More Absolute Proof VP "AP's" Are Nothing But Liars

And there you have it--in Dancer's latest LVA article, he shows how telling another whopper is just another day in the life of a so-called AP.

He now claims how he believes doing good deeds reflects positively on the community and makes it a better place in which to live--and that he "follows that regimen wholeheartedly".

What a liar. Ask his ex wife about how well he does his deeds. Then ask him why he felt leaving a sick wife who needed spousal support didn't measure up to his need to keep his gambling problem in tact.

But yes, there's more. I know some people in LV who know Shirley, and now I'm being told that loverboy Bob was running around with his new Bonnie...Shirley's former BFF...well before the divorce, and was the main reason for him being thrown out. So Dancer may have made up the reason, which is why he needed to run to LVA to write the article about "smokey smelly Bobby".

What goes around always does come around Bob, and as our friend arci knows much too well in relateable situations, it's always in such a righteous way.

Rob, what is the point of this? You have really gone off the deep end.

Just a dose of the truth. Help me! I feel myself dropping off the deep end.

Most definitely, sling. What you're seeing is people getting hot under the collar whenever with the fact that gambling problems exist....and how they really do take over some lives. Some of the most offensive comments GT used to receive were on days my column mentioned the possibility that addiction exists--and no one was ever named. But that's how these people who live under the gun react. In this case, I've "gone off the deep end". I guess that's better than the usual denial, or bevy of self-serving explanations. Even misscraps on vpFree says she's a degenerate gambler over and over, and the administrator admits to being addicted to the game.

It's all just simple common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Most definitely, sling. What you're seeing is people getting hot under the collar whenever with the fact that gambling problems exist....and how they really do take over some lives. Some of the most offensive comments GT used to receive were on days my column mentioned the possibility that addiction exists--and no one was ever named. But that's how these people who live under the gun react. In this case, I've "gone off the deep end". I guess that's better than the usual denial, or bevy of self-serving explanations. Even misscraps on vpFree says she's a degenerate gambler over and over, and the administrator admits to being addicted to the game.

It's all just simple common sense.

---

I definitely was and am madder than ever that the thing got away from me. Funny-5 years ago I had no problems winning. Now-and I know that probably you may not agree with this-but IN MY AREA the vp machines are nothing more than slots in disquise Now I know that infuriates some people-but I've had more luck treating them as such. If the machine's in a winning mode, it'll win. If not-go ahead and try every hold known to man and hope for the best. And I can't explain how I can hit $200-$300 and the rest of the trip takes it no matter how careful I am to try and prolong it. I almost feel that they're tracking my card and letting me have a win and then taking it back. They did it EVERY trip until I caught on.

Rob it's your constant attacks that put you in the deep end. This thread is not necessary.

Let's face it -- odds were that Dancer was fooling around before he was tossed out. Odds were that his sudden, convenient hooking up with Bonnie didn't originate post-Shirley.

Most adults would draw these conclusions. Why he felt it necessary to make up some fiction and post it in his LVA column is beyond me. He evidently needs to keep some sort of Boy Scout public persona intact. Maybe it's because most of his "Million Dollar Video Poker" winnings were won by Shirley. I mean, let's face it, it was Shirley's spin of the wheel that enabled Dancer to write a video poker book and become semi-famous. Without that spin, as you say, Alan, who knows what luck had in store for Mr. Dancer.

That's curious Alan. Bringing up vp addiction issues is an attack? Likely only to those who know it's true, but want to keep it swept under the rug as long as possible. And the real reason such a trusted writer as Dancer got divorced when he tried to blame the wife for "misunderstanding his vp habit"? Totally relevant and absolutely not an attack....unless the word "divorce" jabs at the same nerves as vp addiction does.

Alan, I think the point that Rob is trying to make is that gambling addiction affects your personal life. I felt many times like a liar, although I remained sane enough to seek help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Alan, I think the point that Rob is trying to make is that gambling addiction affects your personal life. I felt many times like a liar, although I remained sane enough to seek help.

---

Sling, Alan is no dummy and the rest of us aren't either. If that's what Rob wanted to say then why didn't he just say that? The title of his thread has one purpose only: insult people and create havoc. The rest of his thread is nothing more than another attack on Bob Dancer. He uses this forum as his personal playground to beat up his historcal "enemies". The only thing this article proves is that Rob is a giant .................

For somebody who claims so many thing about others, he has done little to prove his own claims. Consider this + the fact that Rob likes to insult others and throw them under the bus, what does that make him? I'm not even going to go there anymore.

@Rob, don't even care to respond. Nobody's interested in this next episode of bull hoeckey.

