Please tell us whence that personal knowledge. And "personal
knowledge" is meaningless without identifying yourself. My humorous
observations were based mostly on their writings, not on "best
guesses." If you think I'm wrong, please be specific.
I acknowledge that I erred on one point, and another could be argued
on semantics. Dancer has published strategies, and in some cases both
may have helped to improve VP offerings, at least temporarily.
1. To the best of my knowledge, Dancer has never claimed to have
developed a strategy himself from scratch. He claims only to have
refined the strategies created by others, mostly with the help of
Liam Daily and WinPoker. Singer has never developed or published a
strategy, and he has acknowledged that he has nothing to offer as an
alternative to a computer-derived strategy; he criticizes the use of
strategies and writes only about tactics.
2. Singer makes it clear that he ignores the math of RoR by promoting
a progressive betting system (if you lose, move to a higher
denomination). Now that he has a $1M gambling bankroll, it's unlikely
that Dancer plays at high RoR any more, but in his $M VP book he
brags about "taking a shot" way above his budget and getting lucky
with the $500K royal.
3. Both consult for casinos while selling their books to players. In
some cases this has resulted in good opportunities for players, but
in other cases it has led indirectly to the demise of good plays. But
whether it's good or bad for players, it is playing both sides.
4. Singer claims that his book sells well, although I have no way of
confirming that. It's obvious that Dancer's publications sell well.
5. I've worked with Dancer (unfortunately) and attended a couple of
his classes in the casinos. He is very intelligent and a good
instructor. I concur with the opinion of Skip and others that Singer
is very intelligent and knows exactly what he is doing with his snake
oil. Singer promotes playing sub-100% games without bothering to
learn a mathematically sound strategy; doesn't that show a lack of
concern for the well being of his readers? Dancer claims that his
consulting has resulted in better plays in the casinos than would
otherwise be available; this is true in some cases, but his actions
have also resulted in the loss of some good plays, so it's a mixed
bag.
But these are all just observations. I'm not criticizing either of
them. My response to the initial post was meant to be humorous, and I
apologize that it apparently didn't come off that way. Don't you
think it's weird that we can find so many similarities between people
that are so different?
Dan
ยทยทยท
"vpFae6128305" <vpfae6128305@Cox.net> wrote:
On 11 Sep 2005 at 15:10, Dan Paymar wrote:
So just what are the similarities between these two men?
1. Neither has ever created or published a playing strategy.
2. Both ignore the mathematics of Risk of Ruin in their own play.
3. Both play both sides of the fence.
4. Both make big money off of their publications.
5. Both are very intelligent, yet they have little or no concern
about how their "work" affects other players.> Please tell me if I'm wrong on any of these points.
Based on my personal knowledge, the writings of BD and RS,
and my best guesses, I believe there's a good chance that
you're wrong (or it's impossible to judge) on all 5 points.
Semantics and the degree of literality applied to your points
are crucial factors.
--
Dan Paymar
Author of best selling book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor/Publisher of VP newsletter "Video Poker Times"
Developer of VP analysis/trainer software "Optimum Video Poker"
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com
"Chance favors the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]