vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 29 JUN 2010

#1

Getting Too Greedy?

http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html

<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html</a>

···

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

#2

I remember reading Bob had a PhD in econ or something -- perhaps he needs to rehit the books. I listed 3 of Bob's flawed arugments.

1) The marginal utility of an extra $1 is FAR LESS than the marginal utility of LOSING $84 -- to be technical it was an extra 93 cents since you offset the 7 cents versus the marginal dollar from rounding up.

2) Dancer forgot the seminal Jazbo argument ("Progressive Meter Movement") for any progressives, which is unless you CAN LOCK UP THE progressive, you should not include the meter movement in your EV calculation. Here's a simple thought exercise, what if someone had hit the quad aces a milisecond BEFORE Dancer was dealt his quad aces -- that means Dancer had no way of knowing the current jackpot was incorrect and thus relied on the bad data to make his decision. From my experience, information from meter movements may not be perfect.

3) Dancer forgot the golden rule of economics, i.e. the law of opportunity costs. What was Dancer's opportunity cost from not playing at an 100% opportunity for those hands -- this argument is SEPARATE from (2). Should he wait 10 minutes or 20 minutes or more to chase another incremental $0.99 (i.e. the $1 that got rounded up).

I could go on but that $84 in lost value WIPES out the next 84 comparable situations before he can break-even from his costly mistake. It's not ABOUT greed, it's about making the correct decision with sound logic defending that decision, and unfortunately, Bob's arguments are deeply flawed.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@...> wrote:

Getting Too Greedy?

http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html

<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html</a>

#3

fordscks wrote:

I remember reading Bob had a PhD in econ or something -- perhaps he > needs to rehit the books. I listed 3 of Bob's flawed arugments ...

Why is it that in their zeal to point out just how unknowledgable Dancer is, there are a few around here who waste no time in showing just how much they personally don't understand??

1) The marginal utility of an extra $1 is FAR LESS than the
marginal utility of LOSING $84 -- to be technical it was an extra
93 cents since you offset the 7 cents versus the marginal dollar
from rounding up.

Because the casino rounds jackpots up to the nearest dollar, it sounds like the alternative outcomes were a win of $485 for immediately taking the win, $486 if successful in waiting 14 bank hands before taking the win, or $401 if the wait proved unsuccessful.

If successful, the net gain was $1. If unsuccessful, the net loss was $84.

When it comes to calculation of "marginal utility", outcome values are weighted by probability of the outcome. When calculated appropriately, one finds the net marginal utility of going for the extra $1 definitely is a positive proposition vs cashing out immediately.

2) Dancer forgot the seminal Jazbo argument ("Progressive Meter
Movement") for any progressives, which is unless you CAN LOCK UP
THE progressive, you should not include the meter movement in your
EV calculation.

That discussion had nothing to do with including the current meter values when calculating play EV. If you read carefully, you'll see that it has to do with also adding something extra for the continued meter progression during your play.

But I grasp you have a hard time understanding why there would be a distinction between the two.

3) Dancer forgot the golden rule of economics, i.e. the law of
opportunity costs. What was Dancer's opportunity cost from not
playing at an 100% opportunity for those hands -- this argument is
SEPARATE from (2). Should he wait 10 minutes or 20 minutes or more
to chase another incremental $0.99 (i.e. the $1 that got rounded
up).

Get a new pair of reading glasses. Such an opportunity cost is precisely why he indicates he saw it reasonable to wait for the meter to advance $.07, but not another $5 or $10.

I won't suggest you go back and hit the books. I have little doubt that what you would take away (or, for that matter, what you take away from this post) has little to do with the actual content.

#4

I'm making no comment on the argument (discussion?) in progress but a completely separate observation. My take-away from Bob's article is the final paragraph:

"I had to make my decision BEFORE THE FACT. And, like everybody else, I need to live with the decisions I make. Players who spend a lot of time complaining AFTERWARDS when they didn't have as much information BEFOREHAND are really confused about the decision process."

