vpFREE2 Forums

Mr. Dancer's writings.

#1

I'm a fan of Mr. Dancer's, but apparently not quite as overcome as you. By my calculations, the proper bankroll per his teachings in order to play a $5 JorB machine with sufficient cash back to make it a good play is around $60,000. So the $25 is $300,000. That makes the $100 over a million dollars. Maybe he has that now but he didn't then; that he has said, and if he has that now he would be better off investing it just as he would have then. Therefore sir, and in conjunction with the other poster Larry's acknowledgment of Mr. Dancer's writing about taking pot shots (what i refer to as chances) without the proper bankroll, please tell me again why my factual support is not as trustworthy as your speculation.

···

From: "fayokoyama <FYokoyama@aol.com>" <FYokoyama@aol.com>
Reply-To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Mr. Dancer's writings.
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:02:58 -0000

imo the post below mischaracterizes dancer's writings. in short,
dancer does not teach "never" to play a high denomination machine.
he teaches to play within your bankroll. dancer has written that his
bankroll is sufficient to play $25 and more vp. ($25 royal =
$100,000; $100 royal = $400,000) imo the post below assumes with no
factual support and without reading dancer's book that "he went off
his strict disipline [sic] of bankroll rqmts."

is bankroll the sole reason the poster below does not trust what
dancer says?

here is a relevant dancer column:
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/062601.html

Frank
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Valerie Polito" <casinogal23@h...>
wrote:
> I'm sorry I lost the message from the person who asked me why I
might
> question some of Mr. Dancers writings. I've always read his
articles with
> interestand sometimes see a little bragging. I believe he does
> sensationalize (and he certainly has earned that right) in my
opinion.
> That's not why I may not 100%trust what he says though. His
winning streak
> began by taking a chance on a $500 machine i think, and he teaches
never to
> do that. I would quickly apologize if he mentions that in his book
which i
> hope to have here this week. Steve, did he say anything about that
or
> explain why he went off his strict disipline of bankroll rqmts?
thank you,
> Valerie

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

#2

before i am able to reply in full, some points and requests for
clarification:
1. you are entitled to your opinion as am i
2. it's good to hear from another fan of dancer
3. how do you know what dancer's bankroll has been the last few years?
4. in june 2001 dancer wrote his bankroll was sufficient to play $25
and more vp
5. have you read the article Larry mentioned that you now rely on?
6. please let me know where this article is so i can read it before i
rely on it
7. are you saying vp players are better off investing their bankrolls
than playing vp? is this another reason why you don't trust dancer?
8. if someone else wants to tackle the virtue of investing vs. vp (or
gambling in general) please do so. that's a whole other thread
9. please clarify what i speculated about
10.thank you for your post

Frank
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Valerie Polito" <casinogal23@h...>
wrote:

I'm a fan of Mr. Dancer's, but apparently not quite as overcome as

you. By

my calculations, the proper bankroll per his teachings in order to

play a $5

JorB machine with sufficient cash back to make it a good play is

around

$60,000. So the $25 is $300,000. That makes the $100 over a

million

dollars. Maybe he has that now but he didn't then; that he has

said, and if

he has that now he would be better off investing it just as he

would have

then. Therefore sir, and in conjunction with the other poster

Larry's

acknowledgment of Mr. Dancer's writing about taking pot shots (what

i refer

to as chances) without the proper bankroll, please tell me again

why my

···

factual support is not as trustworthy as your speculation.

#3

I'm hoping (massively!) that this thread will die down. I find it a
little in poor taste, but more to the point the closer we get to a
debate of someone's character the more likely it'll deteriorate into a
"he said, she said" discussion that neither informs nor enlightens.

So let me touch on a side point raised in Valerie's/Frank's dialogue -
the question of whether gambling (specifically vp) is a sound
financial activity.

I just want to run through a general illustration that casts a little
light on the subject and is food for thought.

···

------

Let's work with Valerie's calculations that a proper bankroll of JB is
2400 bets (e.g. $60K for $5 play or $25 bet). Now, I'm not sure what
edge is assumed for play, but I guesstimate that this correlates to
around a .5% with a moderate risk of ruin. I could be way off, but
given that we're talking about a bankroll of only 3 RF's, I can't
imagine we're looking at a smaller edge than this.

