vpFREE2 Forums

8 NOV 2005 Bob Dancer CasinoGaming Column

#1

1. Negative personal comments (or personal attacks) aren't tolerated
on vpFREE.

2. Negative personal comments are permitted and appropriate on
FREEvpFREE.

2. Personal attacks can be accurate, deserved, truthful, politely
phrased etc.. They're still personal attacks.

3. The guilty post was accurate, deserved (perhaps) , truthful, politely
phrased etc.. It was also a personal attack, as well as an open
invitation to discuss an individual's ethics (negatively). Such a duscussion
is forbidden on vpFREE, but appropriate on FREEvpFREE.

4. The thread wasn't terminated on vpFREE. Anyone is welcome to
continue the discussion, if they do so in accordance with the rules.

5. Procedures have been initiated to give FREEvpFREE threads more
exposure.

vpFREE Administrator

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

···

To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: "rgmustain" <rgmustain@att.net>
Date sent: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:21:26 -0000
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: 8 NOV 2005 Bob Dancer CasinoGaming Column

The topic was and is up for discussion on vpFREE.

When the first post that mentions Bobs' remarks about Dan is deleted and moved to VPFREE
then it is unlikely you will see any more.

The guilty post was a personal attack IMO and violated vpFREE rules.
However, it's very appropriate for discussion here, which we're
doing.

I guess this is where our opinions differ. I thought the author was very careful to QUOTE
from Bobs' own book and reference those quotes. How do you get from facts to negative
personal attacks? If the facts make certain unethical behavior obvious that is NOT a
personal attack.

> 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)

I agree and so acted.

Or maybe, your "interpretation" agreed and you so acted ... Obviously you can come up
with negativism out of the post. The real question is whether it was a personal attack or
simply stating facts. It would have been nice to get a discussion on some aspects of
casino behavior but now that will not happen.

> Yep. And now they won't be.

Why not?

The thread wasn't moved or terminated.

History. How many threads have survived on FVF?

As long as it doesn't include ANY negative personal comments.

Maybe it would help if you stated just exactly what comments were
personal (attacks) vs. quotes from Bobs' own book?

As long as it doesn't include ANY negative personal comments.

I won't deny that had the thread been left on VPFREE that it may have
led to personal attacks in the future. It's certainly within your
auspices as moderator to protect the group from this potential. I think
that was Harrys' concern initially. I guess I'm more willing to let
something like this ride since it was clearly presented in, what I
thought was, a factual manner.

Negative personal comment posts have never been allowed on
vpFREE. They should be posted on FREEvpFREE.

vpFREE Administrator

#2

Sorry, but you still haven't given any example/s from the original
post of any negative comments/attacks. Everything that I read was a
factual representation of information from Bobs' own book.

The idea behind the post was to refute Bobs' claim that penalty cards
are necessary to be successful at VP. Showing examples of other
approaches that the author has admitted using to increase his edge is
clearly on topic and very important information for anyone reading
his column and deciding whether to put the effort into penalty card
memorization.

I realize the post did not portray Bob in a very good manner. Had the
information that was provided been hearsay (ie. unreferenced
material) as was the case with Bobs' attack on Dan in his column,
then you would have acted properly. That was not the case.

It seems to me you need to add "nothing negative, including facts
already in the public domain, may be quoted on VPFREE even if they
are important to the discussion at hand".

Dick

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

1. Negative personal comments (or personal attacks) aren't tolerated
on vpFREE.

2. Negative personal comments are permitted and appropriate on
FREEvpFREE.

2. Personal attacks can be accurate, deserved, truthful, politely
phrased etc.. They're still personal attacks.

3. The guilty post was accurate, deserved (perhaps) , truthful,

politely

phrased etc.. It was also a personal attack, as well as an open
invitation to discuss an individual's ethics (negatively). Such a

duscussion

is forbidden on vpFREE, but appropriate on FREEvpFREE.

4. The thread wasn't terminated on vpFREE. Anyone is welcome to
continue the discussion, if they do so in accordance with the rules.

5. Procedures have been initiated to give FREEvpFREE threads more
exposure.

vpFREE Administrator

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
Date sent: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:21:26 -0000
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: 8 NOV 2005 Bob Dancer

CasinoGaming Column

> The topic was and is up for discussion on vpFREE.

When the first post that mentions Bobs' remarks about Dan is

deleted and moved to VPFREE

then it is unlikely you will see any more.

> The guilty post was a personal attack IMO and violated vpFREE

rules.

> However, it's very appropriate for discussion here, which we're
> doing.

I guess this is where our opinions differ. I thought the author was

very careful to QUOTE

from Bobs' own book and reference those quotes. How do you get from

facts to negative

personal attacks? If the facts make certain unethical behavior

obvious that is NOT a

personal attack.