We often encounter situations that we haven't thought out, and are forced to make a decision quickly without complete information. It makes me want to do more brainstorming of "what if" so I'll know what I plan to do when situations come up.

Mac
www.CasinoCamper.com

#5

You're mistaken in all three of your criticisms, and he explained why in his
article. I think it's cute that he realized he could make an extra dollar of
EV in thirty seconds. Bob's all about hourly rate.

Cogno

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf
Of fordscks
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 7:05 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 29 JUN 2010

I remember reading Bob had a PhD in econ or something -- perhaps he
needs to rehit the books. I listed 3 of Bob's flawed arugments.

1) The marginal utility of an extra $1 is FAR LESS than the marginal
utility of LOSING $84 -- to be technical it was an extra 93 cents since
you offset the 7 cents versus the marginal dollar from rounding up.

2) Dancer forgot the seminal Jazbo argument ("Progressive Meter
Movement") for any progressives, which is unless you CAN LOCK UP THE
progressive, you should not include the meter movement in your EV
calculation. Here's a simple thought exercise, what if someone had hit
the quad aces a milisecond BEFORE Dancer was dealt his quad aces --
that means Dancer had no way of knowing the current jackpot was
incorrect and thus relied on the bad data to make his decision. From
my experience, information from meter movements may not be perfect.

3) Dancer forgot the golden rule of economics, i.e. the law of
opportunity costs. What was Dancer's opportunity cost from not playing
at an 100% opportunity for those hands -- this argument is SEPARATE
from (2). Should he wait 10 minutes or 20 minutes or more to chase
another incremental $0.99 (i.e. the $1 that got rounded up).

I could go on but that $84 in lost value WIPES out the next 84
comparable situations before he can break-even from his costly mistake.
It's not ABOUT greed, it's about making the correct decision with sound
logic defending that decision, and unfortunately, Bob's arguments are
deeply flawed.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@...>
wrote:
>
> Getting Too Greedy?
>
> http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html
>
> <a
href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html">
> http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html</a>
>

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#6

What I really want to know is why other than playing for his monthly mailer is he playing $1 Bonus Poker in the first place???

I remember him talking about how $1 doesn't interest him since he plays for higher stakes. One of his articles recently talks about playing $5 Quick Quads 5 Plays ($180 a hand). Just curious.

GimmeaQuad

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

fordscks wrote:
> I remember reading Bob had a PhD in econ or something -- perhaps he > needs to rehit the books. I listed 3 of Bob's flawed arugments ...

Why is it that in their zeal to point out just how unknowledgable Dancer is, there are a few around here who waste no time in showing just how much they personally don't understand??

> 1) The marginal utility of an extra $1 is FAR LESS than the
> marginal utility of LOSING $84 -- to be technical it was an extra
> 93 cents since you offset the 7 cents versus the marginal dollar
> from rounding up.

Because the casino rounds jackpots up to the nearest dollar, it sounds like the alternative outcomes were a win of $485 for immediately taking the win, $486 if successful in waiting 14 bank hands before taking the win, or $401 if the wait proved unsuccessful.

If successful, the net gain was $1. If unsuccessful, the net loss was $84.

When it comes to calculation of "marginal utility", outcome values are weighted by probability of the outcome. When calculated appropriately, one finds the net marginal utility of going for the extra $1 definitely is a positive proposition vs cashing out immediately.

> 2) Dancer forgot the seminal Jazbo argument ("Progressive Meter
> Movement") for any progressives, which is unless you CAN LOCK UP
> THE progressive, you should not include the meter movement in your
> EV calculation.

That discussion had nothing to do with including the current meter values when calculating play EV. If you read carefully, you'll see that it has to do with also adding something extra for the continued meter progression during your play.

But I grasp you have a hard time understanding why there would be a distinction between the two.

> 3) Dancer forgot the golden rule of economics, i.e. the law of
> opportunity costs. What was Dancer's opportunity cost from not
> playing at an 100% opportunity for those hands -- this argument is
> SEPARATE from (2). Should he wait 10 minutes or 20 minutes or more
> to chase another incremental $0.99 (i.e. the $1 that got rounded
> up).

