I just read Bob Dancer's Jan 25th column

Neither of us knows his thought process or reasoning on this specific promotion.

I have to disagree with what you are saying, although not with your logic.

His said: "I strategized that if I played $2.5 million in coin-in at the start of the contest, perhaps everybody else would "give up."

With his vast knowledge and experience, he determined that $2.5 million coin in would win. Yet he also stated he was willing to put in $10 million, (perhaps more) if needed.

He had knowledge of the other players, and information that may, or may not have been available to all who entered this contest. He knew the standings every day, and spent some time daily checking the numbers and standings, and was prepared to play if he determined he may be a risk. And he is getting maximum coin in each pull at a rapid speed if he chooses. I doubt anyone could beat him "side by side" for coin in since he is generally playing the largest denomination machines. :::shrug:::

He became a front runner early with his $2.5 million coin in, and that alone would be enough to discourage many from competing against him or trying for the $40K prize.

I do agree with you that his risk assessment of zero was faulty, but his "risk of ruin" coupled with his willingness to play up to $10 million coin in ( and perhaps more) made that risk assessment practically zero. Perhaps less than being struck by lightning or of 3 inches of snow on July 4th in Las Vegas.

Anything is possible, and I do not recall his saying his risk of not winning the car was zero, but because he was willing to do whatever it took to protect his lead status, it certainly seems likely.

But again, I do not recall his saying he was guaranteed to win the car, only that he would do what he needed to protect his lead. And he did.

He knew that "Joyce" was earning $100K per hour, that he had a 12 hour lead, yet sat and played next to her as insurance she would not "beat" him. And some psychological benefit in doing so. He did not trust her statement, and protected himself against the implied threat. Yet, he possibly could have coasted to victory, and possibly did not need to play side by side with her and losing another $15K in the process.

I do agree that assigning a zero risk to not winning the prize was foolish, but we really do not know how he approached the problem. Perhaps he felt that 1 million was 98%, and went to his higher numbers to eliminate the uncertainty 1 million presented. :::shrug:::

But if he believed that "up to $10 million coin in" would win 99.9999999% of the time, than that seems like a pretty reasonable approach, and he should be entitled to expect he would win.

I do not fault his risk assessment. Especially since he never said he was a guaranteed winner.

So how much do you think the M won?

This is very interesting. My views echo alanleroy's almost exactly.

Whether Dancer won or lost is irrelevant -- if he had an edge. So I do not criticize Dancer based on the outcome at all -- if he had an edge. I think his edge in this case was overstated. I know, for example, that if I had been a new customer at M, he would have been in the dark regarding me. I'm no James Bond, but I would have outmaneuvered him, and I feel pretty confidant about that. Whatever "ins" he has with M personnel, I would have either neutralized or, after the fact, I would have gotten people fired.

The fascinating issue to me is the blind acceptance of Dancer's risk assessments. Those who read his book carefully (and I did) understand that he has stepped out into gray areas on quite a few occasions and been fortunate. And, frankly, the grayness of some of his enterprises suggests that he has "trust-fundish" access to income sources not his own (whether his dad, investors, women he's involved with, etc.). Most people, maybe 90%, emulating Dancer's risk-assessments presented in the book would have had thier asses bitten.

In addition, I find it very strange, that during LV "dead time," that this was the best opportunity available in Las Vegas for vp players. Surely something with a bigger edge was available somewhere. Now note that I didn't say "bigger anticipated income." Given Dancer's risk assessment, this was probably the "biggest income" possibility -- but that's if you buy his risk assessment. Frankly, I don't.

Why do people accept Dancer's risk assessment here? Unless he owns the M, or has moment-to-moment standings access, his risk assessment confidence was overstated.

Now go back and read his book carefully. There are voids there -- why and how he arrives at these "step-out" plays is foggy. And, really, would the book have included "step-out" plays that failed? Hmmmm? The answer is, if you're selling a book, probably not.

Anyway, to me the most interesting facet of this is the auto-support Dancer gets among some advantage vp players. I think some of you are being a bit naive.

Perhaps when his books and other writings are taken into consideration, and his history, than there are "holes".

This thread started, based on his column published last week, and the play he made to win the car.

Yes, his risk assessment may have been "weak".

And it is easy to construct an alternative scenario that could have jeopardized his "play" for the car. IF so, he would still have come in second for $12.500, most than enough to cover his expected losses of $1380.00, if his original assessment was reasonable.

And whether the M published a daily leader board, or he got the info on the sly is an unknown entity.

It is because he has deep pockets, no matter the source, that he is able to succeed in some plays where others would have failed miserably. To him it is an investment, to others it's an ill conceived high risk of ruin endeavor.

I will concede that he may have not properly analyzed the risk on this specific venture, as there is always some risk associated. He could have stumbled and broken his hip on day one and spent a month in the hospital, while "Joyce" went on to win the car. A Saudi Sheik could have decided to play for fun to entertain his harem, not caring if they won or lost, but thrown a major monkey wrench into the mix.

But I still do not recall his stating, or implying he had a zero chance of not winning the car. He did say that "Joyce" could win, but that he would "prevent" that happening and continued to play so that she could not catch him.

