure. But if it wasn't them it would have been someone else. What I know for sure is that I have definitely profited greatly from their works and am grateful for them shining a light on the path.

Makes me nostalgic for the 4-play quarter FPDW Lucky Draw machines at Sam's Town. Those were the days...
***************************************************************************
The information contained in this communication is confidential, is
intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally
privileged.

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this communication in error, please resend this
communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy
of it from your computer system.

Thank You.
****************************************************************************

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: Nash David - dnash <David.Nash@acxiom.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (4)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 18 NOV 2014

 




I expect NOTI will have a bone to pick with you, AP, where it comes to that "significantly different" comment ... but re recreational players, we're in complete agreement.

---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <ehpee@...> wrote :

For a recreational player it is hard enough to master one strategy, to try and add a second one is inviting mistakes especially if it is for the same game. Again speaking about recreational players, I doubt that results would be significantly different in the long run. A.P.




[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 (11)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Just posted to FREEvpFREE

 

Jotting a comment that I just responded to comments re Coach & Hedy's book that surprised me in being routed to FvpF.

I understand the restriction on self-promotion, but these were 3rd party comments on a book with a gambling-related theme.

The moderators are entitled to final say, but wasn't this action heavy handed in the case of this single post?



[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 (1)

.

__,_._,___
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)