Get a new pair of reading glasses. Such an opportunity cost is precisely why he indicates he saw it reasonable to wait for the meter to advance $.07, but not another $5 or $10.

I won't suggest you go back and hit the books. I have little doubt that what you would take away (or, for that matter, what you take away from this post) has little to do with the actual content.

#7

I have an idea. But, it would be quite unpopular among members of this
group.

···

On 7/2/10, gimmeaquad <gimmeaquad@yahoo.com> wrote:

What I really want to know is why other than playing for his monthly mailer
is he playing $1 Bonus Poker in the first place???

I remember him talking about how $1 doesn't interest him since he plays for
higher stakes. One of his articles recently talks about playing $5 Quick
Quads 5 Plays ($180 a hand). Just curious.

GimmeaQuad

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#8

When ever I think of Dancer the phrase "too clever by half" always comes to mind.
He is a Million Dollar player. But he made his million hawking lessons, books, software, strategy cards and assorted other tsotchkes.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@...> wrote:

Getting Too Greedy?

http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html

<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html</a>

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

#9

Bob sent me an e-mail explaining his rationale regarding this play and I find it is acceptable.

GimmeaQuad

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Luke Fuller <kungalooosh@...> wrote:

I have an idea. But, it would be quite unpopular among members of this
group.

On 7/2/10, gimmeaquad <gimmeaquad@...> wrote:
>
> What I really want to know is why other than playing for his monthly mailer
> is he playing $1 Bonus Poker in the first place???
>
> I remember him talking about how $1 doesn't interest him since he plays for
> higher stakes. One of his articles recently talks about playing $5 Quick
> Quads 5 Plays ($180 a hand). Just curious.
>
> GimmeaQuad

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#10

Hey, that's just great! :slight_smile:

···

On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 10:27 AM, gimmeaquad <gimmeaquad@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bob sent me an e-mail explaining his rationale regarding this play and I
find it is acceptable.

GimmeaQuad

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Luke Fuller <kungalooosh@...> wrote:
>
> I have an idea. But, it would be quite unpopular among members of this
> group.
>
>
> On 7/2/10, gimmeaquad <gimmeaquad@...> wrote:
> >
> > What I really want to know is why other than playing for his monthly
mailer
> > is he playing $1 Bonus Poker in the first place???
> >
> > I remember him talking about how $1 doesn't interest him since he plays
for
> > higher stakes. One of his articles recently talks about playing $5
Quick
> > Quads 5 Plays ($180 a hand). Just curious.
> >
> > GimmeaQuad
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#11

The wife and I took a stay-cation yesterday up to Thackersville casino (Winstar) about an hour north of us. We play only the IGTMultigamebartops around the bars in the London section and I think the Rome section. The machines are only around the bar. At the $.50 level, the JOB was 9/6 and at the London bar, the RF progressive was $2723.16 which I believe made it over 100% if you hit the royal.

Needless to say, I didn't. I came up with a bunch of Quads and Full houses and had 4 to the royal a few times, once I needs a Jh but drew an Ac. I really was upset when on the next hand, the Jh showed up.

I didn't try discarding all card when I had 2 pair to see if it was bingo based (I didn't want to lose the 5 bucks) but they seemed to play like any machine I have played in Vegas.

I came out ahead but the wife lost her stake.

Since these machines are only around the bar and the bar is an outside vendor I think that they are Vegas (class III) machine actually owned by the vendor and they give a cut to the tribe and the state.

BTW, the beer in Oklahoma is 3.2 if you order any domestic(Bud, Miller, Coors). Heineken, Shiner or Sam Adams is normal.

Chetkl

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#12

Really? Have you bothered to read any of his stuff. This is not the story he tells. Perhaps you have some inside information to substantiate your claims?

