rgmustain wrote - "... as long as VPFree continues to post
references to Bobs'columns then it should not ban discussions about
those columns.
Especially when the column itself contains NEGATIVE PERSONAL comments
about other members of this forum. Do you think VPFree should have
posted the reference to this column?"
In line with the Administrator's position on negative posts - the
Dancer article should undoubtedly be moved to FREEvpFREE.
The article has nothing of benefit to a vp player. It is simply a
print infomercial for the Dancer product line, while simultaneously
trashing one of his competitors.
Certainly if Dancer had written the Paymar material as a post to
vpFREE, it would've been moved to FREEvpFREE.
Why let it stand simply because it is a link, and not a post?
Dancer's "product line" is Penalty Card, Paymar's is Optimum Play,
Scott's is Frugal.
The sole points of the article are: Paymar Bad. Optimum Play Bad.
Dancer Good. Penalty Card Good.
There follows some self aggrandizing comments about the value of his
being able to theoretically eke out an extra 7 1/2 cents per hour or
so via his penalty cards (which he sells).
Incidentally, one would think that the simpler a vp strategy is, the
faster it can be played.
Magically, memorizing these rare situations does not slow him down
at all. (Interesting).
In the last few weeks, Dancer has:
A) Claimed that Scott let the water run all night at a Vegas hotel.
Scott denies ever having written this.
No one has posted that they recall seeing this in a Scott article.
Dancer has provided no proof.
B) Claimed that Paymar made some sort of ridiculous statement about
vp machines which don't seem to be paying out enough 4 of a kinds.
Paymar denies ever having written this.
No one has posted that they recall seeing this in a Paymar article.
Dancer has provided no proof.
C) Dancer ridiculed the software which Scott advertises, because it
is called "Frugal" and it is more expensive (by a few dollars) than
some other programs.
This despite the fact, as another poster pointed out, that Frugal
combines what BDPWP and VP Strategy Master does, and is cheaper
than the combined cost of the other 2.
Perhaps some of the above threads were moved to FREEvpFREE - I lose
track, and don't want to go back and search.
Now Dancer is permitted to get in more digs vs. his competitor
Paymar, via his infomercial "article".
As far as Dancer's put down of Paymar in the article -
Dancer claims that Paymar put out Optimum Play guidelines, then
(gasp)amended the guidelines, then did this again, all the while
continuing to call it Optimum Play.
Dancer questions how this could be called Optimum Play, since if it
was Optimum the 1st time there would've been no changes.
Stanford Wong wrote THE book on blackjack, "Professional Blackjack".
Subsequent editions corrected mistakes, including mathematically
based mistakes.
Not only that - he later put out another book in which he
recalculated the indices which were in "Professional Blackjack" via
another more accurate mathematical method, and came up with
different answers for many of them.
Despite all of the above, no one ever ridiculed Wong or questioned
his expertise.
No one ever suggested the book should be called "Unprofessional
Blackjack" because he continued to improve later editions.
Dancer himself gave out two penalty card situations recently for the
Riviera promo, and one of them was incorrect.
Does Dancer feel he should be ridiculed for making this mistake and
then correcting himself? Can he still be considered an expert?
Or are these cheap shots simply reserved for Paymar?
How many more cheap shots will the Administrator allow him to take
at his competitors?
Imo,the link to his most recent "article" should definitely be moved
to FREEvpFREE to adhere to vpFREE's policies, and for the sake of
fairness.