My son-in-law, or perhaps a more correct term is step-son-in-law, Michael, passed away recently after a long illness. Michael was married to Bonnie’s daughter Joyce. He was more than 20 years older than Joyce, and in fact was a few months older than me.
After a somewhat rocky start, where Joyce and Michael were initially opposed to Bonnie marrying a professional gambler and did their best to sabotage the wedding. Over time we all got to know each other well and became friends.
Before he retired, Michael was a high-ranking Civil Service executive for the Nevada state government and worked in Carson City — which is south of Reno and near Lake Tahoe. Bonnie and I would take extended trips to Harrah’s Lake Tahoe and in addition to the gambling we would find time every trip to visit with Joyce and Michael.
Michael liked to play video poker but wasn’t very good at it. During one trip, I believe it was nine years ago, I scouted all the casinos in Carson City and Dayton, the suburb where they actually lived at the time, in search of the best video poker for him. At the time, the games I believed were best for him to play were found at Bodie’s, Carson Nugget, Casino Fandango, and Dotty’s. Each of those casinos has changed their inventories and promotions, and these may or may not be the best places to play in that area today.
The single best game I recommended in the dollar denomination was NSU Deuces Wild, the 16-10-4-4-3 game that was worth 99.73%. Dotty’s in particular had that game (no more), and I explained to Michael how to get the most out of Dotty’s slot club and promotions. I gave him a Winner’s Guide for that game along with a copy of the software, Video Poker for Winners.
Since Michael’s work brought him to Las Vegas regularly, I let him know the schedule when I was teaching classes. I suggested he sit in on the beginner and intermediate NSU classes. If he aced those classes, perhaps sit in on the advanced class as well. People learn differently from taking a class than just reading a Winner’s Guide. He never found the time to attend one of my classes, or perhaps he just wasn’t interested, and he didn’t want a one-on-one class during one of our visits to Lake Tahoe.
Michael didn’t do well gambling, even with his newfound knowledge. He probably read the book at least once and practiced a few hours on the computer, but then basically stopped studying. Whatever information he obtained from that brief study lasted him the rest of his life.
Michael settled for playing the 16-13-4-3-2 version of Deuces Wild that he found in a 15-machine bar about a mile from his home. This game is 3% tighter than NSU, and there are a number of very common hands that are played differently between the two games. One is 7♠ 7♥ 3♣ 3♦ K♠, where it’s correct to hold two pair in NSU and one pair, either pair, in the 16-13 game. Another is A♥ J♥ 8♥ 4♥ 4♣, where it is correct to hold the hearts in NSU and the pair of fours in the other game.
How Michael actually played these hands, I’m not sure. I do know he lost a consider amount. He certainly could have adjusted the computer software to the pay schedule he was actually playing (or asked me show him how to do it if it wasn’t obvious to him), but even practicing a 96.76% game on the computer is not going to yield very good results.
Somewhere along the way, a frustrated Michael told his wife, “Doing it Bob Dancer’s Way Can Lead to Bankruptcy.” That was repeated by Joyce to Bonnie, and then repeated to me. I was forbidden from letting him know I had heard what he said.
In general, I believe in the bromide, “Don’t speak ill of the dead,” but in this case I wasn’t allowed (assuming I wanted my marriage to work well) to say anything about this before Michael died and there’s an important teaching moment here.
In my classes and writings, I repeatedly urge players to only play when they have the advantage if they want to win. Michael’s play violated this underlying premise — with predictable results. Michael may have thought he was doing it Bob Dancer’s way, but playing the game he was playing with the skill level he had was nowhere near a situation I would recommend. Although I did tell him this a few times, I wasn’t a nag about it. He has his own money and can do as he pleases.
Although Michael blew many tens of thousands of dollars to gambling, possibly hundreds of thousands, he didn’t bankrupt the family. Joyce doesn’t have as much as she might have had Michael gambled intelligently, but she’s all right financially. And there’s no chance Bonnie and I will let her starve even if she does struggle.
Although Michael and I were friends at the end, this one statement he made stuck in my craw and so I wanted to say something about it. So I did.
Technically, however, Michael’s statement was accurate. All gambling involves risk. It is possible to do everything correctly and still go broke. Not likely. But possible. There are no guarantees I can make that a particular player will succeed.
If you’re playing with an advantage for small stakes relative to your bankroll, you’re most likely going to end up coming out ahead. But any deviation including playing games where no player has an advantage, playing when the slot club and promotions aren’t at their most generous, or playing with a skill level that is far less than perfect, can lead to very poor results indeed. Not always. But usually.
Honestly, any comment made by a gambler playing a 96% video poker game wouldn’t bother me one bit. They are beyond hope.
I think that that statement, by which he placed blame on Mr. Dancer, was a classic example of denial of reality, combined with the character flaw of being willing to falsely ascribe blame to another person, who happens to be innocent. So while the statement wouldn’t bother me on the technical/factual level, it would bother me on the personal level. I think that Mr. Dancer deserved to know that this inappropriate ascription of blame occurred, because he deserved to know how the guy really felt about him, because that might well affect how much Mr. Dancer would be willing to help him out (both financially and otherwise) in the future. I think the daughter should’ve told the guy, “Bob should know how you feel; either you tell him, or I will.” Then Bob would “know the score” via either him or her. I don’t think her merely telling her mother was sufficient. But it was right that Bob’s wife told him about the comment, because he deserved to know. However, finally, I think Bob should’ve let the guy know that he knew the score, because the guy should not be thinking that Bob doesn’t know about it.
I had a similar situation with my cousin, who plays six-to-five Blackjack for the low table limits and because it’s single-deck. I explained it to him a couple of times, complete with all the math; and then backed off in the interest of family harmony and tranquility. He still plays it, but at least he sets stop-losses–and often hits them.
It wasn’t nice of Michael’s wife to repeat the comment to Bob’s wife; predictably Bonnie would tell Bob, and now, predictably, it will ‘stick in Bob’s craw forever. Hung by the tongue, as somebody said.
Bob, there is the old adage, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Many people play a 98% game for recreational use and find the intangibles of an air conditioned environment, mental challenge, free drinks, etc. allow them to break even or at least feel they had a fair shake and good entertainment value – including, if I’m remembering your Winner’s Guide correctly, your late co-author. As long as they are spending their own money and aren’t hurting other people, if they don’t want the help, and insult you behind your back, that’s their problem.
You know Dennis, in some areas the majority of vp machines are below 96%.
I’m sorry for your loss.
Sorry to hear of your loss.
I’d like to be better at video poker in an abstract sense. However, getting better takes real commitment, and video poker is something I do for fun, not for a living. It sounds like that might also have been the case for your son in law. If he already had a steady paycheck from his full-time civil service job, and later a pension, he might not have depended on winning for the income, or even comp-grinding. Going to your classes, reading books, etc might feel like work to some people, and might detract from the enjoyment of just playing as a means of leisure or relaxation.
p.s. Also, some of us who play casually might not play enough for a big win or a big loss to impact our income in any meaningful way, to the point where it might affect our lifestyle. That said, from your description it sounds like your son in law might have been more than just a casual player.
If someone has any source of income that allows him to spend some extra money on things he likes to do then it’s fine. Once you play with scared money and can’t afford to lose it, then you’re better off watching what you’re doing.
There are a lot of people with good jobs and a salary high enough to go to a casino and have fun, there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, these are the best customers a casino wants to have.
The closer to 100 per cent return your game is the longer your money will last eventually. You can still go broke like the comments on top explain, but it takes a bit longer. You can also get lucky and win something of course. In the long run, you’re better off playing the games as close to 100 per cent as possible. Everybody who denies that or refuses to accept that fact will have to live with the conseqences and should not complain how come he’s losing so fast.
I can live with a 99.50 per cent game and then deduct 0.50 to 1 per cent because I don’t play perfectly. This makes it still a game which is not sooo bad. I could not live with a 92 per cent slot machine that’s eating me alive without at least the chance of a remote but interesting jackpot.
From Switzerland
Boris
Sounds like he didn’t want to play Bob Dancer’s Way, but rather Michael’s Way.
Like John Wayne said: ” A man has to do what a man has got to do”