Vegas Free-for-All - I just read Bob Dancer's Jan 25th column

I just read Bob Dancer's Jan 25th column

melbedewy

Jan 27, 2011
6:27am

Quote

Originally posted by: CANADIANEH
You're being too kind Money - just plain "stupid" IMO - how can you believe or trust his advise when here he is chasing a car and going against previous advise he has given out....DUH!!!!!

You can't. Bill, errr, Bob is a charlatan and a fraud who uses a fake name to fleece the suckers. Reminds me of a certain half Senator from Crook County elected using vacuous phrases.

MisterPicture

Jan 27, 2011
7:22am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy

Quote
Originally posted by: forkush
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
...I'm just pointing out that unlike the Silverton deal mentioned by Fokush (where you get a gift card for accumulating a certain number points)...this was a competition for which there was no guarantee he would win....All of his assumptions on return were based winning the top prize. Just one other serious contestant with a bigger bankroll or even a smaller bankroll but a better run of luck could have blown up the whole plan....and there was no way to account for that....
It would be much more accurate to say that there was no way for YOU to account for that. But for Bob Dancer, it would be much easier, wouldn't it?

The universe of high-limit Las Vegas advantage players is fairly small, and Dancer would certainly be acquainted with virtually all of them. If you'd read many of his columns, or read Video Poker for the Intelligent Beginner, you'd know that weekly and monthly drawings are now a key component of advantage play, and these same high-rollers congregate around them quite often. And in his column, he explained that he had known the woman who was his main competition for years, and about her playing habits.

As usual when it comes to many players club decisions, Dancer had incomplete information. But he had a great deal of experience and information that you and I do not possess, and made the right call. And your post hoc analysis of "As it ended up the big winner here was M" is just silly, unless you now believe that playing Megabucks at the Aria is now a strong advantage play.

So you're saying because Dancer knows the universe of high limit advantage players there was NO risk in just assuming that he would win the contest...

Actually dude, there's a chance an asteroid might have hit the M.

My point was that Dancer made a calculated risk, and that his calculations involved experience and information that dwarf your (and my) paltry knowledge on the subject. According to his calculations, he had a 1.6% advantage with likely competition, and even a 0.4% advantage if the stakes were upped to a ridiculous rate. I'm sure he'd do it all over again.

And yes, factual statements can be silly, especially those involving post hoc analysis. Such as "Most drug addicts drink milk when they are young," "Playing Megabucks at the Aria last week turned out to be the correct play," and your "As it ended up the big winner here was M." All factual and all silly.

And criticizing someone for having the temerity to lose while having a 1.6% advantage, is like criticizing someone for losing double when splitting aces and eights. It's never done by the knowledgeable

alanleroy

Jan 27, 2011
8:58am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: forkush

And criticizing someone for having the temerity to lose while having a 1.6% advantage, is like criticizing someone for losing double when splitting aces and eights. It's never done by the knowledgeable

I'm not criticizing him for losing. I think his analysis was flawed. Assuming he was going to win the contest and not adjusting his advantage calculation for the potential of losing is an error. If you think the odds against another high roller getting involved is akin to an asteroid hitting the M, you have no business commenting on anything math related. Just another silly, but true fact for you to chew on.

Hell we don't even have to assume some new high roller. There was already another big player in the game working a $25 machine....and Bob was scared shitless of her...Why? What if she went on a run of 'luck' and switched to a $100 game or a $500 game? Bob's "12 Hour lead wouldn't have lasted too long...would it?... Was he prepared to run 20 Million through a volatile, negative expectation game in hopes his bankroll would hold out? This is a lot of risk to potentially win POS Land Rover...that he may be able to sell for $40,000.....At what point would he just quit and settle for the 12K second prize...He was starting to sound like a gambler on tilt.

Maybe some day there will be 3 or 4 player's going for that fine european automobile....Boy, then the M would really be the big winnner, wouldn't they?

redietzxyx

Jan 27, 2011
9:10am

Block User

Fork,

I have to come down on the side of the critics on this one. Any new player could have sabotaged Dancer's scheme if that player coordinated family/friends with multiple cards. Maybe Dancer would have paid for inside info, but the M's management is not one that would suffer that kind of manipulation kindly. Dancer wasn't there the majority of the time. This whole project seemed like a stretch.

melbedewy

Jan 27, 2011
9:25am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: forkush

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: forkush
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
...I'm just pointing out that unlike the Silverton deal mentioned by Fokush (where you get a gift card for accumulating a certain number points)...this was a competition for which there was no guarantee he would win....All of his assumptions on return were based winning the top prize. Just one other serious contestant with a bigger bankroll or even a smaller bankroll but a better run of luck could have blown up the whole plan....and there was no way to account for that....
It would be much more accurate to say that there was no way for YOU to account for that. But for Bob Dancer, it would be much easier, wouldn't it?

