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

I am ALWAYS going to make the "correct" strategy play. ALWAYS.

VP strategies show that if you make Play A, you will average xx units, and if you make Play B, you will average xxx units every time that particular and specific play presents itself. The correct strategy is to always go for the higher "average" value. Correct strategy is to always go for the higher average pay, and knowledgeable players who employ correct strategy all the time, without exceptions, will generally do better than any other player who deviates from correct strategy. I say generally, because "averages" are long term.

And "Averages" or "Long Term" are something you have previously demonstrated you do not believe in. You refuse to grasp the concept of "advantage play" whenever someone admits to a losing session.

Of course, that approach never guarantees a winning session or smaller loss for a session, or more than one session. Nothing a player does guarantees that.

I always want the possibility to win at a higher average amount on any given play I make. I know that if I choose to "accept" a lesser payoff, I am, in effect, costing myself extra money in the long run. I choose to trust the law of averages, so will make the correct strategy play.

Use a VP software program with the tutorial "ON", and set a few hands. You will see the numbers for any specific hand you wish to "program".

thanks roadtrip. What you say makes perfect sense when you are trying to win the most money. But not necessarily play the most hands.

The example my friend gave me illustrates that. Playing only the jack gives you the better chance of winning, but not necessarily the better play to win more money.

He wants to play the most possible hands.

I dont know if there is a program in winpoker or anything else that would give us the "numbers." Thats what I'd like to see.

thanks for the responses.

When we play VP we play the correct strategy to hopefully win the most money. My friend is asking for something that is out of the ordinary.

No. There is nothing out of the ordinary. winning the most money (or losing the least) means playing the most hands through. It's all the same thing. It just matters when you quit. Bring lots of money, play lots of hands so your results approach the theoretical. Here we go again....

OK, I'll try only one more time. Playing JOB, with the hand QJsKA4, the ev play is QJs while the less volatile play is QJKA. For a single session one might justifiably argue that the miniscule gain in ev is not worth the increased volatility. However in the case of a hand like J9622 it costs you so much ev and similar hands come up so often that drawing to the lone face card could show dramatically poor results in my aforementioned 5 minutes.

To me it would seem obvious to play the correct strategy, maximize profits thereby playing longer and also solving the "increasing the tier" issue. I can't fathom how holding a jack versus a pair of deuces would allow you to play longer even though you would get your money back 33% of the time.....remember that your ONLY getting your money back whereas if you go with the pair and accept that you'll not succeed like 5% less.....but your getting more in winnings thereby enabling yourself to play longer. Some of these arguments must only be for lengthening this thread and allowing people to bet the under/over. Well good luck to your friend in any event.

I suggest that rather than relaying "answers" to your "friend", that you have your friend visit and join the LVA FFA.

He could ask questions, read the responses, and educate himself in a faster, more efficient manner.

I realize you are possibly his gambling guru, his hero in the casino trenches, but you are doing your "friend" a disservice by not having him "go direct" for the information you claim he seeks.

In the time he spends interacting with you, he could read the FFA, and even some FFA archives. He could check The Wizard's site. He could visit with Dancer and Singer. And he would benefit from information that could not be misconstrued by being passed on "word of mouth". No chance of omission, inadvertent editing, misquoting, etc.

Meanwhile, I'm still wondering why you have not explained your reasoning behind the statement:

I STILL don't get it. WHAT is the difference, and why is there a difference? PLEASE explain this. I really do want to understand your reasoning. It may even help with an answer.

You than go on to speculate what your friend is going to do.

Let me again point out that if you had your friend visit/join LVA FFA, than there would be no speculation. He would be able to answer particulars that may directly impact answers based on his parameters. Answers you apparently are unable to unwilling to provide.

Frankly, I not inclined to "research" or go into detail for someone who has consistently shown an affinity to not accept "the facts" as true and correct, who has demonstrated an inability and/or unwillingness to read and comprehend information, and who ignores additional inquiries by failing to reply, that may "help" in getting a better answer or more detailed information.

Sometimes, the semantics of the original message or reply need clarification. When ignored, whether deliberate or inadvertent, people become frustrated.

So I'll ask again:

What is his/her coin in goal?
What is he/she willing to lose? What is the initial player bankroll dedicated to this goal?
How long will he/she sit and play the machine?
Is his/her ONLY goal to achieve a high coin in, without any hope of possibly winning? (Knowing they will lose money no matter what)
What are the paytables? CHET is not know for having good pay tables. "Correct" strategy changes based on the pay table.

The answers will impact an appropriate "best" strategy for him/her.

Incomplete information gets incomplete answers.

Even more important, it is rarely "right" to play for comps. So why bother?

Well, yes, ordinarily. But could we (or one of our friends) not IMAGINE some super complex scenario under which making LOSING PLAYS allows us to play more hands? Possibly one of NASA's super-computers could be useful here?
Again with the

First things first. The threads started by money are not bad. In fact, I would say most of them are good questions. The problem has been (and we're seeing it again here) that money doesn't accept the answers provided. He has preconceived views that are usually in left field.

Now, we all need to understand that correct strategy for VP or any game is always based on our goals. In the general case the goal is to win money over the long term. However, that does not need to be the goal as evidenced by this question.

So, with that in mind, the answer is easy. Play slots. There was no mention of monetary concerns for losing that I could determine.

Now, if there is a concern for losing money then we still need to know the bounds since that is tied into the goal. There can be no strategy discussion without knowing the goal.

MrMarcus, you're spoiling it. Money posts a question he pretends he's serious about then Roadtrip and I post a reply based on our pretending that we think Money was serious the question. Either play by the rules or go home.

My friend is now reading the thread, and thanks you for the comments. He also understands correct strategy. He was asking me, and I was asking you, if correct strategy should be dropped for the purpose of gaining (in the example given) a better chance of a break even hand than risking a loss (holding the jack vs. holding the pair of deuces) and thereby getting more hands played and a higher tier score.

He was hoping that someone could actually run this through winpoker or other program and come up with an actual "number" for him. He originally called me asking if I could do it, and not only do I not have such a program, I'd be lost trying. Heck, I needed slapinfunk to set up my blackberry, my TV, my netflix and everything else.

When he saw some of the posts directed at me he said he did not want to enter this den. We both got a laugh out of it.

oobiedoobie, thanks for your contribution. We both appreciate your attempt at understanding the question.

Arc, you were my last hope. I thought you would be able to actually run a program. If JOB returns 99.5% with correct strategy, what would be the return going for the "safe hands" as in the example I started this thread with (similarly in Grochowski's book) and in the example given by oobiedoobie. And would he be able to get more hands played?

We were hoping for concrete numbers instead of the correct play mantra. Heck he knows the correct play mantra perfectly well. He was looking for the "exception." He understands and I understand that "bankroll" considerations would be needed for these calculations but he doesnt want to take the issue that far.

Rest assured guys -- no one has given him proof of an "exception" so he thanks you and I thank you.

edited to add additional info.