Bob Dancer shows his cards... so to speak.

It's surprising what a gaming author might reveal in an article, whether he intends to or not. Bob Dancer in his newest column on Las Vegas Advisor was writing about why he wouldn't want to send out "Tweets" about his big wins. In discussing valid reasons for not telling the world what can be personal information and could jeopardize his personal safety, he did reveal this:

3. My real "secret" is not the size of the jackpots, but rather why I decided to play THAT game in THAT casino on THAT day. Was a point multiplier in effect? Is there a big drawing? Was I paid to show up there? Have I negotiated a special deal that isn't available to others?

Please pay particular attention to these two sentences:

Was I paid to show up there? Have I negotiated a special deal that isn't available to others?

I think this has come up before in various discussions about Bob Dancer and the big promotions he plays for, as well as why he might frequent some casinos over others.

For the record, I am not paid to show up at any casino, and I have no special deal that isn't available to others.

That's an important point. It seems that playing in a casino for large sums of money is almost like negotiating for a car or a house. If you have a $50,000 bankroll, and have the backing to show for it, then you could ask for the moon. Someone playing at those levels who is not negotiating with their host to get everything they can, and then some, is like the person who walks into a BMW dealership paying the price on the car. With the Internet and mailing lists, it is a lot easier for the average joe to play the comp games, but I am sure there are some people who either are too timid to ask or get shot down and don't move their business elsewhere.

Actually the high rollers get something the rest of us can't... rebates on their losses. I've read how some high rollers will get back 10% or more of their losses depending on the game. A 10% rebate on losses can really cut down the house edge on games.

Those statements pretty much define how special his situation is. We don't know if he's referring to standard "showing up" free play or if he actually gets appearances fees to draw people in, but does it matter? If it's the latter, that is low.

And rebates, one suspects, are part of the equation, although he has never, to my knowledge, mentioned them before. Keeping mum is probably part of the contract.

So one cannot "do as Dancer does" without being Dancer, which is what I've said a hundred or so times. His winning is as much smoke as fire, and can't really be duplicated. I don't see any caveats mentioning this, however.

Good points redietz... and "appearance fees" are another factor to consider. His overall contacts could include a stipulation that he has to play in the casino for "x hours" per month plus rebates on losses, as part of his overall fees for putting on classes, mentioning the casinos on his radio show, interviewing casino managers, mentioning the casinos in his columns, etc. And because he is not a "bonafide journalist" working for an independent news organization none of this has to be revealed.

Let me add fuel to the fire by mentioning that if these "appearance fees" exist, and he's getting rebated, then in some ways this makes the Las Vegas Advisor culpable from a journalistic standpoint because they keep this from the public. But the LVA, I suppose, should not be confused with anything resembling journalism.

And let me mention that some LVA writers, and the publisher, have allegedly appeared in court on the side of the casinos versus card counters. So they sell card counting expertise to consumers, then accept court payments to testify for the casinos? Bad stuff.

Bad, bad stuff.

Court payments? I think you meant that they (allegedly) accepted payments from the casinos to testify. The courts do not pay for expert testimony (correct me if I'm wrong).

Right -- I would have said "court's payments" if I meant that the courts were doing the paying. They were allegedly paid for expert testimony by the casinos. By "court payments," I meant they were being paid for showing up in court.

Okay, now that we established that, let me ask you this: is it really a conflict of interest for experts at card counting to testify?
Now, if the defendants in the lawsuit or criminal action were clients of the "experts" then of course it would be a conflict of interest.
But for an author or gaming pro or newsletter publisher to testify about his knowledge of how card counters operate doesn't strike me as really being a conflict.
I may be totally off base on this, but I just don't see the conflict. After all they are the experts and in the interest of justice experts should be available to the system.
And would you also be critical of the authors if they testified on behalf of the defendants? Or are you critical only because they testified for the casinos?

So he gets paid as a shill. It's all part of his needed income so he can keep getting his high-limit fixes. I've written about what a phoney he's always been for years. As for his negotiating some special deals, that's horsecrap and he does that to sound important to the little people. He and the casinos could get clobbered for that. Imagine holding an advertised promotion with written, stated rules, but not including what one special player is getting that gives him an advantage over all the other participants.

Rebates? For vp players? Come on, it doesn't happen. I had dinner with the corporate slot director of the Peppermill/Western Village/Rainbow Henderson & Wendover casinos two nights ago and I just called him and asked if they have rebates for high-limit vp players. He laughed out loud for ten seconds. That tells me all I need to know about Dancer and his creative articles. Then I asked about paying "shills". He said he's heard of that at casinos that pay pros to teach classes at their properties, but not at any of his.

Come on Rob, you know damn well that whales get rebates and special deals. Maybe not at the Peppermill/Western Village/ Rainbow Henderson & Wendover casinos -- where I doubt many whales play. But at Wynn, Venetian, MGM, Caesars? Of course there are rebates and special deals for the whales.

