bob Dancer's new column, new question

You just don't understand how these "experts" work.

Act mysterious and give just enough information to keep people interested and buying your latest book. When given an upfront question, evade and manuver to the side. Always keep 'em guessing. When using any math equations, always have some sort of ambiguity involved. Your fans will take care of any amatures and if you can catch some of the other experts, they can usually ward off the rest.

wow chefantwon, singer couldnt have said it better...

I understand how they work.

What i don't get is why people(LVA) pay for such worthless columns.

My book should be on sale shortly.

Loomis: advertising and merchandising. Use the experts to draw attention to the site, make money off the traffic and book sales. - Ever see Spaceballs? Yogurt explained it all.

"May the Swartz be with you."

Really? How about we test your accusation empirically? Over at bobdancer.com, Dancer has archived over 400 articles. And then there are his books that you seem to know so much about. How about you post an example of Dancer being evasive or ambiguous or mysterious.

I look forward to your response, chef. It should either contain proof of your accusation, or an apology.

I really don't have a dog in this fight (where's Vick when you need him?), but Dancer is, on occasion, mysterious. Note, for example, his mysterious ability to ascertain who had how many points in that previous article. We aren't informed how or when point totals were updated. No mention is made of how he has scouted his opponents or from whence comes his confidence in his estimates. As far as moments in his book, although he describes the mechanics of a couple of partnerships, he does mysteriously make a significant leap in bankroll at one point that is neither addressed or explained.

Now I do not fault Dancer for not being forthcoming. I certainly would not be. But the question was, "Is he sometimes evasive and mysterious?" and the answer is yes. Personally, I tend to be more mysterious (private may be a better word), but selling of a public persona sometimes leads to conflicts between what is told to the rubes, and what the rubes should ethically (?) know. I go back and forth on this.

One thing people seem to forget is these articles are space limited. That may make them seem mysterious, but I suspect it's simply just a limitation based on space.

As for money's statement that losing $300 one time has some kind of magical power that could lead to 266 consecutive losses of exactly $300 ... total nonsense. The fact someone would even consider such a silly situation is beyond me. What planet do you live on, money?

Finally, there was one comment about whether someone could double their $80K bankroll/investment every year with a 2% edge. No, they wouldn't do it every year, but they should average it over several years. How many investments average 100% gains every year?

What is silly, friend Arc, is that you would write something such as this:

"As for money's statement that losing $300 one time has some kind of magical power that could lead to 266 consecutive losses of exactly $300 ... total nonsense. The fact someone would even consider such a silly situation is beyond me. What planet do you live on, money?"

did I say one loss of $300 would lead to 266 consecutive losses? No I did not. I said: "So, how many $300 per session losses can a gambler with an $80K bankroll endure? About 266."

Can you tell the difference between what I said, and what you accuse me of saying? In fact, what I said is absolutely correct. Do the math for yourself, oh keeper of the faith.

Oh, and about articles being "space limited" -- I would suggest that if there were not enough space to discuss video poker, that the discussion about the cruise could have been eliminated or reduced. put that in your editorial cap and think about it.

Just a few notes on "mysteriousness" and other topics mentioned in previous threads. Obviously, as per AC's interest in a previous Dancer thread, some of what is said here gets back to Dancer. One source, who may not be all that reliable, said he knew for a fact that Dancer had partners in his last endeavor. If true, that puts a much different spin on the whole project -- Dancer would have pitched his ability to "know" what the count and amounts were, and obviously it would help make the sale if he overstated this. Now we don't know if Dancer had partners or not. The topic also arose that Dancer may be a shill in contests like these -- boosting the bottom line. We have no way of knowing this, either. If Dancer were concerned with these allegations, and it would be likely he might be, he could have addressed them, either in a follow-up blog or directly on the threads. He did not -- which is interesting in its own right.

So let's just say that we know less about Dancer and his business arrangements than some of us think. And speculation about someone's ethics, income, bankroll, or motivations is just that -- speculation. We know what Dancer wants us to know -- that's the bottom line.

If this were true, then how come every investor on the planet isn't doing it? Nope, ain't happening, your going to 1, get killed by taxes and 2, not even come close to earning that type of return on investment. There are far smarter folks out there than I and if what you talk about were true, they would be making even more money than they do now. Buffett would be worth twice as much as Gates.

If your doubling your investment every year, your going to be laying out a boatload in taxes. At $80k your going to be paying roughly $26,000 a year in taxes (assuming a 5% state tax) add in another $26k from winnings, and thats about $52,000 out the window (30% of income). This of course doesn't count where you end up putting that extra money so it will make more cash for you. Which of course means Uncle Sugar will be taking his hard earned interest payments meaning even less cash left over.

Why isn't everyone making money hand over fist playing VP and why do casino's have so many of those pesky slots out there?

You once stated that "over the life of the slot, there's a 2% gain" exactly how many people play one particular VP machine over its entire life? How long does Dancer play at a particluar VP slot? He has to stop for things like eating, being with his family, hawking books, and other daily chores. So how can he be making money if he isn't sitting at that machine every minute? Every minute he could be losing some of that 2% that VP slot is going to be shelling out.

I've been thinking about this and something just doesn't sit right. Why are casinos making all of these VP slots? They must be bringing a sh!tload of money or they wouldn't be making them. Why are there not hundreds if not thousands of VP millionairs? If the system is so good and so foolproof, why don't we see thousands of folks hawking their VP strategies on the internet or on TV?