Now, since we're talking about almost 1% in cash/cash equivalent
incentives I'd expect opportunities to be somewhat limited. So let's
assume about 40 hours of play/month, or around 500/year. And we're
it's high denomination play so let's assume even with some two machine
play that hand-pays, etc. will limit play to about 800 hph.

Obviously the air's getting pretty thin by now given how many numbers
I've pulled out of it. But the purpose here is simply to form some
practical example from which to make a general assessment of the
wisdom of devoting large sums to a bankroll.

So let's see what our profit expectation is under these assumptions.
500 hours of play at 800 hph will give us 400,000 bets a year. Each
bet is expected to turn a 0.5% profit, for a total annual profit of
2000 bets. That means on our original 2400 bet bankroll we can expect
to release over 80% of it within a year. Sounds a bit better than I
think I can do on a 1-year CD, no?

Well, let's pull some additional numbers out of the sky (well, perhaps
from a considerably more nether location) that might feel a little
more attainable. Let's cut that edge in half to .25% and assume that
the necessary bankroll grows by 4x (I actually have a very rough basis
for choosing these values, but they're nothing to take to the bank :).

This cuts our annual profit to 1000 bets, but we're working on a
bankroll just short of 10000 bets now. This 10% expected return isn't
too bad especially since that bankroll can be earning a couple of
percent in a money market fund until it's required to cover losses.
And of course, since we've significantly cut our edge it's much more
likely that we'll find acceptable play opportunities. Increase the
play to 80 hours a month and we're looking at a 20% annual return.

------

So as long as we're talking about assets that are reasonably risked, I
think we could be looking at an intelligent enterprise here.
Supplement the play with some side work for which play at this level
would qualify us (writing, training, consulting) and it might actually
be seen as downright shrewd. (But I'd be sure to run these numbers by
your financial advisor before pursuing it yourself!)

QED :).

- Harry

fayokoyama wrote:

before i am able to reply in full, some points and requests for
clarification: <snipped>
1. you are entitled to your opinion as am i
8. if someone else wants to tackle the virtue of investing vs. vp (or
gambling in general) please do so. that's a whole other thread
10.thank you for your post

Frank

Valerie Polito wrote:

> I'm a fan of Mr. Dancer's, but apparently not quite as overcome as
> you. By my calculations, the proper bankroll per his teachings in
> order to play a $5 JorB machine with sufficient cash back to make
> it a good play is around $60,000. So the $25 is $300,000. That
> makes the $100 over a million dollars. Maybe he has that now but
> he didn't then; that he has said, and if he has that now he would
> be better off investing it just as he would have then.

#4

Many players greatly underestimate reasonable bankroll requirements.
Even with .5% cash back on 10-7 DB, a $60,000 bankroll would be way
too small to reasonably surive on $5 VP. $200,000 would be more
realistic. One would be much better off to play $1 DB rather than $5
DB with 'only' $60,000. Using certainty equivalence, I developed a
rating system to judge different games and different denominations
that incorporates variance, game return %, and bankroll. The rating
on $5 DB above with 60k is only about $14 CE an hour, while a $1 DB
game is a $19 certainty equivalence per hour. Good luck. TomSki

Let's work with Valerie's calculations that a proper bankroll of JB

is

2400 bets (e.g. $60K for $5 play or $25 bet). Now, I'm not sure

what

···

edge is assumed for play, but I guesstimate that this correlates to
around a .5% with a moderate risk of ruin. I could be way off, but
given that we're talking about a bankroll of only 3 RF's, I can't
imagine we're looking at a smaller edge than this.

#5

tomskilv wrote:

Many players greatly underestimate reasonable bankroll requirements.
Even with .5% cash back on 10-7 DB, a $60,000 bankroll would be way
too small to reasonably surive on $5 VP. $200,000 would be more
realistic.

Tom, keep in mind the parameters were for JB, not DB, where total net
ER was 100.5%. I was roughly guestimating the .5% from the $60K
bankroll quoted (and preferred to err on the low side since the
resulting imputed income would be compared to the $60K). I wouldn't
be at all surprised that the actual bankroll requirement correlating
to a .5% edge was higher, but I think it would be considerably lower
than the $200K you state for $5 DB.

