I just read Bob Dancer's Jan 25th column

I actually agree with this statement. Although I contend that this is not something that can be known with absolute certainty. Some have suggested that Dancer knows all of the high rolling AP's that might have entered this contest and from that knowledge could extrapolate what kind of coin in would be necessary to win.

Not only is this a fallacy, it doesn't consider the other type player who might just be inclined to give this a go....That would be a Las Vegas Local who gambles and was about to shell out 50K on a new Rover anyway...How much do you suppose that person might be willing to lose to win the 50K car he was going to buy anyway...30K? 40K? And if he's willing to lose 30K to win his 50K dream car, how much 'theoretical coin-in' does that translate to? Looks to me like it's about 25 times the amount Dancer was willing to kick in. Is it hard to believe that someone might actually get involved because they really want the car?

Given the outcome I'll bet M runs another coin-in contest with a high-end car as top prize. It will be interesting to see if Dancer wins that one too.

Alanleroy's observations are really quite good here --

You know, if Dancer had "inside info" from M personnel, M would have the option of disqualifying him if those contacts were unavailable to the general public -- and they probably have a legal obligation to do so. The article doesn't say how often or by what means the point standings were updated -- it seems like pedal-to-the-metal play for 48 hours by someone else could have swung things against Dancer pretty quickly. The assumption is Dancer would have known about it -- I don't buy that assumption. Again, I mention it's not unusual for casinos to allow a machine in a high roller's suite while he/she plays. Was there some specific rule in this contest that the eligible machines had to be on the casino floor? I doubt it.

In a nutshell, if a team of ten of us from these boards pooled 300K or so to go after the next M promo like this, and we opposed Dancer, I'm reasonably certain we could prevent him from making accurate assumptions regarding our play. If we could do it, certainly others could do it. Ergo, I think his confidence was way overblown.

Dan, you and others have this belief "It should be noted that the actual results don't matter...." when discussing the merits of so-called "advantage play." Well, actual results are all that matters.

The whole point of "advantage play" is to make you a winner. If it doent make you a winner, then something is wrong.

I do accept Arcimedes' statement -- he says that even with advantage play you will have losing sessions. Of course you will.

I do not oppose anyone who follows the strategy of "advantage play" and if given a choice between playing 10/6 DDB and 9/5 DDB and all things being equal I would also always choose 10/6 DDB because that is one of the elements of "advantage play."

But no where in all of the writings of "advantage play" does it say that it is OK to LOSE money. One of the rules of advantage play is to limit losses, isn't it? Well, granted, Dancer's loss limits are probably a lot higher than what the rest of us have. And advantage play does figure in the value of comps and cashback -- BUT advantage play does not include competition for a car in which another player can outplay you, and in this point alanleroy is correct in his arguments.

Actually, Dan, had Dancer said he had an 80-thousand dollar PROFIT and WON THE CAR he would continue to be the world's #1 VP God, but he didnt. He lost 80-thou and got a car thats maybe worth 40-thou, and it leaves followers like me wondering what the heck he was thinking???

By the way Arc, I got lucky the other night and hit quad aces with a kicker on a 9/5 machine. The 10K win put me into the plus column on the year. I guess you can say I followed proper strategy because I held two aces and got the other two plus kicker on the draw. But it was on a 9/5 machine -- so "tsk tsk" on me for playing a 9/5 machine.

and one more thing Arc, you wrote: "One dealt RF on the 50-play machine Dancer was playing would yield $100K and make up for everything Dancer lost and more." Really, is this what you "advantage players" figure on? The chance of a dealt royal is 1/629,740.

Im going to tell you right now WHO has the advantage: the casino.

Do you really think that Dancer had "inside" information, unavailable to the other INVITED GUESTS, during this particular point challenge?

Do you really think that he would than include anything in his column to indicate that he did? Would that be an admission of possible illegal and/or immoral activity as it relates to the specific point contest for invited guests, and perhaps a violation of "M" contest rules, NGC rules and regulations, and state laws, and jeopardize his participation and/or win.