Vegas_lover got it right. There is no need for Rob to make these comments. As they say... he who lives in glass houses shouldn't shoot bullets.

schedule c please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Vegas_lover got it right. There is no need for Rob to make these comments. As they say... he who lives in glass houses shouldn't shoot bullets.

---

Yeah-I can see that part.

No Alan, you missed the point again. Dancer's a disgrace as a public figure. This mess he finds himself in with a divorce, messing around with his wife's BFF, and his continuous efforts at trying to justify his foolish actions is really no surprise if you've ever read his perverted "Sex, Lies, & Video Poker" books. In them you can clearly see the twisted, confused mind of someone who is unhappy in his life because his insatiable hunger for sex in any way, shape, or form has never and could never be realized. Shirley likely saw those aberrations as the lucky beginning of the end, which is why she did so well in the divorce.

Public people who play vp professionally or who are widely known do not have to be degenerates in their lives. You constantly make statements about my bold and truthful remarks have me being "my own worst enemy" only of all the so-called "known" vp personalities, who's the only one you've ever heard of that's got a stable, normal family and has been married to the same woman in their first and only marriage since they were young? No Alan, divorce--or multiple divorces--does not wear well when you're a public figure--esp. in the gambling world. These people typically thrive in conflict, hatred, and are poster children for the no-way-out set. Just check someone like Jean Scott. Nice, sweet old lady, right? Well, her & "Brad's" pathological gambling habits have a lot to say about why they do not ever get married. They travel under the guise that staying single old people garners more of those freebies and comps you hold so dearly, yet the truth is neither one trusts the other enough to tie any knots. One glitch or sneaky maneuver by either of them could send either frail life that are well into their declining years, into a non-recoverable tailspin.

You want to understand this more, just let me know.

Here's what I think: it's in very poor taste for you or for anyone else to make comments about anyone else's personal life. That especially includes their marriage(s) or divorce(s) or personal relationship(s).

Not only is it in poor taste, but I don't care. And I think a lot of other people don't care either. Whether or not any of these people have a troubled marriage or no marriage is not going to help me play video poker, or be a better player, or get more comps, or put more money in my pockets.

[QUOTE=Alan Mendelson;15984]Here's what I think: it's in very poor taste for you or for anyone else to make comments about anyone else's personal life. [QUOTE=Alan Mendelson;15984]

And that's just a mild explanation of what it is. I could use a whole lot of different terms to describe this behavior. It speaks volume about Singer's character, not about the people he loves to throw under the bus.

[QUOTE=Alan Mendelson;15984]Not only is it in poor taste, but I don't care. [QUOTE=Alan Mendelson;15984]

Ditto!

With all this nonsense, Singer's just showing his true personality. He states fiction as "facts" and "absolute truths" which basically makes him the village idiot. This man comes accross as somebdy who might need some medication.

I'm wondering about the possible legal implications of threats like this. Alan, could there be a risk for you getting involved in a legal battle when you leave this nonsense online? I could imagine people would be willing to go to court to shut Singer up since he has absolutely no proof of the nasty things he's saying here. Could this be considered as defamation of character?

While I'm no fan of Rob's vitriol, he's not going to be sued because his info is pretty much accurate. And I'll get into it another day, but anyone who thinks the context of one's life doesn't affect one's gambling is just plain wrong.

Look, if you donate to casinos as a recreational player, as 99.9% of people are, then it's no big deal and, as a Hunter Thompson fan, I recommend Jack Daniels, ether, and a membership to The Green Door. But if you aspire to be a professional, then what Rob says is correct -- people rarely muster behavioral discipline in the gambling milieu if they lack behavioral discipline in other contexts. Dancer clearly has issues with sex and ego -- his columns ooze those problems. Is he "successful?" I guess that depends on your definition of success, and that, I think, is Rob's point. It's friction-creating to suggest that staggering through multiple marriages is indicative of lack of discipline, but it's a legitimate viewpoint.

Good post, Red. I see the whole scenario as a guy who got taken at vp and woke up one day and realized the truly valuable things of this life. Not being a quitter,he decided to turn the tables-not by any means of magic or "feel good" methods, but by the actual math that he's actually accused of NOT using. Being a humanitarian, he decided to take it one step further and help his fellow man-for FREE. Being shocked that many accusers would rather play for recreation and good-time losing, he became even more dogmatic to the point of offending others. All I'm saying is the intents are good. Unfortunately, I'm the type of person who would just shake his head and say o.k. I tried. I'm thinking that few here have been taken like this, but it's the dose needed for those who read a lot and figured they had it all figured out.