- Harry

#6

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

I developed a rating system to judge different games and different

denominations that incorporates variance, game return %, and
bankroll. The rating on $5 DB above with 60k is only about $14 CE
an hour, while a $1 DB game is a $19 certainty equivalence per
hour. Good luck. TomSki

Hey Tom, when are you going to fixed your TSI model. Thanks.

#7

The 1% risk of ruin bankroll for $5 9/6 JOB with 1% cash back is
$181,675. In other words, with that starting bankroll, there is a 99%
chance you will never go broke. (assuming you do not remove funds
from your bankroll).
For a 5% ROR, the bankroll required would be $118,182, and a 10% ROR
would require $90,837.
For $5 10-7 DB with 0.5% cash back, the 1% ROR bankroll would be
$226,064, 5% ROR would be $147,058, and 10% ROR would be $113,032.
Divide the above figures by 5 for $1 machines.
For 25 cent full pay 2's wild players, with 0% cash back, the 1% ROR
is bankroll required is $8810, 5% ROR is $5731 and 10% ROR is $4405.
With 0.25% cash back, the 1$ ROR is $6404, 5% ROR is $4166, and 10%
ROR is $3202. With 0.5% cash back, the 1% ROR bankroll required is
$4954, the 5% ROR bankroll is $3222 and the 10% ROR bankroll is
$2477. Good luck. TomSki

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter <harry.porter@v...>"
<harry.porter@v...> wrote:

Tom, keep in mind the parameters were for JB, not DB, where total

net

···

ER was 100.5%. I was roughly guestimating the .5% from the $60K
bankroll quoted (and preferred to err on the low side since the
resulting imputed income would be compared to the $60K). I wouldn't
be at all surprised that the actual bankroll requirement correlating
to a .5% edge was higher, but I think it would be considerably lower
than the $200K you state for $5 DB.

- Harry

#8

Steve, did he say anything about that or explain why
he went off his strict disipline (sic) of bankroll rqmts?

I responded:

I remember reading an article that Bob wrote last year
in either Strictly Slots or Casino Player about taking
"Pot Shots". I think that he tied in some of his own
pot shots that turned out rather lucky. In the context
of your comments, Valerie I would love to reread that
article now.

I was not trying to support the argument that Bob doesn't follow
his own advice. I was trying to indicate that the information in
that article could help answer your question.

Thanks to Frank (fayokoyama) for pointing out that the Pot Shots
article by Bob Dancer appeared in the May 2001 Strictly Slots. I re-
read the article today and wanted to share my thoughts.

The article is well written and informative and provides guidelines
for taking this very risky chance if you have the stomach for it and
other circumstances fall into place. He gives a firm checklist for
when it should even be considered:

1) You are the favorite….by a large amount.
2) You have a loss limit set and will stick to it.
3) The loss limit is a small part of your bankroll.
4) You can handle the loss psychologically
5) Is your chance for success reasonable?
6) Is the pot shot a rare event for you?
7) Can you play correctly at that high stake?

He then explains that when all of these things line up it is then
acceptable to take a pot shot. He says to be prepared to lose the
pre-set stake in the attempt. He then goes on to explain the 4 pot-
shots he had taken in his entire gambling career (to that point in
time). 2 winners, 1 loser and finally a play that resulted in his
now famous 500,000 win (a $100,000 and $400,000 royal flush in a 1/2
hour period).

After re-reading this it is clear to me that this was sound advice
and a well thought out (although risky) plan. I am happy for Bob
that he got so lucky on a pot shot. I feel that I have gained a lot
from reading Bob's writings since taking up Video Poker in 1997.
I enjoyed re-reading this article today and look forward to reading
Bob's Book.

-Larry

···

At the beginning of this thread, Valerie wrote:

#9

Thank you for the refresher on this. If I read this article, I don't
recall it. My question is: How could anyone ever meet the first
requirement (in VP). I could see the potential of being an
overwhelming favorite in some other wagers, but not at a VP machine.
Can someone enlighten me on this?