Do you really think he would write something in his column that could be construed as any violations of any contest rules?

And please explain why an educated guess, a carefully thought out strategy, game theory, or math can never be used to calculate a potential winning strategy because there is no way to account for the unexpected.

What do you calculate the odds of the "spoiler" joining the contest for Invited Guests for that specific event, not the next one.

At what point is he entitled to believe his chances are strong and believe his strategy and plan are sound enough to go with? And how can it be calculated?

Yes, the math could be wrong because of a spoiler.

And perhaps, his strategy included "outs" in the event a spoiler did show. His theo on 2.5 million coin in would certainly have allowed him to "quit" and accept 2nd place money of $12,500, still a theo profit and advantage play, although much smaller.

His theo on 10 million coin in would have produced a small theo profit. Perhaps that was his "out" and strategy all along, something like "I will stop at 10 million because I will still earn a theo profit of $12,500 - $10,380 = $2120."

A "Safety Net". Hmmm. Part of his strategy perhaps? Does that change anything?

Yep, if there were two spoilers. <sic>

So again, I mention that it is possible a spoiler could show, and it is possible his math was incorrect because of that possibility, but IF his strategy and game plan accounted for that possibility, and if it made sense to him, I will find no fault.

He is the professional, and entitled to believe in his decision that his was an opportunity for him.

I have read Dancer's book very carefully. On more than a few occasions, he does things that would be construed as "violations of contest rules." It seems he likes to flout some of his "bad boy" angles. Some of these would also be construed as violations of NGC rules. And he wrote about them. People have been in trouble after-the-fact due to what he did. If he had written about these in column, not book form, they would have been fired on the spot. So Road Trip, the answer is yes to most of your first questions regarding his venturing into gray-and-worse areas.

That book, by the way, did some low-end workers a disservice. Undoubtedly, management was able to track down some of the people who made life a bit easier for Dancer at that time. He really should have kept those details out of the book. Even if he just got one person in trouble, it was a break of trust that made for more interesting reading but may have done damage to some folks' careers.

Now, given that he has written about things that would be construed as both definite contest violations and probable NGC violations (I don't think much of the NGC, by the way -- no casino ever went broke getting in trouble with the NGC), it makes me really wonder about what he has not disclosed. Maybe he reports everything as is, like every good scientist should, or maybe he reports what he thinks is prudent and keeps his mouth shut on the rest, which seems more likely to me.

So, Money, if someone offers you $1.05 for every dollar you bet on a flip of an honest coin, you'd jump on that, right? That is a clear advantage play for you. But, there is no guarantee you would win. You could lose. Doesn't mean it's a bad bet.

Bad example, because I dont bet on coin flips. Why? Because US coins are heavily weighted on the "obverse" or front of the coin. This is a fact. So coin flips are no 50-50. (Which makes me suspect the superbowl coin flip. I have never seen an analysis of the superbowl coin, but... I wonder???)

But getting back to your question, snidely: I really dont understand your point??

If I were a casino, and the coin was indeed evenly weighted, and you paid me a 5% commission on every single flip, well YES I would take the bet, because you gave me a 5% advantage on an otherwise 50-50 bet. And OVER TIME I would certainly come out ahead IF I HAD THE BANKROLL TO OUTLAST ALL PLAYERS.

Would I make that bet ONE TIME? NO.

Is that what you were looking for?

Now, what has this got to do with Dancer's column?

Most Statistical analysis is based on probablility theory where you know all of the potential outcomes and you can calculate the likelyhood of any occurance. We know the machines simulate poker with a 52 card deck and we know the paytables, so it's fairly easy to work out your advantage or disadvantage.

When you enter the realm of predicting human behaviour (your contest opponents), the analysis moves from one of mathmatical purity to inference based on observations. Yes, there are tools and techniques to adjust your analysis based on previously observed outcomes, but to make these predictions with any level of confidence requires a significant number of observations....FAR more observations than there have been coin-in contests for 40K + prizes.

