It's Vegas Baby!!

[notes1]

'path to greatness'???, we talking about playing VP for entertainment, not finding a cure for cancer.

for those who suggest they simply want to 'understand' why one might play the way they do, or just offering 'constructive criticism', that is simply a ruse. they are attempting to demean another player and gain some sense of self importance.

this all started because some guy showed a picture of a big win, suggested his wife knows the correct math, but chose to play it differently. and, as has happened often, the math jerks immediately pounce. want to know why posters leave, it is because of that kind of reaction, from those who are just offering 'constructive criticism'.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=notes1]'path to greatness'???, we talking about playing VP for entertainment, not finding a cure for cancer.[/quote]There are those on this forum who strongly believe video poker success or failure is directly tied to monetary profit or loss.  There are others who play for relaxation and the monetary result is not paramount in their decision making process.  Everyone likes to hit jackpots, that's why we play.  If you invest years into reading, studying and practicing video poker like I have and intentionally make changes to perfect math strategy to meet your own goals, who is hurt by that?  Are the video poker Gods going to "smite" you?   There is a huge difference between playing outside the math because you don't know or understand and doing so because you desire a different result.The truth is not everyone plays VP for the same reason or objective and everyone should be happy.    If you're a professional, you better play with the math.  If you're not, I think it's perfectly fine to do what makes you happy as long as you understand the math behind it.  Taking this stuff personally is counterproductive.  It ruins your day and frankly you are not going to convince anyone, you're just going to raise your blood pressure for nothing.  It's only a game...  

[billryan]

That's fine. I still don't understand how you think your wife plays with amazing accuracy, except for when she chooses not to. I don't think you can play your often used "recreational " card to justify that.
As has been pointed out, you and your wife play far too much to be stuck in short term thinking mode.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=billryan]As has been pointed out, you and your wife play far too much to be stuck in short term thinking mode.
[/quote]Bill, that's the way we choose to play.  You'll have to find someone else to fight with today.  

[markinca]

   There is a huge difference between playing outside the math because you don't know or understand and doing so because you desire a different result.I think that statement encapsulates the 'math vs. recreational' argument that always seems to come up.  Is there a difference?  I don't believe there is.  I can't speak for all the math people in here, but I doubt they would see any difference either.If you have player A who knows the correct plays down cold but makes deviations X, Y, and Z, and you have player B who doesn't know any of the plays at all, but makes the exact same holds as player A, and they both enjoy themselves while playing, what is the difference between A and B?

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=markinca]If you have player A who knows the correct plays down cold but makes
deviations X, Y, and Z, and you have player B who doesn't know any of
the plays at all, but makes the exact same holds as player A, and they
both enjoy themselves while playing, what is the difference between A
and B?[/quote]One player does it out of ignorance and the other with intent to influence the game results to meet his/her personal desires which may be contrary to the math.My wife is a perfect example.  She wants to see more royals and wild royals than the mathematically correct strategy provides for.   She modifies her strategy to make that happen knowing full well that she loses 4 cents a hand each time she does it.  She gets what she wants and is a happy camper.  Where's the problem?

[Tedlark]

The math people will say that your wife WILL NOT see more natural and wild royals when deviating from correct strategy. Over time. Math has proven this to be true.

So Phil has stated in the past that his wife plays to as close to perfect strategy as any player but he doesn't see that by making such a statement he is showing that she DOES NOT because she is deviating from playing perfect strategy.

[markinca]

My wife is a perfect example.  She wants to see more royals and wild royals than the mathematically correct strategy provides for.   She modifies her strategy to make that happen knowing full well that she loses 4 cents a hand each time she does it.  She gets what she wants and is a happy camper.  Where's the problem?


As I've said before countless hundreds thousands of times, THERE IS NO PROBLEM.  But there is also literally no difference between your wife who knowingly loses 4c/hand and someone who doesn't know what the correct plays are and ignorantly loses 4c/hand.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=TedLark]The math people will say that your wife WILL NOT see more natural and
wild royals when deviating from correct strategy. Over time. Math has
proven this to be true.[/quote]I would like to see your math on this.  My wife keeps all ace high two card non deuce royal flush draws and she always gets more wild royals than I do.  I do not do this, I play according to the math.   When she has two cards to a royal and there are 4 deuces left in the pack plus the rest of the suited cards, she believes she has a better chance of hitting a royal or wild royal on the draw by keeping them rather than throwing them away.   I agree there is a 4 cent penalty because you are preventing other hands from coming up on the redraw including quad deuces.[quote=marcinca]But there is also literally no difference between your wife who
knowingly loses 4c/hand and someone who doesn't know what the correct
plays are and ignorantly loses 4c/hand.[/quote]I think there is, but we're discussing terms not results. I am assuming the ignorant player makes other errors that my wife does not make.

[OTABILL]

Playing by the math, I have missed 3 progressive royals in the 10 years I have played VP. My personal experience. In the long run this matters more than statistics, probabilities, etc. to me. Does this prove/disprove anything? You decide.