Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 79

Thread: VP Strategy

  1. #1
    hey guys

    Since reading more this week about Rob's strategy and the knowledge that you veteran players have shared over the forum, I feel like I have kinda lost some of the direction strategy wise that I had before.
    I used to think that if I studied perfect play using the Wizard of Odds strategy and VP for Winners software, that this was the correct way to play. Math doesn't lie right, but I am also aware that the calculations are done over 10's of millions of hands.
    Therefore, I am perplexed as to which strategy I should use.

    Do I forget the "long term" approach, and try to hit some winners in a hit and run approach. or do i trust in the math and try to play as perfectly as possible, hoping that the small regular wins will get me through enough hands to hit a royal?

    I am curious of your thoughts, you've all been playing far longer than I have so I value your opinions.
    thanks everyone
    Last edited by rymetymeuk; 08-29-2014 at 08:54 AM. Reason: corrected my misspelling.

  2. #2
    I follow perfect strategy. But in another thread I gave an exception in a particular case only at the 25-cent level.

    However, with that said -- I've seen players hit big by violating perfect strategy. The best example I witnessed was a player who was dealt a king high straight flush, dropped the 9, drew the ace for a royal. This was double double bonus and not deuces wild.

  3. #3
    That's how I got the $1000 royal. should have held pair of tens and instead held two to a royal and hit it.

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by rymetymeuk View Post
    That's how I got the $1000 royal. should have held pair of tens and instead held two to a royal and hit it.
    Don't let the math guys see this. My ex was notorious for playing Bonus poker and if dealt AK, AQ, AJ unsuited -- she would only hold the Ace. You wouldn't believe how many royals she hit this way. At MGM years ago she hit two $8,000 royals the same night holding only the ace and dropping the unsuited high card. When you get lucky, you get lucky.

  5. #5
    that's funny, wow lucky lady!

    I asked this question as I am going to Winstar this monday, I have $200 and $100 free play so i'll see what I can make out of it. I know, small bankroll, but I'm keeping my money for Vegas end of October.

    I'll see how it goes with a mixture of perfect strategy and some out there holds.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by rymetymeuk View Post
    I'll see how it goes with a mixture of perfect strategy and some out there holds.
    I would stick to perfect, correct strategy. You have a limited bankroll and I think you'll have more fun and your time at the machines will last longer if you make the correct holds rather than going for the big wins.

    And you can also hit big with perfect strategy too. All 8 of my royals this year came from perfect, correct strategy.

  7. #7
    Ok, good advice. Thanks Alan

  8. #8
    You should also keep in mind that most of Singer's special plays actually reduce the likelihood of hitting big quads. More often than not they eat away credits that might eventually lead to the big winner.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    You should also keep in mind that most of Singer's special plays actually reduce the likelihood of hitting big quads. More often than not they eat away credits that might eventually lead to the big winner.
    I think you should restate this: The special plays increase the likelihood of hitting quads, but because you might be giving up credits to follow the special plays you run the risk of not hitting the quads and losing credits that could keep you playing. I think that's a better way to explain it.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I think you should restate this: The special plays increase the likelihood of hitting quads, but because you might be giving up credits to follow the special plays you run the risk of not hitting the quads and losing credits that could keep you playing. I think that's a better way to explain it.
    Nope, I said it right the first time. You often reduce the chances of hitting a big quad by using a special play.

    This can be seen in the cases where you throw away two pair to go for a quad. The chances of hitting the quad are only 1 in 360. The chances of getting a quad on any hand are about 1 in 425. So, if you gain enough credits for 1.2 more hands by holding two pair you give yourself a better chance of getting the quad.

  11. #11
    Arc, if you hold two pair, you will never hit a quad. If you hold a full house you will never hit a quad. So holding any pair, or holding 3 of a kind, increases your chance of hitting a quad. Period.

    Yes, you might be at the machine for a shorter session by giving up the payoffs on two pair and on full houses -- and that's the risk you take. But Singer's special plays increase the chance of hitting quads on any given hand.

    I agree if you say by getting credits for 1.2 more hands by holding two pair you give yourself a better chance of getting more big winners, but you cannot say "if you gain enough credits for 1.2 more hands by holding two pair you give yourself a better chance of getting the quad." You will never get a quad holding two pair.

