vpFREE2 Forums

8 NOV 2005 Bob Dancer CasinoGaming Column

Deleted on vpFREE and Posted on FREEvpFREE

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Message # 51301

···

To: vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com
From: "jw776655" <jw776655@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:35 pm
Subject: Re: 8 NOV 2005 Bob Dancer CasinoGaming Column

In this article Bob Dancer claims that his study of penalty cards is
what has put him in the top 5% of vp players.

I would suggest - assuming that he is indeed in the top 5% - that
several situations which he describes in his autobiographical "Million
Dollar Video Poker" (I suggest reading a library copy as I did - there
is nothing in this to help your play or refer to in the future) are much
more likely to describes his claimed success.

A) The book describes numerous situations in which he would find a
backer for a vp opportunity. If the opportunity lost money, he would let
the original agreement stand. But if he discovered that the opportunity
was extremely profitable, he would renege on his deal with his backer
and insist on a more favorable deal.

Many people would treat this situation honorably and stick with the
original agreement. Someone who stands by his original agreement in a
losing situation, but reneges and insists on a more profitable payoff in
a big winning situation, is going to earn more than someone who sticks
with the original agreement in all cases.

B)The book describes different examples of "shot taking" which made
money for Dancer. "Shot taking" is a term used to describe
questionable/unethical practices in a gambling situation. One example of
this would be Dancer mentioning that he bribed slot attendants during
one promotion.

Many would feel uncomfortable for moral/ethical reasons in taking such
actions. A player who does take shots is going to make more money than a
player who doesn't.

C)He also describes taking shots at friends. The book mentions a casino
having a promotion due to start in the evening. A friend asks when the
Dancers will arrive to be sure to get a machine. Bob replies "We'll be
here at x PM". The friend says "See you then". The Dancers then show up
several hours ahead of when Bob said they would and sit down. So the
Dancers get to take advantage of the promotion, while their friends are
shut out - taking Bob at his word, they arrive at the time he said he'd
be arriving, and find that they are too late to get a machine.

Many would not be willing to lie in this manner. A player who is willing
to lie to friends to obtain an advantage will make more money than a
player who is not willing to do this.

One recent example of his penalty card play - in a recent thread on a
Riviera promotion - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/49584 -

Dancer gives two penalty card situations for the special 9/6 Jacks pay
table of 239 SFL instead of 250 SFL. One of the penalty card situations
he cites turns out to be incorrect. The other - taking "QJ" with no
straight interference over SF3 0h0i, yields an ev on a $1 machine of
3.1214, versus 3.1193 - an advantage of 21 hundredths of one cent. On a
$5 vp play, an advantage of 1.05 cents.

The three examples I've given above are a much bigger reason imo for
Dancer's claimed success, than is the fact that he's memorized dozens of
penalty card situations which will let him grind out an additional few
pennies per hour - and that's assuming that the time wasted evaluating
the penalty card hands will not cost him money overall, a factor pointed
out by Paymar in his excellent book.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator
<vp_free@y...> wrote:

Deleted on vpFREE and Posted on FREEvpFREE

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Message # 51301
To: vpFREE@Y...
Date: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:35 pm
Subject: Re: 8 NOV 2005 Bob Dancer CasinoGaming Column

In this article Bob Dancer claims that his study of penalty cards

is what has put him in the top 5% of vp players. I would suggest -
assuming that he is indeed in the top 5% - that several situations
which he describes in his autobiographical "Million Dollar Video
Poker" (I suggest reading a library copy as I did)>>>

Actually I read the dusty copy at Borders, I finished it in 20 min.,
sure glad I didn't buy it. BTW, I don't generally use Borders as a
Library, but some books are finished before the buy decision is
reached.

A) The book describes numerous situations in which he would find a

backer for a vp opportunity. If the opportunity lost money, he would
let the original agreement stand. But if he discovered that the
opportunity was extremely profitable, he would renege on his deal
with his backer and insist on a more favorable deal. Many people
would treat this situation honorably and stick with the original
agreement. Someone who stands by his original agreement in a losing
situation, but reneges and insists on a more profitable payoff in a
big winning situation, is going to earn more than someone who sticks
with the original agreement in all cases.>>>

I remember that story also, but, thought his action was very short
sighted. I would imagine the community of backers for gamblers is a
small group and that word would quickly get out that "Dancer" is a
bad pony. If he loses his bankroll, how many backers do you think he
would get now?

an advantage of 21 hundredths of one cent. On a

$5 vp play, an advantage of 1.05 cents>>>

"Dancer" always seems to make too big a deal out of penalty cards.

