vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's book: some observations

#1

Just purchased and read "Million Dollar Video Poker". Here are a few
thoughts:

1. There was virtually no information of any practical value, aside
from the occasional dithering about the correct play from KQ963 if
it's Tuesday and it's raining outside, etc.

2. The vast majority of the plays discussed---and the vast majority
of the "million dollars"--came from promotion-pounding rather than
steady, plodding play on advantage machines. The narratives are
interesting, but NONE of the promo opportunities, or anything like
them, will ever appear again (and this book helps, albeit in a small
way, to ensure that).

3. The ethical line seems to have been, if not actually crossed, at
least hop-scotched over on several occasions. He mentions, albeit
with a tone of regret and chagrin, bribing slot floor employees to
help him win a promotion faster. He also mentions, with NO trace of
regret, how he took advantage of a particular casino employee's math-
challengedness to obtain double the tickets for a valuable drawing
than he was rightfully entitled to. His justification, which I agree
with in the abstract, is that you should take advantage of a casino
error in your favor but insist that one that works to your
disadvantage be corrected, because mistakes made by humans are part
of the casino's costs and already factored in. What he neglects
here, of course, is that the people he was screwing in this case
WERE THE OTHER PLAYERS IN THE DRAWING.

4. His take-no-prisoners mentality and willingness to be diligent
and play PERFECTLY, as well as his willingness to play long hours
when the play was justified, are in the long run the real reason for
his success, i.e., the advantages conferred by his knowledge were
NOT enough by themselves.

5. If he hadn't hit a royal or two at the precise time his playing
career needed it, he would have gone broke, dried up and blown away
regardless. This extrapolates to: there must be dozens of "Bob
Dancers" out there who started playing the $5 machines at the Golden
Commode, DIDN'T hit that royal, and busted out.

6. He notes several times how his chosen career has been poisonous,
in varying degrees, to his personal relationships, particularly if
the person in question didn't understand both the mathematics and
the dynamics of advantage VP. (You've all heard it before---you have
a 2% advantage play, and you proceed to dump three grand in the
pursuit of it. Will Wifey understand that it was simply a bad
flucuation? Will Yasser Arafat join B'Nai B'Rith?)

7. Despite, or perhaps because of, the above, I highly recommend
this book as a great read for the VP player. It's just important to
understand that he describes a VP world that no longer exists. But
hey, I enjoyed "Dances With Wolves" even though I'll never be able
to get on a horse and go hunt buffalo.

#2

This was an exceptionally well-written post. I had never taken note
of your posts before, probably because your handle does not conjure
up an identity; it looks like a license plate. So I searched the
archives; you definitely know what you're talking about when it comes
to understanding advantage play. Good job.

#3

5. If he hadn't hit a royal or two at the precise time his playing
career needed it, he would have gone broke, dried up and blown away
regardless. This extrapolates to: there must be dozens of "Bob
Dancers" out there who started playing the $5 machines at the Golden
Commode, DIDN'T hit that royal, and busted out.

Maybe, but maybe not. I don't think Bob ever put his entire bankroll
in play. He set aside a piece, but kept plenty of money for his
normal plays. Since the steps in denomination with VP are often
very large, this approach is not so crazy. Of course, we may never
know what he would have done if he did lose one of these stakes.
The people you refer to obviously did not walk away and then busted
out. This is even more common in live poker, especially for those
who specialize in tournaments.

6. He notes several times how his chosen career has been poisonous,
in varying degrees, to his personal relationships, particularly if
the person in question didn't understand both the mathematics and
the dynamics of advantage VP. (You've all heard it before---you have
a 2% advantage play, and you proceed to dump three grand in the
pursuit of it. Will Wifey understand that it was simply a bad
flucuation? Will Yasser Arafat join B'Nai B'Rith?)

I once stated on vp-mail that any woman I would have a
serious realationship with must be able to understand the true
nature of VP. Now that I play full time, this is even more
true. I took a lot of heat for that view. It seemed somehow to
be too demanding. Apparently I am not the only one who feels
this way and apparently my feeling that a failure to see eye to
eye on this can be very bad for a relationship was also corret.

QZ

#4

LoungeLizard wrote...

This was an exceptionally well-written post. I had never taken note
of your posts before, probably because your handle does not conjure
up an identity; it looks like a license plate. So I searched the
archives; you definitely know what you're talking about when it comes
to understanding advantage play. Good job.

An interesting viewpoint. So... in order to be remembered, one must
have a catchy handle like LoungeLizard?