    So, to summarize again: the more credits you have to keep playing, the more chances you have to hit quads and also a royal and other big winners.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Arc, if you hold two pair, you will never hit a quad. If you hold a full house you will never hit a quad. So holding any pair, or holding 3 of a kind, increases your chance of hitting a quad. Period.
    Only if you limit your thinking to that hand. However, if you want to determine whether your chances are better or worse considering more than that one hand then you need to consider the affect that choice has on your future play. Think about one of your stop loss limits. If you gain two hands before hitting the stop loss by keeping two pair then you have a a 1 in 212 chance of hitting a quad. That is better than the one in 360 chance you had if you kept only one pair.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Yes, you might be at the machine for a shorter session by giving up the payoffs on two pair and on full houses -- and that's the risk you take. But Singer's special plays increase the chance of hitting quads on any given hand.
    Who cares. According to your own strategy (and Singer's) the only thing that matters is reaching your goal. Keeping the single pair reduces your chances.

  13. #13
    Thanks for the reply Arc but remember I don't play Singer's way. I just want an accurate description of what he says.

  14. #14
    arci is right.

    This is also why paytables are so important, as you are robbing yourself of extra "free hands" by playing inferior pay tables. Those free hands might be the ones that hit a big score for you.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Thanks for the reply Arc but remember I don't play Singer's way. I just want an accurate description of what he says.
    The accurate description would be according to win goals and where you are in the strategy as to when you use the special plays. I was losing about 80 credits on ddbp whenever I held ONLY the suited Q J of 4 toa straight and hit 4 Q's.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    The accurate description would be according to win goals and where you are in the strategy as to when you use the special plays. I was losing about 80 credits on ddbp whenever I held ONLY the suited Q J of 4 toa straight and hit 4 Q's.
    Unless you can demonstrate you get a higher frequency of these hits at these decision points you are simply spewing nonsense. I'd bet you've tried special plays numerous times without hitting. Why don't you mention them? At any one of the times you didn't hit you may have cost yourself a big hit on the credits you lost.

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Thanks for the reply Arc but remember I don't play Singer's way. I just want an accurate description of what he says.
    While you may not play the same strategy, both you and Singer play toward session goals. That means a single hand is meaningless.

  18. #18
    This is entertaining watching arci suddenly come out of Purgatory to attempt to explain something he has no clue on....again. I'll explain:

    The entire point behind special plays is to give a better opportunity to hit a session-ending hand. So yes, it IS all about one hand and has nothing to do with analyzing anything over the silly long run. And notice how he never enters "what happens when one hits" territory, because he does not want that to ever happen. My $100k winner @ Wynn was the result of a special play. I held a lone off suit Ace when there was also a JQ off suit. So I wonder....seeing that I stopped playing to the $25 limit after my run of big hits, exactly how "long" will it be before I end up "losing money" because of these "foolish" special plays?

    I've argued with these supposed geniuses about this for years, and they can never answer the question of even want a part of it, and instead, always change the subject and deflect. Expect more of that here. And Dan, please try to keep up. Who's talking about pay tables? I've even given you valuable advice to dump that dumb JoB game you're infatuated with, and go over to Wynn to play the 9/7 TDBP game I mugged. Not only will you get better overall comps--which seems to be the end-all for you--you'll be "losing" less money/hour because of the higher percentage!

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    This is entertaining watching arci suddenly come out of Purgatory to attempt to explain something he has no clue on....again. I'll explain: The entire point behind special plays is to give a better opportunity to hit a session-ending hand.
    As usual Singer makes absolutely no sense. He admits the point is ending a "session" and then tries to claim only one particular hand is important. By definition a session is many hands. And, by definition wining a session implies a reaching a goal. If you have a better chance of winning the session by not going for broke on a particular hand then that is obviously the best approach to reaching a goal. At least to anyone who understands simple math.

    Hilarious nonsense from a con man trying to explain away the obvious problems with his silly strategy.

    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I've argued with these supposed geniuses about this for years, and they can never answer the question of even want a part of it, and instead, always change the subject and deflect.
    Pure projection. I just demonstrated your claims are nothing but idiotic BS.

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    My $100k winner @ Wynn was the result of a special play. I held a lone off suit Ace when there was also a JQ off suit.



    Then how do you explain the TWO held aces in the picture you posted:



    http://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/showth...ll=1#post19220

    Please get your lies straight, Rob.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •