Vegas Free-for-All - Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

FrankKneeland

Dec 5, 2011
2:32am

Quote

Originally posted by: arcimedes

Quote
Originally posted by: melbedewy
Actually, while Singer's system mostly uses a positive (10-6 DDB) game, Dancer's system uses nothing BUT negative games. He claims that the value of drawings, welfare checks, cruise discounts, logo jackets, 6 packs, gas cards and the like puts his system over the top. Theoretically. Assuming (LOL) perfect play. Over the "long term".[/q[

Too bad you choose not to deal in facts. I believe Singer recently stated his preference for TDB and SDB variations. Both negative. And, we also know he plays 8/5 BP at every level which is also negative. Singer has longed claimed that he doesn't care about those extra value items. Dancer does factor them into the equation for whether a game is positive or negative.

Do you use a player's card? Do you collect the CB and receive freeplay? If so, why?

Quote
Originally posted by: melbedewy
While I knew a number of legitimate VP pro's in prior decades and was invited many times to relocate and join profitable teams, to maintain that it is possible to live off the game as it exists in 2012 and beyond is a disingenuous and cruel hoax perpetuated by those who profit from peddling books, lessons, software, strategy cards, etc.

We've been through this before. Just because you can't do simple addition does not stop those making money by gambling. Are you claiming Frank is a liar?

Compared to what was available in the 90's what's out there now is not stuff I'd have even put on my scouting list 10 years ago. It is unclear to me if one can make a living doing progressive VP and advantage play at this time. Since I'm not trying to, I can't say one way or the other. I know people who are, of course their results could be due to mere chance. I know a few who have done poorly the last two years. Of my close gambling partners 5 out of 6 are doing decent...but again, not like it use to be. No more shooting fish in barrels.

It is obviously far riskier and more of a gamble than it was in my day.

I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND IT TO ANYONE AT THIS TIME.

melbedewy

Dec 5, 2011
8:17am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: arcimedes

Quote
Originally posted by: melbedewy
Actually, while Singer's system mostly uses a positive (10-6 DDB) game, Dancer's system uses nothing BUT negative games. He claims that the value of drawings, welfare checks, cruise discounts, logo jackets, 6 packs, gas cards and the like puts his system over the top. Theoretically. Assuming (LOL) perfect play. Over the "long term".[/q[

Too bad you choose not to deal in facts. I believe Singer recently stated his preference for TDB and SDB variations. Both negative. And, we also know he plays 8/5 BP at every level which is also negative. Singer has longed claimed that he doesn't care about those extra value items. Dancer does factor them into the equation for whether a game is positive or negative.

Do you use a player's card? Do you collect the CB and receive freeplay? If so, why?

Quote
Originally posted by: melbedewy
While I knew a number of legitimate VP pro's in prior decades and was invited many times to relocate and join profitable teams, to maintain that it is possible to live off the game as it exists in 2012 and beyond is a disingenuous and cruel hoax perpetuated by those who profit from peddling books, lessons, software, strategy cards, etc.

We've been through this before. Just because you can't do simple addition does not stop those making money by gambling.

Big difference between "making money"-which are YOUR words and "living off the game" which were MINE.
I've been playing profitable VP since "Dancer" was hustling backgammon pigeons and didn't know what VP was.
Oh, and I have a doctorate and can easily do simple f****** addition. Unfortunately for some I also have a nose and can differentiate perfume from the end digestive product of male cows...
Anyone thinking they can move to Nevada in 2012 and beyond and pay rent, food, insurance, car, etc. on the backs of VP needs their heads examined. Barring insane luck the only way you are going to become a "Million Dollar Video Poker" player is to start off with $1.1 million.

FrankKneeland

Dec 5, 2011
8:59am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: melbedewy
Anyone thinking they can move to Nevada in 2012 and beyond and pay rent, food, insurance, car, etc. on the backs of VP needs their heads examined. Barring insane luck the only way you are going to become a "Million Dollar Video Poker" player is to start off with $1.1 million.

I would phrase it a bit softer. I did a little asking around to a few buddies and here's a rough consensus.

The total theoretical earn one can make as a VP pro is about 1/3 what it was 10 years ago. The risk factor is about 3x. BR requirement is perhaps 10x. 15 yeas ago your chances of having a losing year (doing what I did) were REALLY low. Now it's looking like 1 losing year in 5 would be common.

ARRGH! Yea a lot worse.

A comment like," baring insane luck you can't win", might be to far to the negative.

I would say that in today's market the tiniest bit of bad luck would be all it would take to fail to earn. The number of AP's that have profitable careers is still greater than 50% of those who try. To me that's still piss poor odds.

Possible = Yes
Worth It = ?

I would like to make one more statement for those of you that don't know this. My book was written in 2001-2003 even though it was not published until 2010. I was inactive as a player for most of those years and had no idea what the industry was still like until recently. I never expressly state in the book that one can still make a living as a progressive VP professional today. Had I written the book in 2010 I might have included a comment to the negative. It is intended to a be a very funny history and all the math is still valid.

Cheers all...

MoneyLA

Dec 5, 2011
10:01am

Block User

Frank I understand that you say its still possible to "win" but here in the real world we'd all like to know what winning means? Can you put a dollar amount for us to consider?

Again going back to the time I went to a Dancer lecture at the Fiesta in NLV he said his income was $250,000 with half from actual winnings and half from comps. Subtract from that value the "real world" items of no insurance, no vacation, no sick days, no pension, etc. If you were to factor those benefit costs in to his income his available icome drops by 20 percent and now his potential "take home" is $125,000 less 20 percent or $100,000.

Don't get me wrong: $100k playing VP aint bad but Dancer said at the time he was playing triple line $25/coin DW games for
$375 per push of the button and I think an annual return of $100k on that kind of risk is absurd.

Now are there any progressives in LV that could support a team with each earning $100k a year?

Or is this "winning" just enough to keep VP players buying groceries with food stamps?

melbedewy

Dec 5, 2011
10:08am

Block User

Your book is a nice pleasant read Frank and yes the math in your book is good to the millionth percent.
Unfortunately the easy plays are, as you say, gone or just about gone. No one should rejoice in this but no one should deny it either, as one or two on this board do for no rationale reason I can see.

arcimedes

Dec 5, 2011
5:45pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: melbedewy
Your book is a nice pleasant read Frank and yes the math in your book is good to the millionth percent.
Unfortunately the easy plays are, as you say, gone or just about gone. No one should rejoice in this but no one should deny it either, as one or two on this board do for no rationale reason I can see.

melbedewy

Dec 5, 2011
10:04pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: arcimedes

Quote
Originally posted by: melbedewy
Your book is a nice pleasant read Frank and yes the math in your book is good to the millionth percent.
Unfortunately the easy plays are, as you say, gone or just about gone. No one should rejoice in this but no one should deny it either, as one or two on this board do for no rationale reason I can see.

Well, now isn't this interesting. Instead of flat out stating no one can make a living ("to maintain that it is possible to live off the game as it exists in 2012 and beyond is a disingenuous and cruel hoax") you are hedging your bets.

The truth is I know people who are making a living and that is all I stated. It is possible. Nice you now admit it is possible ("just about gone"). But, I suspect the next time you post you will state the same nonsense.[/q

Stop twisting my damn words. I said the easy plays are "just about gone". The "making a living off VP" is GONE in Nevada, period. Proof number one? Mickey Crimm left the state. Just because a couple of people get lucky doesn't make it true. If I hit Powerball does that mean "living off playing lotteries" becomes a potential career choice for the populace? Only for those who are certifiable. No one can rely on paying their bills month to month on today's vastly reduced VP in Nevada. Everyone well informed knows that but you. The marks buying the software, strategy cards, ,etc. (all available for free from legitimate sources) from predators are not so lucky.

arcimedes

Dec 6, 2011
12:01am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: melbedewy

Quote
Originally posted by: arcimedes
Quote
Originally posted by: melbedewy
Your book is a nice pleasant read Frank and yes the math in your book is good to the millionth percent.
Unfortunately the easy plays are, as you say, gone or just about gone. No one should rejoice in this but no one should deny it either, as one or two on this board do for no rationale reason I can see.

Well, now isn't this interesting. Instead of flat out stating no one can make a living ("to maintain that it is possible to live off the game as it exists in 2012 and beyond is a disingenuous and cruel hoax") you are hedging your bets.

The truth is I know people who are making a living and that is all I stated. It is possible. Nice you now admit it is possible ("just about gone"). But, I suspect the next time you post you will state the same nonsense.

Stop twisting my damn words. I said the easy plays are "just about gone". The "making a living off VP" is GONE in Nevada, period. Proof number one? Mickey Crimm left the state. Just because a couple of people get lucky doesn't make it true. If I hit Powerball does that mean "living off playing lotteries" becomes a potential career choice for the populace? Only for those who are certifiable. No one can rely on paying their bills month to month on today's vastly reduced VP in Nevada. Everyone well informed knows that but you. The marks buying the software, strategy cards, ,etc. (all available for free from legitimate sources) from predators are not so lucky.

Yup, I'm twisting your words by quoting exactly what you said. And, thanks for doing exactly what I said you would.

MoneyLA

Dec 6, 2011
12:10am

Block User

Wow so many diversions! So what will come first:

1. The evaluation
2. Christmas

FrankKneeland

Dec 6, 2011
12:55am

Block User

Quote

Hay thanks, glad you enjoyed the book. Took me hours!

Well I'm certainly not denying that the easy money plays have gone the way of the marsupial wolf. What's out there now takes a larger bankroll has less assurance, and nets you less EV. As far as it being impossible to make a living as a VP professional I just can't say for sure. Depends on what YOU consider a living.

My own personal threshold for minimum yearly expected earn would be about $40,000 after taxes, before I would consider the industry to be well and truly dead. Though I don't believe that has been reached yet, what has happened is that the volatility of the plays are making it so risky that you might be up $100,000 1 year and down $20,000 the next. Yes that's $40k a year, but wow it's a scary way to make a living. And certainly nothing I'd recommend.

It is important to mention that if you query active professional gamblers they will almost always understate their wins and overstate their losses to discourage competition. True pros employ exactly opposite S.O.P. from problem gamblers who overstate their wins and minimise their losses. (This may not apply to public pros trying to sell products).

I avoid overstating or understating, because I do not like lying, and merely say "no comment" when asked.

As I'm sure everyone has figured out by now, I like to discourage problem gambling, one of the easiest ways I could do this would be to tell you the industry is completely dead. Unfortunately, as I said above, I do not like to lie, even if it's for a good cause. All I can say with confidence is that it's much harder than when I started 23 years ago. MUCH!

I can't say it's dead. (though I would like to)

I can say, "just say no".

P.S. I did not mean by this post that all AP is "problem gambling". I meant that by discouraging all gambling one also discourages problem gambling. Though all mackerel are fish, not all fish are mackerel. If you wished to prevent the overfishing of mackerel, you could achieve this by discouraging all fishing.

«‹81 ›»

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