JW

···

--- On Sat, 7/3/10, mike <melbedewy1226@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: mike <melbedewy1226@hotmail.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 29 JUN 2010
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 3, 2010, 7:03 AM

When ever I think of Dancer the phrase "too clever by half"
always comes to mind.
He is a Million Dollar player. But he made his
million hawking lessons, books, software, strategy cards and
assorted other tsotchkes.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com,
"vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@...> wrote:
>
> Getting Too Greedy?
>
> http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html
>
> <a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html">
> http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0629.html</a>
>
>
> *************************************************
> This link is posted for informational purposes
> and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
> of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
> discussion of the article must be done in
> accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
> *************************************************
>

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

vpFREE\-fullfeatured@yahoogroups\.com
#13

Sorry, I am not mistaken. Suppose on that day, there were two people independently doing the same strategy. Since there are two of them, one will be disappointed and the sore loser goes and writes a column on some bogus "a priori" vs "a posteriori" argument. The odds of hitting quad aces is IRRELEVANT given another player is already sitting on quad aces. It just happens the other player saw Bob being dealt quad aces and the other player immediately panicks and hits his button first to deny Bob the jackpot.

If you use sound logic, you will realize a lot of Bob's arguments are specious. First, counting meter movements as part of EV (note he didn't get the extra "$84" so logic dictates Bob OVERESTIMATED his EV -- this is fact based on the article. Second, Bob makes certain assumptions about randomness that is incorrect, i.e. someone sitting on quad aces argument as stated earlier. There are so many other errors in his argument regarding hourly rate.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@...> wrote:

You're mistaken in all three of your criticisms, and he explained why in his article. I think it's cute that he realized he could make an extra dollar of EV in thirty seconds. Bob's all about hourly rate.

Cogno

#14

I'd like to continue the argument but I'm all tied up teaching a pig to
sing.

Cogno

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf
Of fordscks
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2010 1:31 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 29 JUN 2010

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@...>
wrote:
> You're mistaken in all three of your criticisms, and he explained why
in his article. I think it's cute that he realized he could make an
extra dollar of EV in thirty seconds. Bob's all about hourly rate.
>
> Cogno

Sorry, I am not mistaken. Suppose on that day, there were two people
independently doing the same strategy. Since there are two of them,
one will be disappointed and the sore loser goes and writes a column on
some bogus "a priori" vs "a posteriori" argument. The odds of hitting
quad aces is IRRELEVANT given another player is already sitting on quad
aces. It just happens the other player saw Bob being dealt quad aces
and the other player immediately panicks and hits his button first to
deny Bob the jackpot.

If you use sound logic, you will realize a lot of Bob's arguments are
specious. First, counting meter movements as part of EV (note he
didn't get the extra "$84" so logic dictates Bob OVERESTIMATED his EV -
- this is fact based on the article. Second, Bob makes certain
assumptions about randomness that is incorrect, i.e. someone sitting on
quad aces argument as stated earlier. There are so many other errors
in his argument regarding hourly rate.

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#15

Cogno,

Your disrespectful response indicates that you have nothing worthwhile to
add to the discussion.

I think Jason made good points. I would like to read yours, when you are
done with your pig.

Luke

···

On 7/6/10, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd like to continue the argument but I'm all tied up teaching a pig to
sing.

Cogno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf
> Of fordscks
> Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2010 1:31 PM
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 29 JUN 2010
>
> — In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@…>
> wrote:
> > You're mistaken in all three of your criticisms, and he explained why
> in his article. I think it's cute that he realized he could make an
> extra dollar of EV in thirty seconds. Bob's all about hourly rate.
> >
> > Cogno
>
> Sorry, I am not mistaken. Suppose on that day, there were two people
> independently doing the same strategy. Since there are two of them,
> one will be disappointed and the sore loser goes and writes a column on
> some bogus "a priori" vs "a posteriori" argument. The odds of hitting
> quad aces is IRRELEVANT given another player is already sitting on quad
> aces. It just happens the other player saw Bob being dealt quad aces
> and the other player immediately panicks and hits his button first to
> deny Bob the jackpot.
>
> If you use sound logic, you will realize a lot of Bob's arguments are
> specious. First, counting meter movements as part of EV (note he
> didn't get the extra "$84" so logic dictates Bob OVERESTIMATED his EV -
> - this is fact based on the article. Second, Bob makes certain
> assumptions about randomness that is incorrect, i.e. someone sitting on
> quad aces argument as stated earlier. There are so many other errors
> in his argument regarding hourly rate.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#16

It's always good to hear from an expert in having nothing worthwhile to add
to the discussion.

