This post is the written equivalent of repeatedly
poking a guy in the chest while saying over and
over again I don't want to fight you.
It is a strange genius indeed that is so oblivious to
its own flaws.
Dan wrote: It's time to document your statements or shut up.
I'm not clear why Dan wishes to continue this "debate." I
certainly do not, and I will not participate if there are any
further
posts in this thread.
In late Summer 2005, Dan posted here comparing me to Rob
Singer.
(I was not a member or lurker of vpFREE at the time and I had done
nothing to provoke such a comment. Dan's comments were sent to me
by a
member here.) I find that comparison offensive. Rob Singer and I
agree
on very little video-poker-wise, whereas Dan and I agree on
probably 95%
of things video-poker-wise. According to Dan in that post, I have
never
published nor created any strategies (in truth I have likely
written
more columns about accurate video poker strategy than anybody
else ---
probably more than all other authors put together). He wrote that I
regularly overbet my bankroll (he has no idea about how many
million
dollars are in my bankroll or exactly what games I play and the
associated slot club and promotions. In 2001 I was taking a
potshot at
the MGM Grand under pretty rigid "stoploss" conditions. Dan wrote
as
though I did that frequently and currently. He was wrong). He
wrote that
I care about nobody else (which is surprising --- he surely doesn't
think I talked the Fiesta into adding a lot of good nickel through
quarter games for ME to play, does he?) He criticized me for
talking to
casinos (which is a fair criticism, however one that Dan wouldn't
make
if casinos felt he knew enough to pay him for advice. But since
they
don't, he criticizes people who casinos DO feel are knowledgeable
enough
to pay for advice.)
We reviewed one of Dan's strategies here recently, although
much
of the thread got shunted off to FREEvpFREE because Dan could not
discuss it without shouting. I demonstrated to him that his claim
of
Jazbo saying the strategy was within 0.01% of perfect was
incorrect by
manually proving it was actually something like 0.014% off. Dan
never
admitted he was wrong. He said "an analyst showed it was only
0.014%
off", refusing to acknowledge that I could figure out how
inaccurate his
strategies were even if he couldn't. (Even 0.01% isn't anything to
brag
about in that game. FVP has it down to about a third of that.
Better
penalty-free strategies than FVP are possible.) If we would have
reviewed Dan's KBJW strategy, we would have found it to be
substantially
worse. In his first edition of "Optimum Play", Dan provides a test
for
KBJW of about 20 questions and then proceeds to give the wrong
answer to
4 of them. Accurate strategies are simply not Dan's forte. His
strategies are more accurate than Lenny Frome's (which was
relevant when
Dan first started publishing, but Lenny's been dead for eight
years and
isn't still publishing), but the standard has risen considerably
since
then and Dan's strategies haven't.
Anyone who thinks that Dan's strategies are simplified and/or
easy to use hasn't looked at instruction 6 of his Jacks or Better
strategy recently. This instruction is filled with and's, or's, and
semi-colons, and is quite torturous. In addition to being
inaccurate, it
is quite confusing.
When I hinted at Dan's plagiarism, you might want to ask him
why
his publisher of the first edition of "Optimum Play" refused to
let him
include a strategy for 10/7 Double Bonus --- clearly the best over-
100%
game for dollars and higher at the time, and in some casinos the
best
game for quarters. If he's honest in his explanation (fat chance!)
he'll
tell you that there were credible charges that Dan copied the
strategy
from me and that Dan himself was incapable of creating a strategy
for
the game from scratch. (Dan DID put a picture of 9/7 Double Bonus
on the
cover of the book, a curious choice for a booking calling itself
"Optimum Play," but not a word about the game inside the book. For
the
"rave review" that most authors include on the back cover of a
book, Dan
got Jean Scott to say, basically, that she hasn't seen the book
but if
she ever does, she thinks she will probably like it. As rave
reviews go,
this was extremely weak.)
There are currently no good beginner's book on video poker.
In
"Million Dollar Video Poker," I described Dan's book as the best
of a
bad lot. I stand by that assessment. Jean's book on the subject
will be
coming out relatively soon and hopefully will be much better. Jean
herself isn't particularly knowledgeable about the fine points of
video
poker (she freely admits this, but downplays its importance), but
she
has friends who are (many on this site), a co-author, and a hands-
on
publisher with a history of very good gambling books. It at least
has
the potential to become the best beginning video poker book out
there.
We'll see. Being better than "Optimum Play", though, isn't a very
high
standard.
This process of criticizing Dan's work is not fun for me. I
didn't start this thread. I do not wish to continue it. Anyone who
wants
to criticize me for bashing Dan please remember that Dan demanded I
explain myself. I did. I would appreciate it if this thread just
dropped
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:
off the planet --- or transferred to FREEvpFREE where I will not
participate.
Bob Dancer
For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.