The three examples I've given above are a much bigger reason imo

for Dancer's claimed success, than is the fact that he's memorized
dozens of penalty card situations which will let him grind out an
additional few pennies per hour>>>

Not to mention getting very lucky while playing way beyond his
bankroll, hitting a $100 royal!

Why is this post on freeVPfree instead of the main board, discussion
of a published video poker book?

···

From: "jw776655" <jw776655@y...>

vp_mavin wrote:

Why is this post on freeVPfree instead of the main board, discussion
of a published video poker book?

I can't speak for the moderator, but I'd assert that any post that
discusses the integrity, honor, or any other subjective character of
an individual belongs here for discussion and not on vpFREE. These
are matters the beg for an offensive/defensive exchange between
individuals and don't serve the primary purpose of vpFREE.

There are elements of your post (and quoted text) that do raise
questions that might reasonably addressed on vpFREE on a factual and
rational level without levying personal judgements against any
participant in the discussion.

This includes the extent to which penalty cards are a critical or, at
minimum, significant success factor in play -- preferably citing
quantitative or qualitative play aspects against which assertions can
be evaluated.

It can also be questioned whether Dancer's "pot shot" at a $100
machine was bankroll sensible.

These are topics which I believe would reasonably be discussed on the
primary discussion group, provided they are discussed on the merits of
the facts and not the personalities involved.

- Harry

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

vp_mavin wrote:
> Why is this post on freeVPfree instead of the main board,

discussion

> of a published video poker book?

I can't speak for the moderator, but I'd assert that any post that
discusses the integrity, honor, or any other subjective character of
an individual belongs here for discussion and not on vpFREE.

Perhaps. The writer did site facts culled I
think from BD's book. No one's disputed them as
untrue just unpleasant and likely to provoke. So
what? Looks like truth's not allowed if if it might
offend or is not phrased artfully enough to conceal.
I wonder if we'd be as quick to move this topic if
it were a resitation of the confessions of a casino
boss about how he screwed patrons. Seems to me there's
a political correctness here that applies unequally
but hey it's the admin's sandbox and some pigs are
more equal than others.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

vp_mavin wrote:
> Why is this post on freeVPfree instead of the main board,

discussion

> of a published video poker book?

I can't speak for the moderator, but I'd assert that any post that
discusses the integrity, honor, or any other subjective character of
an individual belongs here for discussion and not on vpFREE. These
are matters the beg for an offensive/defensive exchange between
individuals and don't serve the primary purpose of vpFREE.

Sorry Harry, but I don't agree. If Bob chooses to attack other VP
personalities in his column then I think those topics should be up
for general discussion on VPFREE. I will never agree with censorship
BEFORE THE FACT. It should be assumed that everyone will follow the
rules of VPFREE until such a time that someone doesn't. By removing
posts that do not violate the rules the moderator sets a bad
precedence. The rules are there for a reason and the moderator should
enforce them as they stand. (Yeah, yeah, I know it's always up to the
moderator, but that job is easier if hard and fast rules are in place)

There are elements of your post (and quoted text) that do raise
questions that might reasonably addressed on vpFREE on a factual and
rational level without levying personal judgements against any
participant in the discussion.

Yep. And now they won't be.

This includes the extent to which penalty cards are a critical or,

at

minimum, significant success factor in play -- preferably citing
quantitative or qualitative play aspects against which assertions

can

be evaluated.

It should also cover whether Bob made factual statements in his
attack on Dan or whether he manufactured them.

It can also be questioned whether Dancer's "pot shot" at a $100
machine was bankroll sensible.

These are topics which I believe would reasonably be discussed on

the

primary discussion group, provided they are discussed on the merits

of

the facts and not the personalities involved.

Personalities ... no, statements made in his column ... yes.

Dick