When your objective is to play for "score" or "ranking"

I don't get the constant stream of lame threads...

Be careful, Iamrice... remember that I single handedly "ruined" the LVA forum.

I still want to make a wager on the over/under for this thread. Someone please set the line.


As for the original message, there should be more information provided. Otherwise, you will only get generic answers.

Bankroll size and stop loss for one. Just how much money is "your friend" willing to lose to improve his tier score? And why?

Pay tables for the machines and denominations.

Just how many tier points does your friend want, and what is the rate of tier points for coin in.

How much time is going to be available to play, devoted to playing the machine chosen?

Well, if someone could please present the math about proper strategy (playing the deuces in the above example) vs holding the high card (jack) because it is more likely to produce a winning hand, as to which will provide a higher tier score, this discussion would be over for me.

For the rest of you, I can't answer.

Proper strategy is designed with the goal of making your bankroll last longer during a session (not necessarily because it is more likely to produce a winning hand on any one hand). The longer your bankroll lasts, the longer you can play. The longer you can play = more tier points earned. QED.

I'm not hostile -- it's just a silly question in a stream of silly questions. Or a "constant stream of lame threads," as described by Iamrice.

I don't think you ruined them, but your not helping.

For the record, there are plenty of "lame" threads here started by others that I dont participate in. but I would never be so obnoxious as to call them "lame." Different people have different interests.

I wouldn't call it lame.

I just reread Sue's post from above. She wrote: "Proper strategy is designed with the goal of making your bankroll last longer during a session (not necessarily because it is more likely to produce a winning hand on any one hand)."

So in discussing the replies with my friend, my friend referred to John Grochowski's book on Video Poker strategy. In his chapter on 9-6 Jacks or Better strategy, he has a hand similar to the one used in my friend's example. In Grochowski's example he has Jh 2c 2d 4c 7c and Grochowski writes:

"Hold just the Jack in this hand, and you'll draw a winner 33.8 percent of the time, while holding the pair of 2s will yield a winner only 28.7 percent of the time.... Hold the single Jack and you'll have more winning hands. But hold the pair of 2s, and you'll win more money." Of course pairing a Jack which is a break even play is also considered to be a winning hand in VP. (One of the ironies of advantaged play strategy.)

The flip side of winning more money is that 61.3% of the time you will lose. So Sue, please explain your statement: "Proper strategy is designed with the goal of making your bankroll last longer during a session (not necessarily because it is more likely to produce a winning hand on any one hand)."

Sorry if you find it to be a lame question. But I just don't understand what you wrote or meant. From what Grochowski writes it seems that he is sacrificing a better chance of "breaking even" for the chance to win more money.

It is a legitimate question. In the stated example I would draw to the J vs. the small pair only if I needed the money back to buy gas to get home. If you're playing 5 minutes or longer the ev factor of the pair should outweigh the volatility factor of the HC. There are much more borderline situations where the choice could be decided by the condition of your wallet e.g. in FPDW you're dealt 22299. The ev play is to draw to the deuces but I couldn't argue with anyone holding the 5OAK. As for your friend's run at the JOB machines, I wouldn't make any strategy changes, the few I might consider would be rare enough and confusing enough to not merit the effort.