vpFREE2 Forums

VP Marathons

#1

Bob Dancer posted: "I won the first
one, partly by trickery, and only needed to play about 15 hours on a
$5
Five Play NSU game, while convincing my main competition that I'd
played
less."

I have a ethical problem with winning with "trickery." I know this
is
a gray area, but it might be a good discussion subject for this
group.
Bob, could you give us some examples (made-up is okay) where you
would
draw the line.

I was raised in a religion that had very rigid rules, so I know that
colors my thinking on this matter. Plus being in the public eye also
influences my decisions about where the line in the sand is drawn. I
very much value my reputation for high ethical standards (even more
than I value money - frugal nonwithstanding),and I try never to do
anything that even smacks
of "crossing the line." Now this is not to say that I publicize
everything I do to increase my gambling EV. But what I disclose - or
more often don't disclose - is usually in order to protect an
oppootunity that would disappear if it were general knowledge.

Because of the fact that casinos don't always "play fair," I probably
am more apt to travel further into a gray area when it comes to
following to the letter "casino rules." However, I could not, with
good conscience, screw another player to further my own chances. I
have been told that I am "too nice" to be successful in any
business.
That may be true - but at 66 I guess I am too old to change! :slight_smile:

I would welcome a discussion of "ethics in gambling." I feel that is
as important as the math discussions.

#2

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "queenofcomps" <QueenofComps@f...>
wrote:

I

very much value my reputation for high ethical standards (even more
than I value money - frugal nonwithstanding),and I try never to do
anything that even smacks
of "crossing the line." >>>

If I recall the facts correctly, Frugal Video Poker incorporated
Tomski's intellectual property from Strategy Master without
compensation. Some might consider this stealing for profit and place
it a few notches above "trickery".

I would welcome a discussion of "ethics in gambling>>>

Since you asked, I guess I just got the ball rolling. I KNOW you and
Brad are "nice" people and I hope I have the above facts wrong. It
just bothers me that you take such a judgemental stance when I
understand the above facts to be accurate, if not legally at least
morally.

#3

Jean Scott had absolutely NOTHING to do with the writing of Frugal
Video Poker.
It was first introduced as "The Art of Video Poker" and changed its
name with the introduction of Jean Scott as its sponsor. She was
hesitant to be its sponsor as she did not want to hurt Dean Zamzow,
Tomski, Skip Hughes for his strategy cards, etc. She had to be
convinced that this was a good product and it needed her sponsorship.
There was NOTHING dishonorable about her decision to be involved.
I have NEVER known her to do anything dishonorable and I feel that an
apology on your part is deserved.

···

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:59:42 -0000, you wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "queenofcomps" <QueenofComps@f...>
wrote:

I

very much value my reputation for high ethical standards (even more
than I value money - frugal nonwithstanding),and I try never to do
anything that even smacks
of "crossing the line." >>>

If I recall the facts correctly, Frugal Video Poker incorporated
Tomski's intellectual property from Strategy Master without
compensation. Some might consider this stealing for profit and place
it a few notches above "trickery".

I would welcome a discussion of "ethics in gambling>>>

Since you asked, I guess I just got the ball rolling. I KNOW you and
Brad are "nice" people and I hope I have the above facts wrong. It
just bothers me that you take such a judgemental stance when I
understand the above facts to be accurate, if not legally at least
morally.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

#4

<<<Jean Scott had absolutely NOTHING to do with the writing of Frugal
Video Poker.>>>>

I know Jean did not write the computer code. I believe she has spoke
of only making recommendations for the content.

<<She was
hesitant to be its sponsor as she did not want to hurt Dean Zamzow,

This statement tends to support the argument that she realized she
was making a questionable moral decision which seems to contradict
her quote that prompted my post.

<<<I try never to do
anything that even smacks
of "crossing the line." >>>>

<<<<I have NEVER known her to do anything dishonorable and I feel
that an
apology on your part is deserved.>>>>>

As I said in my post I KNOW Jean also and I know her to be a "nice"
sincere person too. In writing my post I tried, perhaps
unsuccessfully, to not be inflammatory or launch a personal attack.
It's a fine line to walk when you are criticizing someone's ethics
but this is something which Jean also did in her post about Bob's
decisions and she invited the discussion. I felt strongly about this
issue during the vpFREE Hall of Fame voting but kept my unsolicited
advise to myself at that time.

Perhaps the hair we are splitting is dishonorable versus a poor
business decision. I know of NO other situation in which Jean has
done anything which I viewed as dishonorable. I do apologize to Jean
if she viewed my post as a personal attack which it was not intended
to be. I hope we will still be friends despite our disagreement.

···

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:45:09 -0700 Elliott L. Shapiro <elliotts2345@earthlink.net> writes: