Harry, I agree with most of your comments -- especially your point, "The article would have stood whole without the added discussion on experts." I also appreciate your sticking up for Bob so diplomatically (and apologise to him, the anonymous administrator and anyone else I may have offended by my comments). It was my sense that many people I respect were being belittled that got my juices going.
Indeed, Bob's overall thesis is valid; however, the discipline that Bob described IS required for successful recreational players as well as for "true gamblers."
As a serious recreational player who is not a "math person," I don't play enough to warrant taking the time to master expert strategies (which over the course of a year could net me less than what I earn in one hour of consulting). Because of this, I know that I'll never be an expert player. And, I'll admit it -- I'm not even the most knowledable VP player on my block.
Regardless, I stay disciplined. This allows me to maximize my advantage, and has helped me grow my bankroll astronomically (which is a story for another time). It's my discipline that tells me what to play, where to play, how much to play, when to stop playing and to ignore my hunches.
More importantly, my discipline encourages me to participate on boards like this one (and to keep reading, even through squabbles and inane rants, such as this one <g>).
As a LV local who doesn't play enough to be allowed to be part of the "locals group," (which is really a "professionals group") I relish and cherish the nuggests of info that I glean from this board. Because of the good folks here, who play at all levels and at all denominations, I am able to develop teensy, tiny little bursts of insight, which when joined with the insights of others and information shared on this board, become powerful enough to help me.
Harry, you claim that you're not an expert however, if you were to call yourself an expert, I don't think I'd argue with you. Not only do you have extensive knowledge, you understand the underlying math in a way that few players do. Also, your modesty and sheer niceness always give you extra credibility in my book.
Lainie
I take some exception to Bob's statement, "I believe any advice
coming from an "expert" who still plays for quarters is highly
suspect."
There are experts in various niches, and I believe that experts in
plays at various levels have a knowledge base relative to their
level -- and deserve respect for their knowledge and acumen.
By trying to convince us that he is the ONLY VP expert worth
listening to, Bob's statement disses the many recreational VP
players who learn strategy, practice, are disciplined and become
expert at quarter plays. To me, this strategy is back-firing,
since, as a (very well bankrolled) quarter player, I now know that
Bob holds us all in contempt. I don't know that I would trust him
to be expert in issues that are important to quarter players.
Lainie,
I understand that you think Bob is taking a swipe at quarter players,
but I think you're off the mark here. I sense confusion between
"expert" and "very knowledgable".
Bob has demonstrated that he respects any player, quarter or
otherwise, who plays knowledgably, intelligently and discriminately.
I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise. I also expect that he
willingly acknowledges that there are low denom players who have a
very good grasp of vp concepts and possess the acumen to intelligently
guide others in aspects of their play.
···
Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote: Lainie Wolf wrote:
------
Bob's "expert" comments were made in a manner often characteristic of
his articles, as an aside to his main point. The thesis of this
column is that there's a link between a skilled gambling approach and
one's overall financial management. The article would have stood
whole without the added discussion on experts.
Still, he added a couple of paragraphs stating that an expert (not
just "very knowledgable") player is going to be playing at
denominations higher than quarters. He goes on to say that if someone
holds themselves out to be an expert, the statement is very dubious if
they don't play at higher than quarter stakes.
That's a no-brainer to me. No doubt an expert will be a seasoned
player. If they're on top of their field (expert), given the strong
plays that are available in venues where it makes sense to be an
active player, it's a reliable bet that over time their astute play
selection will build their bankroll.
Tell me someone is an expert player and has been playing for 5+ years,
and then tell me that they only stick to quarter play and I'll read a
sizable inconsistency in that info. If they aren't pursuing
attractive plays at higher denoms then they don't fit the definition
of a true gambler (vs. recreational) -- they've either failed to build
their bankroll when it should have been very probable they do so, or
they shy away from higher stake propositions despite having an
appropriate bankroll from which to do so.
That's not to say that players who stick to smaller stakes out of
personal preference are fools. His comments don't touch on such
players ... merely those who tout themselves as experts (which I don't
think relates to you; certainly not to me).
- Harry
Oh, and yeah, he makes no bones about being an expert himself. I got
no problem with that.
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
But I don't feel the distinctions I'm