Cogno

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf
Of Luke Fuller
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 12:36 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 29 JUN 2010

Cogno,

Your disrespectful response indicates that you have nothing worthwhile
to
add to the discussion.

I think Jason made good points. I would like to read yours, when you
are
done with your pig.

Luke

On 7/6/10, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to continue the argument but I'm all tied up teaching a pig
to
> sing.
>
> Cogno
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On
Behalf
> > Of fordscks
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2010 1:31 PM
> > To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 29 JUN
2010
> >
> > — In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@…>
> > wrote:
> > > You're mistaken in all three of your criticisms, and he explained
why
> > in his article. I think it's cute that he realized he could make an
> > extra dollar of EV in thirty seconds. Bob's all about hourly rate.
> > >
> > > Cogno
> >
> > Sorry, I am not mistaken. Suppose on that day, there were two
people
> > independently doing the same strategy. Since there are two of
them,
> > one will be disappointed and the sore loser goes and writes a
column on
> > some bogus "a priori" vs "a posteriori" argument. The odds of
hitting
> > quad aces is IRRELEVANT given another player is already sitting on
quad
> > aces. It just happens the other player saw Bob being dealt quad
aces
> > and the other player immediately panicks and hits his button first
to
> > deny Bob the jackpot.
> >
> > If you use sound logic, you will realize a lot of Bob's arguments
are
> > specious. First, counting meter movements as part of EV (note he
> > didn't get the extra "$84" so logic dictates Bob OVERESTIMATED his
EV -
> > - this is fact based on the article. Second, Bob makes certain
> > assumptions about randomness that is incorrect, i.e. someone
sitting on
> > quad aces argument as stated earlier. There are so many other
errors
> > in his argument regarding hourly rate.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#17

Luke Fuller wrote:

Cogno,

Your disrespectful response indicates that you have nothing
worthwhile to add to the discussion.

I think Jason made good points. I would like to read yours,
when you are done with your pig.

Luke

I agree with Harry and Cogno, Jazbo's article is not relevant to this discussion. In fact Jazbo is not 100% correct in his conclusion
regarding meter movement and inclusion in EV calculations.

fordscks criticisms of the Dancer article do more to illustrate his
misconceptions than demonstrate any error in the original article.

Harry did an oustanding job in his analysis of fordscks statements.

By the way Luke, who is Jason?

G'luck all,
Gamb00ler

#18

...just wondering what would have Bob done if he was the only person playing on the bank of machines...

While waiting to hit his dealt 4 Aces:
a) play the machine to his left or his right to get the progressive meter rolling?

b) ask Shirley or a friend to play the other machines on the same bank?

c) write another article why $84 is still something to be greedy about even after winning over $1 million already on VP according to one of his books?

d) cover up his machine's screen and wait for other people to play the same bank of machines?

e) any other options he may want to do in this situation?

#19

fordscks = jason_c_vp@yahoo.com

···

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:40 PM, gamb00ler <gamb00ler@yahoo.com> wrote:

By the way Luke, who is Jason?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#20

Luke Fuller wrote:

Cogno,

Your disrespectful response indicates that you have nothing
worthwhile to add to the discussion.

I think Jason made good points. I would like to read yours, when
you are done with your pig.

Luke

In a private discussion, Jason asserts that I lack the intelligence to understand the basics of Bob's "situation".

Now that's a conversation killer from the get go.

I'd have to say that Cogno wins on the "discretion is the better part of valor" front. He at least recognizes which subject is more apt to listen.

- H.