Thanks,
Marsha

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Larry218 <larry@L...>" <larry@L...>
wrote:
  He gives a firm checklist for

···

when it should even be considered:

1) You are the favorite….by a large amount.
2) You have a loss limit set and will stick to it.
3) The loss limit is a small part of your bankroll.
4) You can handle the loss psychologically
5) Is your chance for success reasonable?
6) Is the pot shot a rare event for you?
7) Can you play correctly at that high stake?

#10

I think that in the context of professional Video Poker Players that
a 1% advantage (return of game plus cash back) is considered to be
substantial. This is obtainable during the times when
multiple points are made available as a promotion.

I think his "large amount" requirement would be a 1%, maybe 1 1/2%
advantage. Most professional play is apparently done at well under a
1% advantage.

QZ was talking about his potshots with a 1 1/2% advantage.

-Larry

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mcuddington <mcuddington@h...>"
<mcuddington@h...> wrote:

Thank you for the refresher on this. If I read this article, I

don't

recall it. My question is: How could anyone ever meet the first
requirement (in VP). I could see the potential of being an
overwhelming favorite in some other wagers, but not at a VP

machine.

···

Can someone enlighten me on this?

Thanks,
Marsha

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Larry218 <larry@L...>" <larry@L...>
wrote:
  He gives a firm checklist for
> when it should even be considered:
>
> 1) You are the favorite….by a large amount.
> 2) You have a loss limit set and will stick to it.
> 3) The loss limit is a small part of your bankroll.
> 4) You can handle the loss psychologically
> 5) Is your chance for success reasonable?
> 6) Is the pot shot a rare event for you?
> 7) Can you play correctly at that high stake?
>

#11

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Larry218 <larry@L...>" <larry@L...>
wrote:

I think that in the context of professional Video Poker Players

that

a 1% advantage (return of game plus cash back) is considered to be
substantial.

Hmmm, guess his idea of a "large amount" is different from mine.

Beyond that, I would love for Bob to explain this further. Not to be
dense, but the logic escapes me. His advantage numbers are based on
long-term play, while a pot-shot sounds like a short-term endeavor.

Playing higher stakes at a 1% "advantage" seems pretty risky, unless
one can hold out for the full RF cycle. Even then, there's certainly
no guarantee of getting the Royal! Wonder if Bob changes his
strategy during these adventures. . .

#12

It has always been my impression that Dancer plays at considerably
less than 101%. More like 100.1%, but I don't know.

···

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:02:11 -0000, you wrote:

I think that in the context of professional Video Poker Players that
a 1% advantage (return of game plus cash back) is considered to be
substantial. This is obtainable during the times when
multiple points are made available as a promotion.

I think his "large amount" requirement would be a 1%, maybe 1 1/2%
advantage. Most professional play is apparently done at well under a
1% advantage.

QZ was talking about his potshots with a 1 1/2% advantage.

-Larry

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mcuddington <mcuddington@h...>"
<mcuddington@h...> wrote:

Thank you for the refresher on this. If I read this article, I

don't

recall it. My question is: How could anyone ever meet the first
requirement (in VP). I could see the potential of being an
overwhelming favorite in some other wagers, but not at a VP

machine.

Can someone enlighten me on this?

Thanks,
Marsha

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Larry218 <larry@L...>" <larry@L...>
wrote:
  He gives a firm checklist for
> when it should even be considered:
>
> 1) You are the favorite….by a large amount.
> 2) You have a loss limit set and will stick to it.
> 3) The loss limit is a small part of your bankroll.
> 4) You can handle the loss psychologically
> 5) Is your chance for success reasonable?
> 6) Is the pot shot a rare event for you?
> 7) Can you play correctly at that high stake?
>

vpFREE Home Page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

vpFREE Links:
http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#13

I had to reply - I just finished the new Million Dollar VP book by
BD. His rationalization for and method of play in the Pot Shots is
the hardest part for me to believe. Bob is really a hard-wired
machine if he holds to his "perfect play" strategy while in the midst
of a Pot Shot. He insists that this trait is what separates the PRO
from the low-roller- never stray from perfect play.

Can each of us keep AKJ5 hearts instead of AKJ hearts during Casino
Play if the strategy card says it is a 1.75 cent favorite on a $1,
$5, $25 or even a $100 per coin Pot shot?
(Numbers are example only - note the game & paytable info is left
off.) I can't say I would do it - AKJ looks good to me.