QZ

#5

Good post, although I don't agree with everything you say. My
comments follow each of your points.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mkl54321 <mkl54321@y...>"
<mkl54321@y...> wrote:

Just purchased and read "Million Dollar Video Poker". Here are a

few

thoughts:

1. There was virtually no information of any practical value, aside
from the occasional dithering about the correct play from KQ963 if
it's Tuesday and it's raining outside, etc.

Agree that this book wasn't a "how to play VP" manual, but it wasn't
intended to be. It was more of an autobiography of Bob Dancer.
Still, it wouldn't have hurt to put some strategy charts for the
games mentioned in the book in an appendix.

2. The vast majority of the plays discussed---and the vast majority
of the "million dollars"--came from promotion-pounding rather than
steady, plodding play on advantage machines. The narratives are
interesting, but NONE of the promo opportunities, or anything like
them, will ever appear again (and this book helps, albeit in a

small

way, to ensure that).

I think the book provides excellent examples of the kind of
promotions to look for - even if the exact promotions won't ever
appear again. Don't overestimate the intelligence of casino
personnel. They've made "mistakes" in the past, and they will
again. It always pays to keep your eyes open.

3. The ethical line seems to have been, if not actually crossed, at
least hop-scotched over on several occasions. He mentions, albeit
with a tone of regret and chagrin, bribing slot floor employees to
help him win a promotion faster. He also mentions, with NO trace of
regret, how he took advantage of a particular casino employee's

math-

challengedness to obtain double the tickets for a valuable drawing
than he was rightfully entitled to. His justification, which I

agree

with in the abstract, is that you should take advantage of a casino
error in your favor but insist that one that works to your
disadvantage be corrected, because mistakes made by humans are part
of the casino's costs and already factored in. What he neglects
here, of course, is that the people he was screwing in this case
WERE THE OTHER PLAYERS IN THE DRAWING.

Good points. At least he admits to maybe crossing the line a few
times.

4. His take-no-prisoners mentality and willingness to be diligent
and play PERFECTLY, as well as his willingness to play long hours
when the play was justified, are in the long run the real reason

for

his success, i.e., the advantages conferred by his knowledge were
NOT enough by themselves.

Sure - just being smart is not enough to get the money. You've got
to be smart AND put in the required time and effort also.

5. If he hadn't hit a royal or two at the precise time his playing
career needed it, he would have gone broke, dried up and blown away
regardless. This extrapolates to: there must be dozens of "Bob
Dancers" out there who started playing the $5 machines at the

Golden

Commode, DIDN'T hit that royal, and busted out.

Well, maybe not gone broke, but certainly he would have been stuck
playing lower stakes for a much longer period of time. While reading
through the book, the one thing I kept thinking about was how very
lucky he had been during his excursions into higher denomination play.
  

6. He notes several times how his chosen career has been poisonous,
in varying degrees, to his personal relationships, particularly if
the person in question didn't understand both the mathematics and
the dynamics of advantage VP. (You've all heard it before---you

have

a 2% advantage play, and you proceed to dump three grand in the
pursuit of it. Will Wifey understand that it was simply a bad
flucuation? Will Yasser Arafat join B'Nai B'Rith?)

This is a very important point, in my opinion. I guess I'm lucky
that my wife knows how to count cards at blackjack, so she
understands the nature of advantage play. She understands that it's
all too possible to drop several thousand at a sitting, even when you
have an advantage. And it's just as important to know how to handle
winning as it is to know how to handle losing. Will your wife
understand that you don't want to spend your winnings after a nice
run because you want to keep adding to the bankroll so you can
eventually move up in stakes - or have a cushion when the inevetible
negative fluctuation comes along?

7. Despite, or perhaps because of, the above, I highly recommend
this book as a great read for the VP player. It's just important to
understand that he describes a VP world that no longer exists. But
hey, I enjoyed "Dances With Wolves" even though I'll never be able
to get on a horse and go hunt buffalo.

I second the recommendation.

EE

#6

Very good post. I found a few items I questioned in the book and may
direct those questions to Mr Dancer.
I like the 2% - 3 grand equasion.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mkl54321 <mkl54321@y...>"
<mkl54321@y...> wrote:

Just purchased and read "Million Dollar Video Poker". Here are a

few

thoughts:

1. There was virtually no information of any practical value, aside
from the occasional dithering about the correct play from KQ963 if
it's Tuesday and it's raining outside, etc.

