I messed up.
Bob Dancer asked me to post his response on vpFREE, but revised
the response after I told him that the "no negative comments"
rule was changed in June 2006 (vpFREE Message #60809).
I had some severe formatting problems with Bob's revised response
and somehow got his initial and revised versions intermingled.
Here is the response that should have been posted. (I've deleted
the first post.)
vpFREE Administrator
···
_______________________________________
Bob Dancer sends the following response to the current
"Dancer strikes again!" thread:
***************************************
I rarely post on vpFREE, as it tends to be a very hostile
environment towards me. There are a number of posters there who
have strong anti-Dancer opinions and regularly post their
antipathy. Nothing I say here will change their strongly-held
beliefs. JW has announced that he will not believe any defense I
make. Others appear to have a similar mindset. That's life. There
are, hopefully, many other participants on vpFREE who are at
least willing to hear my defense.
There are two frequent accusations against me --- both with
subplots.
First of all, many already-proficient players do not want any
more people becoming expert at video poker. The feeling of these
already-proficient players is that the more advantage players
there are, the more casinos will act to protect themselves by
tightening pay schedules or 86ing strong players. Since I
arguably provide more detailed information on how to win at video
poker than all other writers combined, I am considered
responsible for the demise of good video poker.
There is some merit to this charge. I DO teach players. I DO
provide a lot of information. It is my belief that this is good
for the video poker community as a whole --- although certainly
some players will disagree with this. So be it. I do not intend
to stop writing and teaching classes. Many of the anti-Dancer
posters today have read many of my writings and/or attended my
classes. They want to become proficient themselves --- they just
don't want anyone else to. And once these players become
proficient, they want casinos to remain sitting ducks and never
adjust to changing conditions.
The second charge is that I consult with casinos and tell them
all sorts of things. This is also true, although there are no
casinos in greater Las Vegas for whom I'm consulting at the
moment. My relationship with Eastside Cannery was primarily due
to the General Manager (Sean Sullivan), who was there between
October 2008 and August 2009. He has since moved on to a casino
in Pennsylvania that is also owned by Cannery Casino Resorts. I
reported in an article
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2009/0303.html
the changes I recommended there. All of those games still exist
at the casino, although the casino fairly recently moved the
machines to different locations. The video poker at this casino
is much looser than before I became involved. The video poker
there is among the loosest in Las Vegas. The 120+ players who
were restricted because they had played on the September 15 10x
point "mistake" the casino made were all invited back and given
$150+ per month mailers for at least two months. None of that
would have happened had I not been involved.
The new G.M. there (Marty Gross) has not seen fit to use me at
all as a consultant. That is his right. He came on board
immediately before the latest video poker class semester began
and it was too late to cancel the semester. I believe he would
have cancelled the classes if he could. I was "forced" to accept
a reduced fee for the classes than I went along with hoping for a
future relationship. I'm still hoping although I see little
evidence that that will happen.
Even when I'm involved in a consulting role, the casino chooses
how much or how little of my advice to implement. At best
(worst?) I'm one of many voices. I've rarely suggested a casino
slow down machines, for example, (and certainly not at the
Eastside Cannery) but whenever machines are slowed anywhere are
those eager to post "Dancer Strikes Again!" criticisms on vpFREE.
(It's always been unclear to me when I struck the first time, let
alone rarely having any part in what I'm accused of.)
It is my belief that many casino executives are afraid of video
poker because they've been burnt in the past. These casinos
over-react by tightening up their video poker. When casinos can
be shown how offering relatively few decent games can still be
profitable and they can get good business and not lose their
shirts, many of them go along with it.
As a good example of a bad example, the M today NEEDS some good
video poker consultant to help them out. The reason I have never
offered my services to them is out of respect to the South Point,
their nearest neighbor and competitor. While I don't have a
consulting relationship with the South Point, I do teach two
10-week semesters a year there (next one beginning Thursday
January 14 at 1 p.m. --- full schedule will be posted soon).
Helping a major competitor of theirs would not be cool. Since I'm
so well known, (more than 100,000 different people have taken
classes from me and my picture appears in numerous places) almost
whenever I go into any casino in Las Vegas or elsewhere someone
from vpFREE sees me. Some vpFREE posters have taken the position
that if I'm seen in a casino and the casino has reduced pay
schedules then they conclude that I'm somehow involved. This is
ludicrous. In October, for example, I gambled at 14 different
casinos --- of which I have a consulting relationship with
exactly none of them.