> > 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)

> I agree and so acted.

Or maybe, your "interpretation" agreed and you so acted ...

Obviously you can come up

with negativism out of the post. The real question is whether it

was a personal attack or

simply stating facts. It would have been nice to get a discussion

on some aspects of

casino behavior but now that will not happen.

> > Yep. And now they won't be.

> Why not?

> The thread wasn't moved or terminated.

History. How many threads have survived on FVF?

> As long as it doesn't include ANY negative personal comments.

Maybe it would help if you stated just exactly what comments were
personal (attacks) vs. quotes from Bobs' own book?

> As long as it doesn't include ANY negative personal comments.

I won't deny that had the thread been left on VPFREE that it may

have

led to personal attacks in the future. It's certainly within your
auspices as moderator to protect the group from this potential. I

think

···

that was Harrys' concern initially. I guess I'm more willing to let
something like this ride since it was clearly presented in, what I
thought was, a factual manner.

> Negative personal comment posts have never been allowed on
> vpFREE. They should be posted on FREEvpFREE.

> vpFREE Administrator

#3

rgmustain wrote:

Sorry, but you still haven't given any example/s from the original
post of any negative comments/attacks. Everything that I read was a
factual representation of information from Bobs' own book.

The idea behind the post was to refute Bobs' claim that penalty
cards are necessary to be successful at VP.

Quite simply, the post is not about to extent to which penalty card
study/consideration contributed to Dancer's success.

The author indeed cites an example he asserts Dancer has incorrectly
valued and another that presents a negligible advantage. But, by
itself, this is hardly a comprehensive argument that the value of
penalty card considerations couldn't be nearly as lofty as Dancer
suggests.

But this point is a minor sidenote to the thrust of the message --
that Dancer has dervived substantial value in his play from behavior
that many others would consider unethical. It's at this point that
the post warrants redirction to FVF.

Phrases such as, "treat this situation honorably" vs. "renege",
"unethical ... bribed slot attendents" and "willing to lie" imply
direct, personal value judgments that lend themselves to
non-constructive debate. This is particularly so when the object of
the criticism is a member of the group, but it's true in any case.

When values, and not just objective facts, enter a post there's an
decision to be made, often preferably in advance, of just how
disruptive ensuing discussion might be -- calling a moderator into
action in a manner that they'd otherwise prefer to avoid.

If the original poster wants to discuss the importance of penalty card
considerations to Dancer's success -- focusing on factors such as
expected ER improvement, impact on bankroll requirement/risk, or any
other variables that can be objectively evaluated -- I'm sure there's
room on FREEvpFREE for the discussion.

If the author wishes to allude to and discuss the ethical
considerations of Dancer's play, then this is the appropriate forum.

- Harry

#4

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

rgmustain wrote:
>
> Sorry, but you still haven't given any example/s from the

original

> post of any negative comments/attacks. Everything that I read was

a

> factual representation of information from Bobs' own book.
>
> The idea behind the post was to refute Bobs' claim that penalty
> cards are necessary to be successful at VP.

Quite simply, the post is not about to extent to which penalty card
study/consideration contributed to Dancer's success.

I disagree. It quite simply gives examples of where other
considersions may have been more important. In logic, giving examples
that contradict an assertion is exactly how you prove the assertion
is false.

The author indeed cites an example he asserts Dancer has incorrectly
valued and another that presents a negligible advantage. But, by
itself, this is hardly a comprehensive argument that the value of
penalty card considerations couldn't be nearly as lofty as Dancer
suggests.

If proof positive is required to qualify as a post on VPFree then I
doubt the forum would have much content. However, your point here
could have contributed to the debate if the the original post hadn't
been removed.

But this point is a minor sidenote to the thrust of the message --
that Dancer has dervived substantial value in his play from behavior
that many others would consider unethical. It's at this point that
the post warrants redirction to FVF.

Why? As long as the post quoted sources for its' points about Bobs'
behavior then it should not be banned because the behavior itself
might be considered unethical.

Phrases such as, "treat this situation honorably" vs. "renege",
"unethical ... bribed slot attendents" and "willing to lie" imply
direct, personal value judgments that lend themselves to
non-constructive debate. This is particularly so when the object of
the criticism is a member of the group, but it's true in any case.

Again, the substance of the material was from Bobs' book itself. If
the poster had not referenced the book or the referenced events could
not be colloborated then I would agree with you. However, the book
and Bobs' article are part of the ongoing VP literature and should
not be banned from a forum that also regularly posts references to
his columns. The fact that Bob is a member of the group should not be
a factor. In fact, if he really cared about this type of criticism he
would never have included it in his book.

