I just read Bob Dancer's Jan 25th column

EXACTLY. Someone offers you 14 to 1 on your money if an ace comes off a fair deck. You wager $100,000 and a king comes off. According to (names redacted) you were stupid for "chasing an ace," and a charlatan and a fraud who knows nothing about gambling.

Arc, well Im not an advantage player, obviously. I play a 9/5 DDB game with a progressive royal, but last night when I sat down the royal was only about 20,362 and probably had been hit earlier in the day. Only one other player was at the progressive machines and he, amazingly, put a single $100 bill into the machine, pushed play, was dealt A 5 5 X X, held the pair of fives, and drew quads for 1250. He played two more hands and left. Leaving me the only player at the five progressive machines till about 5-am. (six hours total spent playing, less a one hour dinner break). when I left the progressive was just above 21,000 and I added about 12,000 points to my tier score.

MrMarcus, Im sorry but would you please explain your "14 to 1" bet on an ace? I dont think the payoff of 14 to 1 is such a good deal. Isnt that only slightly above true odds of drawing an ace? Not worth a single 100K shot to me.

Who said it was a single bet? Was this the only time Bob Dancer has ever played VP? The point is there is a difference between a good bet and a bet that you win. Whether you win has nothing to do with whether you should have bet. The result does not change the value nor the wisdom of the attempt.

Winning players sometimes lose, and losing players sometimes win. Dancer tells it like it is.

Ok, its just another example of ... well whatever it is an example of. anyway, I wouldnt bet a hundred thou on your particular bet. risk/reward doesnt make sense to me one time or a hundred times or a million times.

It's an example of a +EV bet. It's a bet that you expect to win money on. For every 13 times you play, you expect to win 1 unit of bet.

And THAT statement is a perfect illustration of only one reason you are a LOSER, and will never become a "winner".

Thanks snidely... still not enough of a "margin" to make me want to risk $100K per shot.

The margin is not enough to risk depending on your bankroll. If you had a $10million bankroll and bet it $1000 a shot, you'd make enough money to live off comfortably.

Exactly!

All of which goes full circle to the original argument about Dancer. It's about bankroll size and risk of ruin. I seriously doubt that Bob felt he was at significant financial peril even if he had to run $10M through to win the car.

All any promotion really comes down to is determining the EV. If you have the bankroll to support it, if it's positive and works out to be a worthwhile use of your time on a per hour basis, it's a play.

Dan

OK, so I have to ask... is Dancer's VP bankroll that big?? Four years ago I went to one of his lectures and he said his income was 250K from VP... half from wins and half from cash back. so just how much would you estimate his VP bankroll is, excluding other income from other sources of income?

I ask this because I wonder just how many of these "car promotions" he can afford when he loses 40K at a time? seems to me, not many. yet, Arcimedes says the loss at the car promotion represented 2-3% of his bankroll.

Ya know guys, its nice to throw around all these theoretical "plays" but if you could afford 100K bets would you really make a 100K bet?