I just read Bob Dancer's Jan 25th column

Great...what a valuable lesson. Let us know when you win your Land Rover.

The answer has already been explained ad nauseum in this thread. Why should we repeat it when all you have to do is take the time to read and understand what has already been posted?

What most of you aren't understanding is the big-picture dynamic of this. Determining whether a play is good or bad is not about the actual result, it's about the expected result. Actual results will be all over the layout, but your final result over a long period of time will approximate the sum of all your expected results. Things like "session limits" and "money management" in general don't exist on this level. Here's much more on these ideas from an article at LVASports.

Also, Dancer isn't suggesting that you do what he does. The point of the article was completely different from how much he played, lost, or whatever. Had the subject been these things, there would have been a different approach to it.

Sure your going to lose here and there, but the object is not to lose your a$$ in the long run. Money and session management are ways to limit ones expposure, hence ones risk. Does Phil Ivey take all of his bankroll to the big game everytime he wants to play? No, he takes what he can afford to lose. By only taking a certain amount, your ensuring that a majority of your bankroll is always entact and not at risk. Any session variances will be taken care of by what funds you have taken with you.

In your first paragraph your saying that at a certain level, one can throw any idea of money or session management away because it doesn't matter. I DO beg to differ here as how did one get to that level to begin with? Now that your where you want to be finacially, you suddenly forget how to save money?

Dancers article is suggesting that this is how he plays a promotion IF he decides to make a go at the top prize. If he isn't trying to teach us his strategies about playing a certain way, then why is he writing the article? The whole idea of his articles are to pass on information to "us lay people" in order to sell more of his books. If not, then why even write the article to begin with?

I still don't understand what the message of the article is supposed to be for a VP newbie like me. I'm supposed to take away something from all of those words he typed, however I am for some reason unable to make heads or tails of them. Is this article actually passing on some knowledge, or is it just touting how rich Mr. Dancer is? The real message is in there somewhere, but I have no clue where it is.

Anthony, please. You wrote: "Determining whether a play is good or bad is not about the actual result, it's about the expected result." This is not right. The actual result is THE ONLY THING that matters. I can't pay taxes, or the mortgage, or my credit cards, or the supermarket with "theoretical wins." I can only pay with real results. I'm sorry.

Dancer with all his good math made his bets and lost. He won a car but lost money on the deal. Yes, he might make up for that loss in the future, but that is also a gamble.

In fairness to him about the article, the article was about, in fact, trusting what another player (a competitor) said they were doing in this "contest." Okay, I accept that.

But to those of us who have looked up to Dancer over so many years for his guidance and knowledge, I'm afraid to say we are disappointed in what really went on in this contest. I'm sure he does have the bankroll to sustain these swings. I know that I don't. My "stop loss" or "session limits" are far smaller than his. But this particular example (his play in this contest) does not make me feel confident about playing VP to win. In fact, it makes me wonder if I should even play at all? I have to look at it this way-- the VP guru himself lost a bundle, so what chance do I have? And I don't have the bankroll he has and I have to pay attention to session limits and money management. And since I do, should I quit playing?

Regardless, I appreciate Dancer's articles and look forward to more and I am very happy that you have him contributing to the site. Thank you again.

If you want to be like Dancer, you have to play like Dancer. If it's not your style, then it isn't. Play for recreation and improve your game as you're able. Not much more to say at this point. This has been a good discussion with a lot of good information rolling by.

I think a lot of you guys just kinda get lost because of the size of the numbers.

If there was a promo where you got a dollar back after playing $10 but all they had to play was 99% $1 VP, you'd still think that was a great deal, right?

So now what if you hit nothing on your first hand and now you're down $5. Are you going to quit because you're already down more than the payoff? Are you throwing good money after bad because you lost that first $5?

Theoretical results don't pay bills directly, but the more you pay, theoretical results convert into actual results.

Chief touched on points I made earlier when I asked the posters to chime in regarding what utility there was in the Dancer article and whether we are to aspire to be like him. What is the point of this article and who is its audience?

An article like this reminds me of the "big game hunter" and adventure writings from the 1930s -- they sold a lot of books and magazines -- a view to exotic other worlds. But those writers didn't advocate, even implicitly, that others grab a pith helmet and a rifle and follow in their footsteps. Dancer basically does just that -- he pitches the idea that we should follow in his footsteps.

As chief said, the article's main point seems to be to tout how wealthy Dancer is -- yes, Dancer can do the math. But his circa 2010 accomplishments are based on special privileges and comp rates for the whale players. It's as if sports players suddenly, because some of us bet a lot, received 11-10 instead of giving. For us to advocate others to follow in our footsteps would be more hubris than anything.

never mind.

I just have to learn to bite my tongue once in awhile, no matter how ridiculous the things people write may be.

Including me.

Money, I've just learned the secret of why those professional gamblers keep going broke. They don't listen to what they keep writting about. Why would one even keep and maintain a bankroll or have a session limit, when later on you either ignore or just refuse to follow what rules your telling others to follow?

Like you, I am interested in results not what may happen from time to time. So I'll plod along and try and play VP like they tell me to and not worry too much as long as I have fun.