Someone with a pseudonym recently posted that an unknown woman
had been 86'd by the Eastside Cannery because she was told that
Bob Dancer told the casino that she was a pro. There has never
been any such conversation between me and any casino. EC or
otherwise. If this mystery woman contacts me and tells me who at
the Eastside Cannery gave her that misinformation I'll do my best
to confront that EC employee and find out why they used my name
as justification to make such a move (if indeed it happened and
is not an imaginary tale made up to feed the anti-Dancer frenzy).
As of now I'm not in regular communication with any EC employee,
although I assume if I make a phone call it will get answered.
Most of my accusers on vpFREE use pseudonyms. Paladin
takes it upon himself to start anti-Dancer threads on a regular
basis. IRDD3000 uses a similar tactic. I've requested meetings
with both of them to talk things through and see if we can find a
way to exist harmoniously to no avail. Paladin refuses to meet
with me. IRDD3000 doesn't respond to my emails. I've had similar
negative results trying to have conversations with other
anti-Dancer posters.
Pseudonyms themselves are not the problem. "Bob Dancer" is a
pseudonym, after all. If Skip Hughes or Jean Scott trash me, for
example (which has happened in both cases, but not recently. I'm
using this as two examples of pseudonyms used responsibly and not
trying to start any "war" with either of them), almost everybody
knows who the real person is behind each of those names. But the
identity of Paladin and IRDD3000, along with many others, are
mysteries. This gives them the ability to make charges,
misleading or not, completely false or not, with impunity.
Paladin accuses me of having bad karma --- as though his hiding
behind a pseudonym and regularly slinging mud (sometimes fairly
--- often falsely --- frequently repetitiously) creates good
karma for him. (There are a few posters, Tom Robertson and Bonita
Strong are names that come to mind, who on occasion post
anti-Dancer comments using their own name. Whether I agree with
their posts or not, I respect them for identifying themselves
when they express a negative opinion about me or anything else. I
do not respect those who snipe from the shadows and refuse take
responsibility for what they say.)
There used to be a "no negative personal attacks" rule on vpFREE,
although that was rescinded three years ago and the Administrator
today periodically steps in and moves disruptive threads to
FREEvpFREE. Although there have been some players who have been
restricted from this site at least partly for personal attacks on
me, it seems obvious to me that the anti-Dancer threads are
allowed to fester for a long time without being moved. I don't
envy the decisions the Administrator needs to make on a regular
basis to keep the peace on this site, but I do wish he would find
a way to reduce the anti-Dancer threads --- many of which appear
to be started out of thin air involving nothing I've actually
said or done.
I will continue to sell video poker information to players,
casinos, game manufacturers, game designers, gaming control
boards and anyone else who wishes to purchase it. I will continue
to write and teach. I will continue to gamble at video poker
where I believe I have the advantage. That is my business plan. I
also understand that some people wish I had a different business
plan. That is their right. Although the anti-Dancer posts do have
a somewhat negative effect on the number of books and other
products I sell, they will not deter me from continuing with this
business plan.
There are players who argue that I should ONLY write for players
and if I talk to casino managers at all I am a "traitor" to the
player cause. I do not share this point of view. Whether others
recognize it or not, I believe that selling information to more
than one group of people is an honorable thing to do. I believe
that teaching is an honorable profession. I believe that
discovering and publishing "how to" information is an honorable
thing to do.
There is no "players union" or other organized group of players.
Players are individuals (or members of small groups) each
actively trying to find and exploit opportunities --- sometimes
for profit, sometimes for entertainment. Each of these players
will find many competitors who "stand in the way" of them and
success --- perhaps strong players, perhaps team members, perhaps
smokers, perhaps higher stakes players, perhaps people who get
senior discounts, etc. For some reason, I've become a lightning
rod for everything that stands in the way from their success and
so whenever there is a change in a circumstance, it must be my
fault. Most people recognize that that is giving me WAY too much
credit and WAY too much blame.
Video poker will continue to tighten --- mostly without any
direct input from me. Players willing to study and search for
opportunities will continue to prosper. Players who wish that
things would go back to the way they were in the "good old days"
will be disappointed. It is largely the case that players in the
latter category complain loudly while those in the former
category go about their business quietly.