I'm not knowledgeable on this subject, which is why I asked someone who is, & the Peppermill is the high roller place up here. Of course I agree "whales" get special treatment or whatever you call it. But other than Bill Bennett, who set all sorts of vp play records at Bellagio's $100 machines, I know of no other vp "whale". What I played or even what Dancer has played, could even be thought of in terms of being a vp whale.

Here is some interesting reading, that was brought up before, about special deals that high rollers get. http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/n...cc4c03286.html

Rob, I wonder what kind of perks you might have received in your heyday when you were a high roller but didn't because you wouldnt play with your card or tip or had your "attitude" towards the casinos about being part of their "system"? I wonder how much that actually COST you??

That guy was a high roller for sure, but it wasn't on vp and he played far far more money than any vp player would or could.

When you ask me a question like you did about what might I had received, it's a question that has zero meaning to me. I took whatever they bestowed upon me and was only concerned about what I was there to win, and won. I was never concerned about the points, who I could tip to be able to pretend they were a sort of "friend" or so I could artificially feel I did something good in the world, the freebies, slot card color, status, or what the current promo was. I was simply there to beat the machines and no more. I went into the career always remembering to keep it simple. Just look at the posts on vpFree. People running around tearing their hair out over comps and this and that. That's trivial stuff if you win, but apparently major stuff to losers. Why else do you think people like Jean Scott STILL posts constantly over how she thinks she's being cheated out of ten bucks a month here and a buffet coupon there.

Rob, just curious. What would you estimate your "coin in" was during that ten year run when you won nearly a million dollars? I would like to figure out what kind of offers and benefits you "left on the table" because you were "never concerned about the points."

This would be a major guess, because the ONLY thing I kept track of was profit.

I played about 425 sessions of my 5 strategies, with maybe 300 of them on SPS. I can guess that my average bet was on the $5 to $10 games on SPS, so use $7.50. Sessions ran from 1 minute to 10-12 hours, with an average of about 3-4 hours. I used my card in maybe 175 of those sessions, until I got into some trouble with two casinos. In the other 125 or so sessions my avg. bet was maybe $2 games. I always used a card playing these other four strategies. If you can figure some amount out from this then have at it.

After I got stopped by Bellagio & Harrahs I started to mingle SPS with the other strategies in alternating trips. And it's not like my comps were bad. I don't think I ever checked into less than four hotels on any weekly (and later, semi-weekly) trip in order to take advantage of what the offer included. I did make the most of what I got IN THE MAIL. I NEVER talked to casino hosts to get a thing that wasn't in the offer or that I got "cheated" out of for whatever reasons. Why should I, when I was winning regularly? That's what it was all about, and still is as far as I'm concerned. It was all about that, and keeping it simple. When I drove home it was with a mind entirely at peace, unless I lost.

So Rob, I figure you having "modest" coin in of about $1.5-million without a players card. If cash back was one-tenth of one percent that's $1500 you didnt get.

If I grossly undervalued your coin in, let's say it was $3-million that would be $3,000 you didn't get.

But now I am having trouble how you won a million dollars with only $1.5-million coin in, or even $3-million coin in? Heck, $3-million coin in over ten years is only $300-thou per year. All I can say is that you have a very high win-to-hands ratio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

So Rob, I figure you having "modest" coin in of about $1.5-million without a players card. If cash back was one-tenth of one percent that's $1500 you didnt get.

If I grossly undervalued your coin in, let's say it was $3-million that would be $3,000 you didn't get.

But now I am having trouble how you won a million dollars with only $1.5-million coin in, or even $3-million coin in? Heck, $3-million coin in over ten years is only $300-thou per year. All I can say is that you have a very high win-to-hands ratio.

---

I used my card on about 175 SPS sessions and every other strategy session, as I stated.

Let me see, if my avg. bet was $37.50/hand, and I played thru $1/$2 & $5 and halfway thru $10 to attain a $2500 minimum profit, that's 1400 credits run thru who knows how many times on avg. So if I played 1200 hands/session (400 hph for 3 hours for the bottom end of my 3-4 hour average session length) to stay on the conservative side, that's 1200 X $37.50 X 300 sessions just for SPS....or about $12,000,000 coin thru minimum. And that's just for the SPS play. So I'm not understanding your calculations.

Besides, I went into each session EXPECTING to win my goal, so in theory, my game EV actually WAS far higher than any other vp player could have ever hoped for.

I was using a much lower average bet, between $1 and $2 video poker.

Were you using a card for your $12-million of coin-thru? At Rincon if you ran that much through there you'd probably get about $3600 in free play and who knows what additional offers you'd get after that.

No I wasn't using a card for around 125 of those 300 sessions. I agree I gave up probably a pile of comps, but if you can put yourself into my mindset just for this moment, you'd see none of that was important to me because everything I developed and prepared for was only from the machines. I welcomed the gravy, but most of it really wasn't necessary (other than the free rooms to stay in).