Well Red, you and Singer both really dislike Dancer as you both have stated before. So I'm not really surprised you're with him on this. I'm not really fond of Dancer either but this thread is completely filled with assumptions. Not facts. You two like to fill in all of the blanks of Dancer's life in a negative way because you both don't like him. Stick to facts, or maybe just leave it alone. This whole subject is in no way a useful contribution to this forum IMHO.

Rob, just STFU.

Okay, facts:

1) Shirley, not Dancer, won the big money.
2) Dancer, not Shirley, wrote the book and used it to become a vp personality.
3) Rob has met and discussed the situation with members of Shirley's family.
4) If you've read virtually everything Dancer has written, as I have, and you come to the conclusion that he has no issues with ego and sex, then God bless you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

1) Shirley, not Dancer, won the big money.

---

I never cared about how much he or his wife won. I only care if the info he has will help me win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

2) Dancer, not Shirley, wrote the book and used it to become a vp personality.

---

I don't care if he is a "personality" or not... I just care if the info is worthwhile and helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

3) Rob has met and discussed the situation with members of Shirley's family.

---

I don't care and frankly it's hearsay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

4) If you've read virtually everything Dancer has written, as I have, and you come to the conclusion that he has no issues with ego and sex, then God bless you.

---

As I said before, the only thing I care about is if his tips will help me win money. For the record, I have my own ego and it's big enough and I don't need to be concerned with his ego. And at my age, sex isn't as important as it was 40 years ago.

As for Shirley's winnings ... would she have been playing at all without Bob's presence/ Would she have been playing at that denomination? Would she have learned how to play correctly? I can only chuckle at the claims that Shirley was responsible for the big winnings. As indicated above, all of these attacks on Dancer are examples of jealousy and hatred. If I were you Alan I would ask Singer to provide absolute proof of his claims and delete this thread if he can't provide it.

It's more embarrassing to the posters when you leave their original, ridiculous claims online for all to see.

Sch-C Rob or should I call you no balls Rob? You video poker hack.

Alan, if you believe you're ever getting info from Dancer that'll help you win, you'd better have a huge bankroll. Look at him for what he's always been: someone who works multiple jobs and will never stop, just to continue to be able to put big money into the poker machines. He's also never had an ounce of respect for the women in his life and his costly divorce not only proved it--it helped a lot of others finally wake up to the fact that he's a despicable person. People who have trouble with their spouses and partners do so because they have deep-rooted problems. You should know, which is why it's not too surprising how many passes you give the loser. It's also a very good barometer as to why gambling is so important to such people.

Arci's take on the Shirley factor is as empty as his own life has panned out to be. Shirley won the $400,000 royal with THEIR money, and she's the one who got the W2G. Dancer simply followed what any "VP AP" would do, and claimed the fame for himself along with all the cash. That's why she is so at peace with herself after rightfully raping the moron in the divorce, and why I contacted her last week and congratulated her on a job well done. VP AP's, in case you haven't noticed, always think they know it all and hold the upper hand in every situation they come in contact with. Watching these liars pay the piper is as satisfying as watching Obama's supporters continue to have buyer's remorse at levels even his corrupt and clueless mouthpiece Axelrod can't believe or explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Alan, if you believe you're ever getting info from Dancer that'll help you win, you'd better have a huge bankroll. Look at him for what he's always been: someone who works multiple jobs and will never stop, just to continue to be able to put big money into the poker machines. He's also never had an ounce of respect for the women in his life and his costly divorce not only proved it--it helped a lot of others finally wake up to the fact that he's a despicable person. People who have trouble with their spouses and partners do so because they have deep-rooted problems. You should know, which is why it's not too surprising how many passes you give the loser. It's also a very good barometer as to why gambling is so important to such people.

Arci's take on the Shirley factor is as empty as his own life has panned out to be. Shirley won the $400,000 royal with THEIR money, and she's the one who got the W2G. Dancer simply followed what any "VP AP" would do, and claimed the fame for himself along with all the cash. That's why she is so at peace with herself after rightfully raping the moron in the divorce, and why I contacted her last week and congratulated her on a job well done. VP AP's, in case you haven't noticed, always think they know it all and hold the upper hand in every situation they come in contact with. Watching these liars pay the piper is as satisfying as watching Obama's supporters continue to have buyer's remorse at levels even his corrupt and clueless mouthpiece Axelrod can't believe or explain.

---

More horsesh**. No Singer post goes by without him beating up Dancer and/or Arci. He doesn't care what anybody says, he only does what he likes. He throws bombs and then leaves for a couple of days. Then comes back, ignores peoples requests to town it down. Singer's response: "let's throw another shrimp on the barby".

