vpFREE2 Forums

Million Dollar VP

#1

In a message dated 2/2/2003 10:03:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com writes:

  Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 18:39:45 -0000
  From: "mcuddington <mcuddington@hotmail.com>" <mcuddington@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: BD-$Million VP

I just read it also, and found it quite enjoyable, and somewhat
comforting. It seems as though he had some pretty phenomenal luck,
in addition to his perfect play. Now I don't wonder so much what he
did right that I'm doing wrong!

Also admired his candor with regard to some of the "marginal" ethics
employed in his quest for a bankroll. Many people wouldn't have had
the guts to do these things, or admit to them.

Guts? The message that I got was that ethics change depending on need & what
you think you can get away with.

BD is scrupulously honest about himself and has a record of achievement which
puts him in the top 1% of VP players. But being honest about how you have
gotten more coupons or stamps on your card or drawing tickets than you
deserve may qualify as a record for the Hall of Fame (or Infamy) but what he
did was essentially wrong. Since these are gray areas which most of us would
not do (out of consideration for others), when we see someone else do it, a
typical reaction may be "He's got a lot of moxie!".

The end result is that a lot of plays were burned out. What's worse is that
he compromised others in doing it. For instance, he got extra stamps on the
card by slipping a generous tip to the change people. Though not identified,
believe the casino was the Four Queens.

BD says he would not do many of the things that he did before due to his
standing with the casinos & the fact that he doesn't have the financial
concerns that he did before. He does leave open the possibility that he might
return to his old habits if faced with similar circumstances.

I don't want to get into an unproductive thread about right or wrong since
for many people "right" is what is legally permissible and for others "right"
is what is morally permissible. These are 2 different premises so it can't be
decided.

In any case, you've got guts if you stick to your standards during bad times
when your back is against the wall. Changing standards to fit the situation
is just a matter of convenience. Winning while doing so may evoke
admiration/adulation from those who care more about results than how it was
attained.

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

#2

No disagreement here.

I'll stand corrected that "moxie" is probably a better term. Not
saying that I approve of the things he did, but he definitely had a
lot of brass. (Perhaps need makes people take risks that they
otherwise wouldn't, and there was always a risk of getting caught.)

The gutsy part is being honest enough to ADMIT to them, especially
after becoming so well-known. I dare say that many other celebrities
would conveniently forget or omit some of the episodes that Dancer
bared to the world.

Marsha

In a message dated 2/2/2003 10:03:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com writes:

Guts? The message that I got was that ethics change depending on

need & what

you think you can get away with.

BD is scrupulously honest about himself and has a record of

achievement which

puts him in the top 1% of VP players. But being honest about how

you have

gotten more coupons or stamps on your card or drawing tickets than

you

deserve may qualify as a record for the Hall of Fame (or Infamy)

but what he

did was essentially wrong. Since these are gray areas which most of

us would

not do (out of consideration for others), when we see someone else

do it, a

typical reaction may be "He's got a lot of moxie!".

The end result is that a lot of plays were burned out. What's worse

is that

he compromised others in doing it. For instance, he got extra

stamps on the

card by slipping a generous tip to the change people. Though not

identified,

believe the casino was the Four Queens.

BD says he would not do many of the things that he did before due

to his

standing with the casinos & the fact that he doesn't have the

financial

concerns that he did before. He does leave open the possibility

that he might

return to his old habits if faced with similar circumstances.

I don't want to get into an unproductive thread about right or

wrong since

for many people "right" is what is legally permissible and for

others "right"

is what is morally permissible. These are 2 different premises so

it can't be

decided.

In any case, you've got guts if you stick to your standards during

bad times

when your back is against the wall. Changing standards to fit the

situation

is just a matter of convenience. Winning while doing so may evoke
admiration/adulation from those who care more about results than

how it was

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, TedChee@a... wrote:

attained.

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