In my humble opinion this is where Dancer's plan breaks down. I believe as you said earlier he probably based his coin-in requirements on a 'FEELING'....not any kind of rigorous application of statistical inference based on an appropriate number of observations. He got away with it this time. Hell, his gut feeling could be right and maybe his coin-in would win 1000 of these contests....then again, maybe he would lose half or 3/4 of these contests. The fact of the matter is that when he calculated his Advantage he did not include any probability of losing. He had one number for winning at 2.5M CI and another for winning at 10M CI.

The best I can give him is that his analysis is interesting but incomplete. I'm glad it worked out for him this time and he's the proud owner of a fine Luxury Land Rover.

So let me ask you a simple question. How may observations of like contests do you believe one would need to establish a mathmatical probabliity for winning with less than 10M coin in with 95% confidence?

Here's an analogy. The stock market just a few years ago. A person could have done a great job of analyzing a particular stock and found it to be a fantastic buy. They invested mucho bucks just before the crash and lost a bundle.

Did they do anything wrong? Should they have not invested in the stock market because there was a potential for something out of their control to impact their results?

If everyone only took a chance with zero risk we'd still be living in caves.

There were other risks in this promotion no one has mentioned. They could have cancelled the promotion at any time. That is true in most promotions and I've even lost money because of a cancellation once.

There's risk in most things we do. Trying for zero risk would probably mean never playing and never making any money. Low risk is certainly an acceptable position for potentially large rewards.

Fair enough question.

I am not certain what my answer would be. "It depends" .

As a poker player, with skills, the answer to almost any poker question is "It depends". Should I have raised? "It depends". Should I have folded? "It depends". Should I have changed seats? "It depends". Should I have called? "It depends". Should I have seen another card? "It depends". Should I have three bet? Should I have tried a bluff? Should I have checked hoping to check raise? "It depends. It depends. It depends."

Yes, it's a different game, but still one that needs experience and skills.

So as far as "my" confidence level in a coin in contest such as this one, and the information I need to make a determination of success beyond a certain level, "It depends".

I may not need a 95% confidence level. I might consider this worthwhile if my confidence in my game plan, and contest strategy is 51% to win, and 98% to be in the money. It depends.

My goals would be:
To win the car
To hopefully find my win/loss on my coin in fall close to the "theo"
To turn a profit.

My strategy would be to win the car, but I would also build into my strategy safety outlets to allow me the theo profit if the wrong scenario developed.

If I encountered a stubborn competitor, I may have chosen "Plan B", stopped at 2 mil and settled for second or third. Remember, the prize for 1st, 2nd, or 3rd would have yielded a theo profit.

My point is that no one knows whether there was a "Plan B" or "Plan C" or whatever.

Yes, there is "fault" in the way the column was worded, because we do not know how or why he determined that 2.5 would win.

But his strategy could have allowed for other factors and we do not know, and will not know until or unless he comes along and provides answers.

I do understand what you are saying, and your point is valid to a certain extent. I just think it may not be valid in this very specific and limited situation.

Had he worded it differently, something along the lines of, "I expect to win the car, but in the event I do not, I will still have had an advantage if I win 2nd or 3rd" than we probably would not be having this debate.

His risk assessment may have been faulty depending on his total strategy and contingency plans, or his semantics. I do not know.

It depends.

One other thing. No matter what my bankroll size, this was not a "play" I would have become involved in.

The risk vs reward, in my "book" (even if Feds hourly numbers were correct) are not close to acceptable in my mind. But this is what he does, and I, at this moment, will not admit that his concept was faulty to a point where it no longer remained an advantage play.

He may have miscalculated. I do not agree, or disagree with that possibility.

But even if his calculations were wrong, they would not be wrong enough to take away all of the advantage to a certain degree.

Of course, I could be incorrect.

It depends.

:::shrug:::