Poll
No votes (0%) | |||
2 votes (100%) |
2 members have voted
December 20th, 2011 at 2:39:34 PM
permalink
I am seeking video poker players' opinion on the presentation of video poker strategies.
Everyone is familiar with the "classic" format: a single list, identifying the position of each play.
I have come up with an alternative format that I find useful, but I don't know if anyone else would.
The theory is this: every play you make falls under one of the following three categories:
The way to use it is this: if you are checking two plays that fall under the same category (such as 3 to a Royal Flush versus 4 to a Flush) then you make the play listed higher in that column. If you are checking two plays of different types, such as 3 to a Straight Flush versus 4 to a Straight, then you find both in their appropriate columns and make the player that is closer to the top. Note that holding 0 or 1 card(s) is considered as falling under all 3 categories.
My opinion is that it's easier to find the plays you're looking for when the list is broken down into these 3 categories, as opposed to finding it on a single list that contains all types of plays. For example, when figuring out whether to hold a pair of 10's or to hold unsuited KQJT.
So, video poker players, please vote and/or comment on this format if you can. Thanks!
Everyone is familiar with the "classic" format: a single list, identifying the position of each play.
I have come up with an alternative format that I find useful, but I don't know if anyone else would.
The theory is this: every play you make falls under one of the following three categories:
- Pairs & Kinds (one pair, two pair, three of a kind, full house, four of a kind, five of a kind [if applicable])
- Straights (unsuited cards within 4 ranks of each other)
- Suited Cards (partial or complete flushes, straight flushes, and royal flushes)
Pairs & Kinds | Straights | Suited Cards |
---|---|---|
Four of a Kind | Royal Flush | |
Full House | Straight Flush | |
Three of a Kind | 4 to a Royal Flush | |
Two Pair | Straight | Flush |
4 to a Straight Flush | ||
One Pair (JJ-AA) | ||
3 to a Royal Flush | ||
4 to a Flush | ||
TJQK | ||
One Pair (22-TT) | ||
89TJ, 9TJQ | ||
9TJ, 9TQ | ||
2345-789T | ||
8xJ, 8JQ, 9TQ, 9JK, 9QK | ||
345, 456, 567, 678, 89T | ||
JQ | ||
JQKA | ||
JK, QK | ||
JA, QA, KA | ||
AxxT, KQJ9 | ||
A23, Ax4, Ax5, 7xJ, 8xQ, 9TK | ||
JQK | ||
234, 2x5, 3x6, 4x7, 5x8, 6x9, 7xT | ||
JQ | ||
TJ | ||
JK, QK | ||
JA, QA, KA | ||
KT, QT | ||
J, Q, K, or A | ||
2x6, 3x7, 4x8, 5x9, 6xT | ||
Discard Everything |
The way to use it is this: if you are checking two plays that fall under the same category (such as 3 to a Royal Flush versus 4 to a Flush) then you make the play listed higher in that column. If you are checking two plays of different types, such as 3 to a Straight Flush versus 4 to a Straight, then you find both in their appropriate columns and make the player that is closer to the top. Note that holding 0 or 1 card(s) is considered as falling under all 3 categories.
My opinion is that it's easier to find the plays you're looking for when the list is broken down into these 3 categories, as opposed to finding it on a single list that contains all types of plays. For example, when figuring out whether to hold a pair of 10's or to hold unsuited KQJT.
So, video poker players, please vote and/or comment on this format if you can. Thanks!
December 20th, 2011 at 6:00:45 PM
permalink
I like the idea of visually breaking the plays by category, but the table format seems too sparse for my taste, wasting a lot of space.
How about a compromise - put everything back into a single list, but color each line one of three (four? - one more for the bottom two lines) colors according to its category?
How about a compromise - put everything back into a single list, but color each line one of three (four? - one more for the bottom two lines) colors according to its category?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
December 20th, 2011 at 6:16:00 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanI like the idea of visually breaking the plays by category, but the table format seems too sparse for my taste, wasting a lot of space.
How about a compromise - put everything back into a single list, but color each line one of three (four? - one more for the bottom two lines) colors according to its category?
I hear what you are saying about the blank space, but it's necessary for this particular format; if it weren't there, the strategy wouldn't be accurate. Also, since there are rows with multiple plays, it actually uses fewer lines/rows than the classic format, even though it may not appear to.
The Wizard also said he preferred a colored list to this format, when I asked him about it a couple of years ago. The colored list is the presentation format that VPSM uses too.