vpFREE2 Forums

New poll for vpFREE

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
vpFREE group:

(1) Is it OK for vp gurus to work both sides of the fence, and
(2) Do you buy their products if they do? (Assume that you
would buy their products if they didn't do casino consulting.)

  o (1) Yes - (2) Yes
  o (1) Yes - (2) No
  o (1) No - (2) Yes
  o (1) No - (2) No

To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/surveys?id=12178590

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

(1) Is it OK for vp gurus to work both sides of the fence, and
(2) Do you buy their products if they do?

        I'm new enough here that I don't know who creates these polls.
The Administrator, I presume, but it's not signed as such.

        Back when my hair was a lot darker and I was employeed as a
research economist, one of my doctoral fields was Econometrics --- which
basically means applying statistical methods to economic data. We
learned, among other things, that the phrasing on a poll very often
determines the answer. In our culture, the phrase "work both sides of
the fence" is NEVER used in a positive manner. Just the phrasing implies
somebody is doing something rather sleazy. If a doctor, say, treated
both prostitutes and nuns, you wouldn't call that "working both sides of
the fence." But if someone worked for the Mafia and snitched to the
police, you would. So phrasing the question as it is done here is akin
to saying, "do you think the people doing something sleazy are wrong?"
When questions are phrased that way, the answer is a foregone
conclusion.

I'm curious why there are only two sides to this fence. I've consulted
with casinos, to be sure, but also with gaming manufacturers, a state
gaming commission, lawyers in several different legal cases, and I've
been hired by several different players for one-on-one teaching --- and
these players have very different goals. I've helped out-of-work casino
executives to find suitable employment. It's hard to know where this
fence we're talking about is.

Even if that were defined, let's say I certified machines were over 100%
with perfect play. I didn't receive money for this job, but they did put
up one-foot circular signs on top of every qualifying machine saying
"Bob Dancer Certifies . . . " and a reference to www.bobdancer.com at
the bottom of the sign. Would this be counted as "working both sides of
the street?" If so, we have to add at least one more person to the list
of people who work both sides because exactly this sort of compensation
has been given to someone who is quite adamant that he/she has never
been paid by casinos.

It is interesting that the phrasing of the second part of question
implies that these "vp gurus" have products to sell. That would leave
out, for example, Harry Porter. I've seen Harry's posts on a variety of
video poker subjects that indicate he is very knowledgeable about many
aspects of video poker and can explain things clearly. I'm sure that
many of you agree with me and find his posts generally speaking well
worth reading. I would have thought that would make one a guru, but not
here, I guess, because he doesn't have a product to sell. (So at least
now, Harry, if you wish to be a guru when you grow up, you know there's
a "publish or perish" rule in effect.)

So presumably a "vp guru" would have had to write extensively about
video poker AND have products to sell in order to qualify. Depending on
how deep you go, that list would include, in no particular order,
myself, Liam W. Daily, Dan, Skip, Stanford, Frank Scoblete, Rob Singer,
John Robison, Michael Shackleford, John Grochowski and Elliot Frome.
Michael Shackleford, a friend who I greatly respect, consults for
on-line casinos and one of the things he pledges on his website is that
if you have a legitimate dispute with one of the casinos he consults
with, he will go to bat for you if you can convince him of the validity
of your case. I don't know anyone who knows him to speak of him other
than in the highest regard. But the phrasing of this poll certainly
includes him in "working both sides." (Anyone who decides against
getting his "Gambling 102" because of this is making a poor decision.)
Presumably these gurus also have to be alive in order to "work both
sides" so that lets Lenny Frome out of the definition, even though he
would otherwise qualify.

Or it could include people who have written about other subjects but
SELL video poker products. That would now include Jean Scott, Anthony
Curtis, and Howard Schwartz.

If I've left someone out, it's not intentional. I certainly don't know
who was supposed to be included in this poll.

I'm curious whether any of these gurus have to admit consulting as part
of "working both sides". I'm open about this, obviously, but many other
gaming writers choose to keep that quiet. So if you don't admit to
consulting, does that mean you don't work both sides?

If someone otherwise on the list is perceived so poorly by casino
executives that he/she is never OFFERED consulting opportunities, is
that a point in their favor, signifying purity, or a statement that
maybe he/she isn't such a guru after all?

Finally, does anyone really expect any of these vp gurus, however
defined, to act differently in the future no matter what the poll
reveals?

Bob Dancer

For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.