When values, and not just objective facts, enter a post there's an
decision to be made, often preferably in advance, of just how
disruptive ensuing discussion might be -- calling a moderator into
action in a manner that they'd otherwise prefer to avoid.

The events were presented as objective facts and the statements you
quoted seemed reasonably accurate. Do you think they are not a true
representation of the information provided? How would you describe
the events that were presented? If Bob "lied" and admitted it in his
book then it is simply a fact and should be treated as such.

If the original poster wants to discuss the importance of penalty

card

considerations to Dancer's success -- focusing on factors such as
expected ER improvement, impact on bankroll requirement/risk, or any
other variables that can be objectively evaluated -- I'm sure

there's

room on FREEvpFREE for the discussion.

There is little discussion on FVF. Moving a thread here pretty much
kills it off after a couple of posts.

If the author wishes to allude to and discuss the ethical
considerations of Dancer's play, then this is the appropriate forum.

Harry, I do understand the need to keep VPFree from becoming a
hostile environment. However, you can't always whitewash everything.
In addition, as long as VPFree continues to post references to Bobs'
columns then it should not ban discussions about those columns.
Especially when the column itself contains NEGATIVE PERSONAL comments
about other members of this forum. Do you think VPFree should have
posted the reference to this column?

Dick

#5

Harry Porter wrote - "The author indeed cites an example he asserts
Dancer has incorrectly valued and another that presents a negligible
advantage."

I assert an error which Dancer confirmed.

In my post I provided a link to the thread I referred to.

Since you didn't verify it for yourself, and your post infers that
my statement may or may not be correct:

Here is a link to my post questioning Dancer on one of the two
penalty card situations -

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/49609

and here is Dancer's post confirming that he erred -

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/49611

#6

Harry, I do understand the need to keep VPFree from
becoming a hostile environment. However, you can't
always whitewash everything. In addition, as long as
VPFree continues to post references to Bobs' columns
then it should not ban discussions about those columns.
Especially when the column itself contains NEGATIVE
PERSONAL comments about other members of this forum.
Do you think VPFree should have posted the reference
to this column?

Dick

A very good point. In the zeal to avoid conflict
we are ignoring facts. While this leads to tranquility
it can also lead to ignorance. While people are debating
the merit of a .001 advantage from penalty cards, the real
issue feels more like, what advantage does being willing
to act unethically impart? And what should that line be?
The law of diminishing returns tells me all I need to know
about penaly cards. I suspect that reading about Enron tells
me what I need to know about the real question. To wit, you
admit less than you do and you may get away with it for a while,
but evenutally you'll be caught. When that happens no one
wants to know you anymore.

It also feels like there are a special set of rules for BD.
Post his columns via link where he says what he pleases and
posters to VPFREE who have to play by a different set of rules.
While the admin continually says not, I think some pigs
are more equal than others. I'll give this to BD, he's
skillful at playing almost any game. By the by, his recent
decision to start posting on VPFREE has nothing to do with
a pending new product release in the near future does it?

Keep giving 'em the old Razzel Dazzel Bob. Razzel dazzel 'em.

#7

worldbefree22001 wrote:

While people are debating the merit of a .001 advantage from penalty
cards, the real issue feels more like, what advantage does being
willing to act unethically impart? And what should that line be?
The law of diminishing returns tells me all I need to know
about penaly cards. I suspect that reading about Enron tells
me what I need to know about the real question.

Right ... like we've seen ethics discussions where some participant
has seen the light and written, "Gee ... you're absolutely right! I
vow to return to the path of the saints."

Ethics discussions are nothing more than a chance to blow off a little
steam (been there, done that), at the risk of a generating a very
negative, disruptive thread. No one's converted or even swayed
modestly from their own perspective.

And if it took the Enron tale to clue you in on the matter of ethics,
you've been far more sheltered than even myself to date.

- H.

#8

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

Right ... like we've seen ethics discussions where some participant
has seen the light and written, "Gee ... you're absolutely right!

I

vow to return to the path of the saints."

Ethics discussions are nothing more than a chance to blow off a

little

steam (been there, done that), at the risk of a generating a very
negative, disruptive thread. No one's converted or even swayed
modestly from their own perspective.

And if it took the Enron tale to clue you in on the matter of

ethics,

you've been far more sheltered than even myself to date.

- H.

I don't really care about anyone else's ethics. Just that EV
could potentially be boosted by acting in a way that many
people might feel is unethical. Heck I was hoping we'd hear
lots more examples of how we could gain an advantage. I think my
poorly made point was that this would probably be more effective
than worrying about penalty cards. The very point I think the
original author was making before being moved to this board. I'm
not looking for anyone to have an ephiphany. Since I'm in the
minority and don't have products to flog it does not really matter
does it. Oink!