Bob would have us think he NEVER gambles! He even gives out
these "Rules" for taking pot shots. Instead, I believe they are his
rationalization for violating his own Bankroll formulas. That's the
only gamble for him. He repeats often that there is "no such thing"
as a short-term strategy. NOW that's a life-time commitment.

Rather than review the book, I think I'll just interject when
threads/posts jog some of my thoughts on the book... It IS a fine
book, well written, it should give us plenty to of things to chat
about....

~Mark Time P.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, mcuddington wrote:

--- "Larry218 wrote:
> ...a 1% advantage (return of game plus cash back) is considered
> to be substantial.

Hmmm, guess his idea of a "large amount" is different from mine.
Beyond that, I would love for Bob to explain this further. Not to
be dense, but the logic escapes me. His advantage numbers are
based on long-term play, while a pot-shot sounds like a short-term
endeavor.
Playing higher stakes at a 1% "advantage" seems pretty risky,unless
one can hold out for the full RF cycle. Even then, there's
certainly no guarantee of getting the Royal!
Wonder if Bob changes his strategy during these adventures. . .

#14

Mark P. wrote: <excerpts>

Bob is really a hard-wired machine if he holds to his "perfect play"
strategy while in the midst of a Pot Shot.

Can each of us keep AKJ5 hearts instead of AKJ hearts during Casino
Play if the strategy card says it is a 1.75 cent favorite on a $1,
$5, $25 or even a $100 per coin Pot shot?

Bob would have us think he NEVER gambles! He even gives out
these "Rules" for taking pot shots. Instead, I believe they are his
rationalization for violating his own Bankroll formulas. t.

Here are my thoughts:

I think Bob may do himself a disservice in refering to these plays as
Pot Shots. That conjures up images of someone saying: "Gosh, that
jackpot looks tasty. I don't have the bankroll to play at that level,
but hell, I'm really tired of grinding my way to that $1 mm win mark
that's my lifetime target! What the hell, I'm gonna take $10 grand
and go for it!"

Reading into Dancer's write-up I'd interpret it this way: He sees an
attractive play that he's not bankrolled for. In other words, if he
persisted in plays of that nature he stands a very good chance of
losing his full bankroll. However, his bankroll is at a point where
it's more than sufficient to cover the risk of his existing plays --
just not large enough to make the leap to the next higher denomination
on a sustained basis. So what he does is carve out a portion of the
excess and allocate it for the "pot shot", justifying it by the fact
that it doesn't threaten his bankroll necessary for his regular play
and because it's a very good opportunity. He recognizes that the risk
for ruin for this allocated bankroll is disproportionately higher than
he would generally accept.

Play strategy? There's no reason in the world to alter play from that
normally optimal for this play. Some people may feel more comfortable
doing so, and given that it's a limited play I can't really fault them
for it. However, if you're going to play accurately you have to
accept a fixed strategy and stay to it. Remember, that if you play a
sub-optimal strategy is can be difficult to use winpoker to hone your
play.

I take Dancer at face value 99% of the time. In this case he's not
violating his play philosophy in the least. It's an intelligent risk
of "excess" bankroll.

Now, a couple of initial impressions on the book: It's one of the
best gambling reads I've had to date and I've suffered no "buyer's
remorse" that I have with a number of other gambling titles. It's
fascinating and very readable.

Plus, I find it very insightful. I don't think the typical player is
likely to find a lot of "practical" knowledge - it's focus generally
is too "high end" for that. However, of great value is that it shares
considerable experience with casinos that has broadened my
understanding of the casinos' perspective on things (dysfunctional as
it may seem at times :).

I was afraid, Bob's writing skills notwithstanding, that this might be
a droning narrative of the history of his play that I would quickly
lose interest in. It's far from that and consequently it hasn't been
a "breeze through" read for me -- I'm savoring most every word.

The book is approachable by players at any level, although the more
time you've spent hanging around the casinos the more fascinating
you'll find it. It's one book that I would recommend to any player,
providing a marvelous take on the casino experience as a whole.

- Harry