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

I think that polls are fun. I voted earlier today.
I don't think anyone is going to act any differently based on the results
of this particular poll. As with the other vpFREE polls, for me, this poll
just for entertainment and amusement.
Am I in the minority here? Do any of you take these polls as seriously as
Mr. Dancer apparently does?

···

On 11/4/05, Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:

"Finally, does anyone really expect any of these vp gurus, however
defined, to act differently in the future no matter what the poll reveals?"

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

(1) Is it OK for vp gurus to work both sides of the fence, ...

It is interesting that the phrasing of the second part of question

implies that these "vp gurus" have products to sell. That would

leave

out, for example, Harry Porter. I've seen Harry's posts on a

variety of

video poker subjects that indicate he is very knowledgeable about

many

aspects of video poker and can explain things clearly. I'm sure

that

many of you agree with me and find his posts generally speaking

well

worth reading. I would have thought that would make one a guru,

but not

here, I guess, because he doesn't have a product to sell. (So at

least

now, Harry, if you wish to be a guru when you grow up, you know

there's

a "publish or perish" rule in effect.)

If anyone saw the movie The Greatest Game Ever Played (which I
strongly recomend), the golf pros were refered to by their surname,
ie. Vardon, but the amateurs were assumed to be gentlemen and worthy
of greater respect, and therefore were referred to as mister, ie.
Mr. Ouimet. That seemingly quint logic certainly applies to Mr.
Porter.

David

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@c...> wrote:

I can only applaud Mr. Richheimer for selecting Mr. Porter as an
example. I might add Mr. Pearson and Mr. Kent as further examples, but
I'm afraid that I'd be doing injustice to a lot of members by not
including them.

I'll also go out on a limb here and state that I put more trust in the
postings of proven recreational members than in the postings of the
"pros". I just can't get rid of that feeling about financial motives.

On the other hand, I'm professionally bound to be paranoid.

···

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

If anyone saw the movie The Greatest Game Ever Played (which I
strongly recomend), the golf pros were refered to by their surname,
ie. Vardon, but the amateurs were assumed to be gentlemen and worthy
of greater respect, and therefore were referred to as mister, ie.
Mr. Ouimet. That seemingly quint logic certainly applies to Mr.
Porter.

Curtis wrote:

···

I think that polls are fun. I voted earlier today.
I don't think anyone is going to act any differently based on the results
of this particular poll. As with the other vpFREE polls, for me, this poll
just for entertainment and amusement.
Am I in the minority here? Do any of you take these polls as seriously as
Mr. Dancer apparently does?

On 11/4/05, Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:

"Finally, does anyone really expect any of these vp gurus, however
defined, to act differently in the future no matter what the poll reveals?"

==========================================
Bob, I also was amazed to see your long explanation about who qualifies for what on the vpFREE polls. I think most people, including me, think the same way as Curtis does. It's just for fun.

But nevertheless, and I hope you do not take this the wrong way, because you know that I am one of your many supporters, it brings to my mind a German saying: "Ein getroffener Hund bellt". No translation available because I am afraid of the Administrator. I just had to get it off my chest. It fits so nicely.
Helmut

Methinks he doth protest too much. I am wondering whether he looked
at the results prior to spending 30 or 40 minutes of his valualbe time
to write the post.

  I'm also beginning to think that he should lighten up and be a little
nicer.

  Is this comment positive enough?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@c...> wrote:

(1) Is it OK for vp gurus to work both sides of the fence, and
(2) Do you buy their products if they do?

> Finally, does anyone really expect any of these vp gurus, however
defined, to act differently in the future no matter what the poll
reveals?

You're being too hard on Bob. The only way that makes sense to respond to a bully is to stand up for yourself -- and it's too bad that Bob is being forced to waste so much of his time responding to the bullies on this board. I'm sure he has better things to do.

BullyOnline.org has a great quote on its home page, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, bully." Bob can, so he does. Others CLEARLY are threatened, so they bully.

In case you're not too familiar with the definition of a bully, here are some excerpts from Wickipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully

"Bullying is when someone repeatedly acts or says things to have power over another person. Bullies mainly use a combination of intimidation and humiliation to torment others. The following is some examples of bullying techniques:

<note, I have snipped some>

   Calling the victim names
   Spreading gossip and rumours about him/her
   Constant negative criticism for unspecified allegations
   Actually following through with a threat on one occasion to ensure the victim will comply with all future orders
   Cyberbullying through the use of various information technologies"
So tell me, isn't this what's been going on here???

Isn't it time for everyone to just grow up and stop the bullying???