2. The vast majority of the plays discussed---and the vast majority
of the "million dollars"--came from promotion-pounding rather than
steady, plodding play on advantage machines. The narratives are
interesting, but NONE of the promo opportunities, or anything like
them, will ever appear again (and this book helps, albeit in a

small

way, to ensure that).

3. The ethical line seems to have been, if not actually crossed, at
least hop-scotched over on several occasions. He mentions, albeit
with a tone of regret and chagrin, bribing slot floor employees to
help him win a promotion faster. He also mentions, with NO trace of
regret, how he took advantage of a particular casino employee's

math-

challengedness to obtain double the tickets for a valuable drawing
than he was rightfully entitled to. His justification, which I

agree

with in the abstract, is that you should take advantage of a casino
error in your favor but insist that one that works to your
disadvantage be corrected, because mistakes made by humans are part
of the casino's costs and already factored in. What he neglects
here, of course, is that the people he was screwing in this case
WERE THE OTHER PLAYERS IN THE DRAWING.

4. His take-no-prisoners mentality and willingness to be diligent
and play PERFECTLY, as well as his willingness to play long hours
when the play was justified, are in the long run the real reason

for

his success, i.e., the advantages conferred by his knowledge were
NOT enough by themselves.

5. If he hadn't hit a royal or two at the precise time his playing
career needed it, he would have gone broke, dried up and blown away
regardless. This extrapolates to: there must be dozens of "Bob
Dancers" out there who started playing the $5 machines at the

Golden

Commode, DIDN'T hit that royal, and busted out.

6. He notes several times how his chosen career has been poisonous,
in varying degrees, to his personal relationships, particularly if
the person in question didn't understand both the mathematics and
the dynamics of advantage VP. (You've all heard it before---you

have

···

a 2% advantage play, and you proceed to dump three grand in the
pursuit of it. Will Wifey understand that it was simply a bad
flucuation? Will Yasser Arafat join B'Nai B'Rith?)

7. Despite, or perhaps because of, the above, I highly recommend
this book as a great read for the VP player. It's just important to
understand that he describes a VP world that no longer exists. But
hey, I enjoyed "Dances With Wolves" even though I'll never be able
to get on a horse and go hunt buffalo.

#7

Both of you have good points. However, keep in mind that while he
states he only started with $6K - he also had a "partner" that was
working. I often wondered how he was able to pay his bills and then
I read the book. I also agree that had he not hit the royal when he
did he would have had major problems. At least at the lower end.
When Shirley hit the $400K royal I doubt he had the 1.2million - 2
million dollar bankroll he says is a good rule of thumb (3-5x the
royal) That was a pot shot...But he does mention that he realized
taking those type of potshots could have hurt him if he did not have
any luck.

> 5. If he hadn't hit a royal or two at the precise time his

playing

> career needed it, he would have gone broke, dried up and blown

away

> regardless. This extrapolates to: there must be dozens of "Bob
> Dancers" out there who started playing the $5 machines at the

Golden

> Commode, DIDN'T hit that royal, and busted out.

Maybe, but maybe not. I don't think Bob ever put his entire

bankroll

in play. He set aside a piece, but kept plenty of money for his
normal plays. Since the steps in denomination with VP are often
very large, this approach is not so crazy. Of course, we may never
know what he would have done if he did lose one of these stakes.
The people you refer to obviously did not walk away and then busted
out. This is even more common in live poker, especially for those
who specialize in tournaments.

> 6. He notes several times how his chosen career has been

poisonous,

> in varying degrees, to his personal relationships, particularly

if

> the person in question didn't understand both the mathematics and
> the dynamics of advantage VP. (You've all heard it before---you

have

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Quad Zilla" <quadzilla666@e...> wrote:

> a 2% advantage play, and you proceed to dump three grand in the
> pursuit of it. Will Wifey understand that it was simply a bad
> flucuation? Will Yasser Arafat join B'Nai B'Rith?)

I once stated on vp-mail that any woman I would have a
serious realationship with must be able to understand the true
nature of VP. Now that I play full time, this is even more
true. I took a lot of heat for that view. It seemed somehow to
be too demanding. Apparently I am not the only one who feels
this way and apparently my feeling that a failure to see eye to
eye on this can be very bad for a relationship was also corret.

QZ

#8

An interesting viewpoint. So... in order to be remembered, one must
have a catchy handle like LoungeLizard?

Or Quad Zilla! Not a viewpoint, just human nature. And not a catchy
title necessarily, just one that's easy to remember without
attempting to remember; for instance, I always enjoy Randy Hudson's
posts. And yours, although stay away from the Royal Zillas if you
want to survive.