If James Bond had been there, he probably would have continued to play against him as well. He was determined to win the contest, and lost $80K to win that $40K prize. I suspect he would have been willing, and able, to put many millions more coin in, and played daily, if he felt that is what it would take to win.

It certainly is possible he did not calculate the player's advantage accurately for the promotion. I took those numbers on blind faith.

But I am anything but naive. I do not auto support anyone.

I reply to specific information, that is available to this thread.

I am not a big fan of the "what if" scene, because there can be a "what if" created after the facts to defeat any and every event.

That's implied because to calculate his advantage he is using the Resale Value of the Car vs the true negative odds on the game he was playing. Had he factored in a probablility of not winning the car, his expected return would have been lower. The mere fact that he was so concerned about 'Janice' that he considered paying someone to stake her out should be proof enough that his analysis was flawed.

Since I don't have all the details I can't answer this completely. I know I would never assume I would win a contest and would devalue the prize based on a best estimate of my chances. If that best estimate turned out be 80-90% then I would devalue the prize by 10-20%.

OK, you trying to confuse me or what?

I do not deny his analysis may have been flawed, I think I even said as much. There is a possibility of anything happening.

He did say something about his advantage being xx% @ $2.5 million, and ranging down to 0.4% if he had to play 10 million.

So he did account for variables in his analysis, although it may have been in a convoluted manner. His analysis that $2.5 million should be enough to discourage others was correct. "Joyce" told him as much, although he chose not to believe her because she could have been using a bluff. So he played additional hands to protect his original investment.

Remember, initially he stated he could have to play up to 10 million. So the "play" with "Joyce" was to protect his investment and part of his original strategy, adapted to the moment. He played the minimum he felt was necessary to win.

Possibly paying someone to stake out the area for the last day was a smart thought. Deciding to get a room and checking himself every 4 hours was smart as well. He played the contest to win. He used strategy and tactics to insure he did.

He played the initial $2.5 million, which could have been enough to win. He got nervous and played more, although he could have let her "go" for several hours to see if she did quit and if she was truthful. But his strategy was to win, and he insured he did.

I see no flaws there. Perhaps his math calculations were inaccurate, I do not know and did not check them. And those math calculations possibly could be flawed because of variables.

He may have felt his chance of not winning the prize was negligible. After all, he was willing to put $10 million coin in, perhaps more. Perhaps he felt that the potential of not winning the car was less than .001%, possibly smaller, and rounded his numbers to reflect that.

None of us had the benefit of knowing how he actually computed this play, what his thought process was, what he discarded as unlikely to influence his anticipated results.

And perhaps he rounded down the value of the car resale before calculations to offset the possibility of not wining. I don't know, is it possible he could have sold the car for $42K? $45K? $48K? Maybe he calculated, or had knowledge that the casino would offer a cash option of $40K, and used that number, although if he sold it he would net more.

There are too many variables here we do not know.

And I do acknowledge his game theory, his analysis MAY have been flawed, but if so, it was minimal. And, only because he did not "show his work". If he had, we could see a mistake, or not.

His theory, IMHO, was sound. His original projections to play $2.5 million on day one & two appears correct, and did discourage competition.

11 days later, with daily checks, he decided to "play it safe" and protect his "investment" and position. He did so.

And it was built into his original analysis. Sure, the 1.6% may have been on the high side, as the 0.4% was possibly low. I interpreted his column and advantage as a range, with his advantage sliding downward based on play.

Everyone seem focused on the possibility that someone else could have won the car. I do not dispute that longshot possibility. But, he is competitive and stubborn, had information and knowledge, and was willing to cut off his nose to spite his face if necessary. He works the system for his livelihood.

And I have to think he would have given some consideration to the potential loss, and to not coming in first. He apparently decided the risk was minimal, practically non existent, or that he had rounded numbers enough in his calculation to account for that possibility.

The only way to know for sure is if he comes along, reads this thread, and responds.

I will not put words into his mouth. I do not read minds. I have no right to say what he thought, and that he failed to think of something that could affect his implied results. I do not know that.

This entire thread has bordered on "what was he thinking because he is right or wrong" (depending on which fence you sit on).

Well, none of us know how he reached his conclusions, only some of the facts. He may or may not have considered everything else mentioned, and weighted those factors as well.

So, until he comes along and adds to this thread, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

And, if he was "wrong" in his logic and analysis, how wrong could he have been? Can you possibly assign it a dollar value?

If he was "off" by 50%, he still would have been playing in the range of +0.8% to +0.2% (Downgraded from his original projection of 1.6% to .4% based on volume of coin in.)

So it would still be a probably profitable opportunity.

I wonder what Rob Singer would say about the Dancer column, and "play" being discussed.

I'll email him and find out. I know he doesn't have much respect for Dancer.

I went back and read the column. Dancer was basing his play on 8/5 BP with .3% CB (99.47) for 1.8 million and 9/6 DDB with .9% CB (99.88) for .7 million. The 2.5 million in coin-in would cost $10,380.

In addition, a win of $40,00-10,380 is $29,620 which is 1.18% (not 1.6%) and it drops the more that is played. If he would have needed to play 10 million then the cost goes up over 4x (since it was back to the BP game) and now totals over $50K. That is more than the car was worth.

I do think he had the math wrong or I'm missing something in his calculations.