Lainie

···

anyedgeworks <tjm50834@adelphia.net> wrote:
  Methinks he doth protest too much. I am wondering whether he looked at the results prior to spending 30 or 40 minutes of his valualbe time to write the post.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

BRAVO!!! Great post.

You're being too hard on Bob. The only way that makes sense to

respond to a bully is to stand up for yourself -- and it's too bad
that Bob is being forced to waste so much of his time responding to
the bullies on this board. I'm sure he has better things to do.

BullyOnline.org has a great quote on its home page, "Those who can,

do. Those who can't, bully." Bob can, so he does. Others CLEARLY
are threatened, so they bully.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Lainie Wolf <lainiewolf702@y...> wrote:

No, Lainie. This isn't bullying. We are having grown-up conversations.

···

On 11/4/05, Lainie Wolf <lainiewolf702@yahoo.com> wrote:

<note, I have snipped some>

So tell me, isn't this what's been going on here???

Isn't it time for everyone to just grow up and stop the bullying???

Lainie

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

I disagree. It seems that there is a group of grown-ups behaving as if they were children, and I'm not just talking about the posts related to Bob.

The mean-spirited posts that are filled with innuendo, "trash talk" and unsubstantiated negative incidents are not "grown-up conversations," they are childish, schoolyard bullying, as were the posts that "outed" several people who use pen names. We're talking about people's lives and livelihoods here. We're talking about people's families being impacted.

These "grown-up conversations" are insidious, as they are designed to either intimidate others or denegrate their self-esteem. They are NOT the discussions of mature adults.

Adults evaluate people by their own words and deeds, not the words and deeds that others ascribe to them.

Lainie

No, Lainie. This isn't bullying. We are having grown-up conversations.

···

Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/4/05, Lainie Wolf <lainiewolf702@yahoo.com> wrote:

<note, I have snipped some>

So tell me, isn't this what's been going on here???

Isn't it time for everyone to just grow up and stop the bullying???

Lainie

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

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

SPONSORED LINKS
Gambling

---------------------------------
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.

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

I disagree. It seems that there is a group of grown-ups behaving as if they were children, and I'm not just talking about the posts related to Bob.

The mean-spirited posts that are filled with innuendo, "trash talk" and unsubstantiated negative incidents are not "grown-up conversations," they are childish, schoolyard bullying, as were the posts that "outed" several people who use pen names. We're talking about people's lives and livelihoods here. We're talking about people's families being impacted.

These "grown-up conversations" are insidious, as they are designed to either intimidate others or denegrate their self-esteem. They are NOT the discussions of mature adults.

Adults evaluate people by their own words and deeds, not the words and deeds that others ascribe to them.

Lainie

···

==================================================

Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail.com> wrote:
No, Lainie. This isn't bullying. We are having grown-up conversations.

==================================================
Hi Lainie WOLF, although there are so many fake names running around I assume nevertheless that in this case your real name is indeed Lainie Wolf.

Now it would have been nice if at least the 2 Wolfes in this group would have the same opinion but, it was not meant to be.

I have to support Curtis Rich's view, after all this forum is not a Sunday School. If you want to read some real mud slinging, just go to FREEvpFREE.

Helmut WOLF

Bravo, Lainie !! I couldn't agree with you more. You said exactly
what I've been thinking for quite a while.

Thanks for speaking for many of us on the board.

-Babe-

···

----------------------------------------------
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Lainie Wolf <lainiewolf702@y...> wrote:

.....These "grown-up conversations" are insidious, as they are
designed to either intimidate others or denegrate their self-esteem.
They are NOT the discussions of mature adults.

Adults evaluate people by their own words and deeds, not the words and
deeds that others ascribe to them.
Lainie
--------------------------------------------------
Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@g...> wrote:

No, Lainie. This isn't bullying. We are having grown-up conversations.

There's always next time... <g>

···

Helmut Wolf <hewolf@cox.net> wrote:
Now it would have been nice if at least the 2 Wolfes in this group would have the same opinion but, it was not meant to be.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Shouldn't that be "Wolves"? <smile>

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Helmut Wolf" <hewolf@c...> wrote:

Now it would have been nice if at least the 2 Wolfes in this group would
have the same opinion but, it was not meant to be.

Helmut WOLF

Shouldn't that be "Wolves"? <smile>

.....bl

Now it would have been nice if at least the 2 Wolfes in this group would
have the same opinion but, it was not meant to be.

Helmut WOLF

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Helmut Wolf" <hewolf@c...> wrote:

============================
I was thinking about that too, but with a female involved i thought I better stick by name instead of species
Helmut