Originally Posted by
mickeycrimm
Don't recall ever referring to myself as an expert. I've made mistakes gillions of times doing gambling math. That's why I usually go over it 3 or four times. In this case I didn't do it. But I immediately admitted I made a mistake.
The 2nd one you referred to is not a mistake at all. I said NSUD was closer to Ugly Ducks and it is. The two strategies almost mirror each other. That's because the flush and full house pay the same with the straight flush being just one off.
But ditz was still running a big deficit. Ugly Ducks is under 99%. That's a big deficit. Jean Scott did not advise him to play that game.
BTW, using a Jacks or Better game like Double Bonus to try to calculate a Deuce game like Ugly Ducks is just downright funny. I kept my mouth shut about it. Didn't criticize. But since I'm being now being criticized by the person that did it, hey what the hell?
Don't be shy, mickey. If every one of the 40 hours I spent in a year was playing NSUD at the 25-cent level, exactly how big an annual deficit was I running at 500 hands an hour?
My Jed Clampett cypherin' puts it at roughly $300. Annually. Sadly, mickey crimm is on record as considering a $300 annual loss a "big deficit."
The result of that "loss" would be 12 to 24 comped rooms, a dozen meals, and cashback. And senior drawings and all that.
Mickey emphasizes the theoretical in every post. That's because he almost never reports his actual results. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Reply With Quote