vpFREE2 Forums

Nominees for 2004 vpFREE HALL OF FAME inductee - REMINDER

#1

Can understand your selection but can't agree with your reasoning as you
have left an important consideration out.

Read his book, Million Dollar Video Poker. In it he not only admits but
seems to pat himself on the back for taking less-than-ethical advantage of
whatever it took to maximize return. His practices led to many negative
countermeasures for the average player who never tried to take unfair advantage. All the
blame shouldn't be laid at his feet alone. But as he seems to take most of
the credit for advancing advantage play in video poker, he can also take most
of the credit for the disappearance of it too.

In a message dated 7/15/2004 10:13:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com writes:

<<< Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 05:04:50 -0000

vpFREE wrote:

Voting to determine the 2004 inductee into the vpFREE VIDEO POKER
HALL OF FAME will take place between 17 JUL and 31 JUL.

In what is surely an egotistical gesture ;), I'm setting forward my
selection for this poll and rationale.

It's a tough pick. The slate of candidates is aptly chosen. For
myself, I can attest to having been educated and influenced by each
candidate and am most appreciative of their endeavors. Those efforts,
likely across the board, are inspired mostly out of altruistic
motivations. To the extent that there's a commercial interest, it
represents a nominal livlihood in most cases.

Even in the case of a prolific contributor such as Jean Scott, a
fervent desire to educate clearly spearheads her enthusiasm.

I anticipate that most or all the names put forward will ultimately
hit the "HOF". When I consider those factors that most influence my
play experience, I opt for Bob Dancer this year.>>>

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

ยทยทยท

From: "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Nominees for 2004 vpFREE HALL OF FAME inductee - REMINDER

#2

TedChee@aol.com wrote:

Can understand your selection but can't agree with your reasoning as you have left an important consideration out.

Read his book, Million Dollar Video Poker. In it he not only admits but seems to pat himself on the back for taking less-than-ethical advantage of whatever it took to maximize return. His practices led to many negative countermeasures for the average player who never tried to take unfair advantage. All the
blame shouldn't be laid at his feet alone. But as he seems to take most of
the credit for advancing advantage play in video poker, he can also take most
of the credit for the disappearance of it too.

That sounds reasonable enough, and as usual, Ted, you make perfect sense. Nothing against Bob, or anyone else.

Cheers.

Bill

#3

Bill Velek wrote:

That sounds reasonable enough, and as usual, Ted, you make perfect
sense. Nothing against Bob, or anyone else.

Concerning claims of unethical play behavior by Dancer, particular as
discussed in Million Dollar Poker: I personally don't have much
tolerance for unethical behavior, but don't find anything described in
the book nearly as egregious as others do, apparently.

Forgive me if a smile crept over my face as he describes his and
Shirley's tossing a jacket over a machine "candle" after a jackpot to
delay it's notice until it was elgible for a double royal payment at
the top of the hour.

Certainly this rides on the edge of impropriety -- perhaps the
promotion might be construed as kicking in at the time the jackpot is
paid? :wink:

I've witnessed far more contemptible moves in a casino. I'll weigh
Dancer's merits on what I perceive his impact has been on my play and
those who I'm most concerned about.

- Harry

#4

Harry Porter wrote:

snip

Forgive me if a smile crept over my face as he describes his and
Shirley's tossing a jacket over a machine "candle" after a jackpot to
delay it's notice until it was elgible for a double royal payment at
the top of the hour.

Certainly this rides on the edge of impropriety ...

snip

"The _EDGE_ of _IMPROPRIETY_?? :o) Now a big smile is creeping over _my_ face. In my jurisdiction in Arkansas, where I've been a judge for about 18 years, what you've just described is a hell of a lot worse than "impropriety". Around these here parts it's called "fraud". But I agree that that really has nothing to do with whether Bob made great contributions to VP and deserves HoF. The part that I was agreeing with Ted concerned the fact that Bob also has to rightfully assume responsibility for his part in much of the demise of many positive game opportunities.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

#5

Bill Velek wrote:

The part that I was agreeing with Ted concerned the fact that Bob also
has to rightfully assume responsibility for his part in much of the
demise of many positive game opportunities.

What opportunity was it that Dancer cheated you out of Bill?

- H.

#6

Harry Porter wrote:

Bill Velek wrote:
> The part that I was agreeing with Ted concerned the fact that Bob also
> has to rightfully assume responsibility for his part in much of the
> demise of many positive game opportunities.

What opportunity was it that Dancer cheated you out of Bill?

He never cheated me out of anything, personally, and I've never even suggested that he had. Where are you coming from with that question, Harry? I know I joked about 'campaigning' for different folks, but I didn't know you were going to start acting like a Democrat with gross distortions, illogic, and outright false accusations :wink:

I'll have to go back and read Ted Chee's post again; maybe I misinterpreted what he was saying, but what I meant in my reply, and what I mean now, is that Bob, as well as anyone else who has had a massive influence on the growth of strategic play -- and I guess many of us on this group, including myself, also share _some_ similar responsibility though not as _much_ as those with published books, etc., like Bob -- have contributed to the tightening of the market and the rapid shrinking of VP opportunities. I don't know how much impact that _I've_ had, but maybe there are a _few_ people who play better now, or perhaps play VP when they otherwise wouldn't, or maybe make more frequent trips, stay longer, and play _good_ VP exclusively now when they otherwise would have been on lousy machines that are profitable for casinos, but now they cut into casino profits and compete with you and me for the shrinking numbers of good machines. Perhaps I've even influenced _more_ than a handful -- perhaps a couple dozen -- as I've volunteered information. But if Bob and others have, as a result of their commercial enterprise (hey, it's a free country and I don't fault them) actually managed to persuade millions of skilled players to cram into casinos in search of positive plays, what are we seeing now?? -- an almost constant decline in the quality of VP pay-tables. I don't _fault_ anyone for doing what they've done. I just thought that Ted was saying something along the lines of: "Bob taught us how to play VP, but he has taught so many of us so well that his tutelage is a major factor in why the casinos feel that they can no longer offer good VP at the levels that they've offered in the past.

Heck, this same stuff has been discussed here and in other newsgroups before. I have nothing against Bob or anyone else, and I'm sure not campaigning for any particular person to make it to the HoF. _YOU_ were the one that brought up the ... uhhhh, indiscretion?? ... of Bob in one of your last posts, and I merely gave you my interpretation of that. Other than that, I don't think I've said a thing about Bob that could be construed in the least bit to be negative. Of course, Bob might not have appreciated my candor on that point, but a spade is a spade, and he apparently sold that information about himself ... in his book. :wink:

Cheers.

Bill Velek