pair or royal draw?

[Alan Mendelson]

Don't you also claim to follow Bob Dancer's strategies or something along those lines? Hmm......

I do but I'm going to make exceptions.

Let's do a reality check. How many times are you dealt a pair with three to the royal? I'm just not going to pass up my shot at the big win. It's the royal that will make my trip -- losing one hand won't kill me.

[rymetymeuk]

I did hold three to a royal once and get the royal. I dropped a pair of queens to get it. I actually didn't know it was a singer hold until I posted it here, and also told me lol

So from now, I go for it. why not. Dropping a pair to get a royal, makes sense to me.

[jbjb]

I'll hold the Pair. Those make dollars.

[Rob.Singer]

So no special play here, Rob, and you are playing conventional strategy.

But... when you are in a deep hole you will break up three queens when you have three cards to the royal, right? THAT is one of your special plays.

The answer to that question is always driven by what I need to attain my overall session and/or mini-win goals. In other words, there are times I won't use a special play if the deal/hold has a sure or high probability of the draw reaching a win goal.

[Rob.Singer]

There's that "theory" word again. There is no theory here. Just facts.

Every pay table is the basis for theory. Facts occur after the hand is over.

[Rob.Singer]

I'll hold the Pair. Those make dollars.

Sure....if you have small aspirations in life. For many such people, a push feels like a win.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'll hold the Pair. Those make dollars.

A pair is break even. When you hold a pair you hope for something better. So I hold three to the royal hoping for something much better.

[arcimede$]

Just to keep things in perspective I actually have kept track of how many times I have drew the two royal cards in the situation where there is a choice. Alan is right that it does not occur that often. So, far I have drew the royal cards only twice. Once I didn't hold the 3rf and the other time I did (it was correct strategy for 10/7 db). In my case the choice that occurs for OEJs is 3rf vs 3oak since a high pair does not pay anything (so you always go for the royal). Same would be true for deuces games.

It's really quite amazing I haven't seen the royal cards more often. This was especially true in OEJs where the draw cards were already determined.

[slingshot]

The answer to that question is always driven by what I need to attain my overall session and/or mini-win goals. In other words, there are times I won't use a special play if the deal/hold has a sure or high probability of the draw reaching a win goal.

A pair is break even. When you hold a pair you hope for something better. So I hold three to the royal hoping for something much better.

Am I correct-can't you STILL hit a flush, straight, 3 of a kind, two pair?

[jbjb]

Sure, but not the precious quads you all so desperately seek and chase.

If you want the increased variance, by all means go for the royal. While you're at it, dump the pair and only hold one or two to a royal also.

[Rob.Singer]

Sling, like jbjb said, certainly those other hands can and do appear on the draw. But his slightly sarcastic knock on the quads had to have been written out of frustration, and I can't think of any reason other than he doesn't really know the game that well.

The "precious quads" he's referring to has very little to do with the precious quads I refer to in my special plays. Earlier in this thread, I clearly said that a pr. of Aces is never usurped by a special play in the games I play, and neither are any high pairs in SDBP.

His and RS__'s occasional spurts of unintentional ignorance about these special plays tells me a lot, and no doubt others see that too.

[Alan Mendelson]

I just want to emphasize what Arc also said: there aren't many times when you get a high pair AND three to the royal. So in those FEW instances, I will gamble for the royal.

To answer jbjb: in both hands (pair with a possible quad draw, three cards to the royal) you need two exact cards. If I am going to draw for two exact cards I will take my chances on the royal.

To respond to sling: with the pair I will get my money back in most games (I won't in Royal Aces Bonus unless the one pair is aces and then I won't draw to the royal, and I won't in deuces wild) but with three to the royal I could still draw to another paying pair, or a straight or a flush, or even 3oak.

Again, this is such a rare occurrence.

[slingshot]

Sling, like jbjb said, certainly those other hands can and do appear on the draw. But his slightly sarcastic knock on the quads had to have been written out of frustration, and I can't think of any reason other than he doesn't really know the game that well.

The "precious quads" he's referring to has very little to do with the precious quads I refer to in my special plays. Earlier in this thread, I clearly said that a pr. of Aces is never usurped by a special play in the games I play, and neither are any high pairs in SDBP.
Q
His and RS__'s occasional spurts of unintentional ignorance about these special plays tells me a lot, and no doubt others see that too.

I got that. I let the remarks simply go because I only am interested in creative playing and such. I think the most creative I've read is when you held an unsuited 10 on a razgu hand and hit the Royal. After reading that, I slowed down and started looking more carefully at what I was dealt. I'm just now noticing that SDBP is being offered at the Horseshoe.

[jbjb]

In still waiting for you VP ploppies to quit your jobs and do this full time if you think you'll really beat the casinos playing this way. Of course you all make every lousy excuse known to man not to. It's because you know damn well it doesn't work and never will.

[Alan Mendelson]

In still waiting for you VP ploppies to quit your jobs and do this full time if you think you'll really beat the casinos playing this way. Of course you all make every lousy excuse known to man not to. It's because you know damn well it doesn't work and never will.

That's the point... we DO NOT do it full time. That's why we're going to take chances. If I were a full time gambler like you, jbjb, and I spent my "work day" in a casino, I wouldn't take chances. I don't take chances in my business. You gamble for a living, so you shouldn't take chances either. You should do everything exactly by the book, because you have only a slim edge over the casino. If you do it wrong you probably don't have a safety net. I own my business and I don't have a safety net for that either -- either I make all the right decisions or it comes out of my hide.

But when I go to a casino it's to take chances.

So... give me three cards to a royal with a paying pair (except when the pair is Aces) and I am going to try for the royal.

You can't risk losing a break even hand because that's your job.

[redietz]

What I'd like to know is whether the non-optimal video poker advocates would have anything to say to a blackjack player who consistently hit on 19? Would you leave his/her table, stay silent, comment?

Personally, I have no problem with people playing non-optimal video poker or playing parlay cards or hitting on 19. I'm not getting paid to give math lessons, so why say anything?

[Rob.Singer]

In still waiting for you VP ploppies to quit your jobs and do this full time if you think you'll really beat the casinos playing this way. Of course you all make every lousy excuse known to man not to. It's because you know damn well it doesn't work and never will.

You keep saying that but you've seen that's exactly what I've done for a 10-year period prior to retiring.

You also keep ignoring what Alan says about not wishing to do that because of his own personal reasons, and why others choose not to do it. Yet for some odd reason you keep making up that no one can do it because it's not understood by you.

Wise up and read better.

[Rob.Singer]

What I'd like to know is whether the non-optimal video poker advocates would have anything to say to a blackjack player who consistently hit on 19? Would you leave his/her table, stay silent, comment?

Personally, I have no problem with people playing non-optimal video poker or playing parlay cards or hitting on 19. I'm not getting paid to give math lessons, so why say anything?

Then why do you say something as stupid as hitting on 19? That has zero to do with trading off a single hand of vp's basically irrelevant amount of EV to go for what for many would be a session-ending winner.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz I just have to say that hitting a 19 has nothing to do with the VP question. It's a ridiculous analogy. You're really reaching to make a point. Try something else.

[quahaug]

Redietz I just have to say that hitting a 19 has nothing to do with the VP question. It's a ridiculous analogy. You're really reaching to make a point. Try something else.

How about hitting sixteen against a ten?