The universe of high-limit Las Vegas advantage players is fairly small, and Dancer would certainly be acquainted with virtually all of them. If you'd read many of his columns, or read Video Poker for the Intelligent Beginner, you'd know that weekly and monthly drawings are now a key component of advantage play, and these same high-rollers congregate around them quite often. And in his column, he explained that he had known the woman who was his main competition for years, and about her playing habits.

As usual when it comes to many players club decisions, Dancer had incomplete information. But he had a great deal of experience and information that you and I do not possess, and made the right call. And your post hoc analysis of "As it ended up the big winner here was M" is just silly, unless you now believe that playing Megabucks at the Aria is now a strong advantage play.

So you're saying because Dancer knows the universe of high limit advantage players there was NO risk in just assuming that he would win the contest...

Yeah and he'd probably take it in the rear for another $30K loss "all over again".

Bill (Bob) is an addict who makes his living selling books, strategy cards, software, etc., always using a fake name to stay one step ahead of the marks. Losing $65K in 2 days-yeah THAT sure sounds like a pro.

Message from a VP winner to 2 "pro's"

snidely333

Jan 27, 2011
9:47am

Block User

These drunk VP videos are starting to grow on me. Make more! The best booze is free booze.

MisterPicture

Jan 27, 2011
11:05am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: redietz
Fork,

I have to come down on the side of the critics on this one. Any new player could have sabotaged Dancer's scheme if that player coordinated family/friends with multiple cards...

Sounds like a cool strategy - if you're playing nickles, or maybe quarters. But you really think that the M and their hosts wouldn't spot that scam going on in their high limit room?

MisterPicture

Jan 27, 2011
11:54am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: melbedewy

Quote
Originally posted by: forkush
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: forkush
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
...I'm just pointing out that unlike the Silverton deal mentioned by Fokush (where you get a gift card for accumulating a certain number points)...this was a competition for which there was no guarantee he would win....All of his assumptions on return were based winning the top prize. Just one other serious contestant with a bigger bankroll or even a smaller bankroll but a better run of luck could have blown up the whole plan....and there was no way to account for that....
It would be much more accurate to say that there was no way for YOU to account for that. But for Bob Dancer, it would be much easier, wouldn't it?

The universe of high-limit Las Vegas advantage players is fairly small, and Dancer would certainly be acquainted with virtually all of them. If you'd read many of his columns, or read Video Poker for the Intelligent Beginner, you'd know that weekly and monthly drawings are now a key component of advantage play, and these same high-rollers congregate around them quite often. And in his column, he explained that he had known the woman who was his main competition for years, and about her playing habits.

As usual when it comes to many players club decisions, Dancer had incomplete information. But he had a great deal of experience and information that you and I do not possess, and made the right call. And your post hoc analysis of "As it ended up the big winner here was M" is just silly, unless you now believe that playing Megabucks at the Aria is now a strong advantage play.

So you're saying because Dancer knows the universe of high limit advantage players there was NO risk in just assuming that he would win the contest...
Actually dude, there's a chance an asteroid might have hit the M.

My point was that Dancer made a calculated risk, and that his calculations involved experience and information that dwarf your (and my) paltry knowledge on the subject. According to his calculations, he had a 1.6% advantage with likely competition, and even a 0.4% advantage if the stakes were upped to a ridiculous rate. I'm sure he'd do it all over again.

Yeah and he'd probably take it in the rear for another $30K loss "all over again"...

You talk about $30,000 like it's a lot of money. To you maybe. For the $125 per hand player (50¢ Fifty Play), a $30k loss is comparable to a $300 loss for a five quarter player.

MoneyLA

Jan 27, 2011
12:22pm

Block User

to forkush and any one else who might say Dancer was "right" in this example: all I can say is, when you look at the bottom line he was throwing good money after bad. he may have won the car, but he lost money.

it reminds me of the old "doctor joke" that had this punchline: "the patient died but the operation was a success."

I think Singer wrote in a book or online a statement that he is amazed at VP pros who will lose tons of money playing "positive expectation" games but feel they did the right thing because they were playing a positive expectation game. I think his quote was something like this: "I lost XXXX dollars but I had a 0.4% edge." (or something like that)

I think Dancer should have written a different column. this one had too many "holes" for a pro.

redietzxyx

Jan 27, 2011
12:59pm

Block User

Fork,

My point is it isn't a scam, and M might prefer a new player with his family to win versus Dancer. Dancer often has had his female partners play with his cards when it was beneficial. Some new wealthy player showing up at M could play, have his/her spouse play, have a son/daughter play, and Dancer would have no way of keeping tabs, if I read the article correctly -- the updates on point totals were sporadic, not ongoing. So this was no lock to be positive expectation. The M would probably prefer someone other than Dancer win, so it would be in M's best interests in terms of cultivating new, more profitable (for the casino) players to keep Dancer from discovering exactly what the scenarios were.

I suspect Dancer has a mole in the vp department who was feeding him info, but I doubt M upper management would appreciate that.

All I'm saying is, as far as assuring this was positive expectation, this had holes. Unless some present-time running tally is being forwarded to your Blackberry or something, this had a considerable degree of risk as to not being "positive expectation."

«‹3 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now