He also conviently ignores his own failure to back any of his own outlandish claims. And when he does address that issue it's simply not a priority because he's retired and all this stuff doesn't matter to him anymore. In the mean time, this man is the number 2 or 3 poster on this forum with nearly 2000 posts. Talking about compulsive......

And still this man still gets the opportunity to spread his filth. Ah well, it is what it is, despicable. Sorry Alan, but this is going to far!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Shirley won the $400,000 royal with THEIR money, and she's the one who got the W2G. Dancer simply followed what any "VP AP" would do, and claimed the fame for himself along with all the cash.

---

Well, Rob, of course she got the W2G -- she was in the seat. And of course it was THEIR money -- they were married at the time, weren't they? And why wouldn't he claim the fame? When my wife hits royals I claimed the fame too -- just as she got cash and a four-carat+ diamond ring when I hit royals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

Sorry Alan, but this is going to far!

---

I think Rob is digging quite a hole for himself. And I will simply let him continue. I only wish he would use some of his spare time to get those records he's been promising us. While I doubt they will prove anything it would be a nice gesture on his part to produce them so we could see them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Well, Rob, of course she got the W2G -- she was in the seat. And of course it was THEIR money -- they were married at the time, weren't they? And why wouldn't he claim the fame? When my wife hits royals I claimed the fame too -- just as she got cash and a four-carat+ diamond ring when I hit royals.



I think Rob is digging quite a hole for himself. And I will simply let him continue. I only wish he would use some of his spare time to get those records he's been promising us. While I doubt they will prove anything it would be a nice gesture on his part to produce them so we could see them.

---

I also believe Shirley learned to play optimal strategy from him. When me and my wife are in a casino either WE lose or WE win. We can both claim the win. Yes a Royal can be hit without playing any strategy. But we all know Dancer's professional VP life is all about optimal play. So the entire point Rob is trying to make is useless and just a personal vendetta.

And talking about proof. Let Rob show us schedule c's without any strings attached and without him demanding anything from others. No side bets, no BS. He's the one claiming so many things, just let him prove some of his claims for a change. And yes, let him provide the mysterious data from the Arizona storage locker too. It's about time. If they prove anything is not the issue anymore.

High ranking government officials believe there are weapons of mass destruction in that storage locker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

What goes around always does come around Bob

---

I only read this forum and the Las Vegas Advisor Forum. Does Bob Dancer insult or argue with Rob on other forums? Why all the hate?

The point Rob is making is that without Shirley hitting that mega-royal, Bob Dancer -- vp pro and author and authority on all things gambling -- probably doesn't exist in 2013. If you don't think that's relevant, okay, then what exactly do you think is relevant?

When was the last time any of you read "Million Dollar Video Poker" and asked some journalistic questions? You guys do realize Dancer's dad was wealthy and they were estranged for awhile for gambling reasons? You do realize Dancer skips over the explanations of how he suddenly, in the book, jumps denominations in a mysterious fashion?

I'm not criticizing Dancer for what he accomplished -- he was stellar. I have issues with his presenting his life as some kind of blueprint for what you can do if you follow his lead and study hard. The fact is, if you have some inside info on Dancer, that he does not restrict his gambling to vp. He has leakage in other areas, and his explanations of having an edge in those other areas don't really hold water, so his entire program of having an edge in vp gets called into question.

Now for you recreational players out there who don't mind losing, none of this really matters. For people looking to win lifetime, Dancer's alleged philosophy may be solid, but his life is a questionable blueprint, at best.

As to the question, "Does Dancer help me win?" -- I ask you. Have you won? Are you ahead lifetime? If you're not, then he hasn't helped you win.

Actually I never read that book, nor do I care about his life story, or about his personal financial situation. The only thing I care about is if he can teach me how to play video poker better. I have read his articles, used his software, and even attended one of his lectures. While everything I learned about playing video poker did not come from Dancer exclusively, I have learned some things from him. I've also learned from Grochowski, and from Frank Scoblete's new book, and from various online authors. And yes, I've also learned a few things from Rob Singer.

My point is I think discussing personal lives and personal finances is meaningless. I want to learn the proper game theory. I realize that personal results will vary with the luck of the RNG. There are great players who know perfect strategy and aren't lucky with the RNG just as there are lousy players who don't know strategy who do get lucky with the RNG.

Sometimes you know perfect strategy and don't follow it and get lucky anyway. That's what happened to Rob when he was playing 8/5 Bonus on a $25 machine and sacrificed three queens to hold three to the royal and drew the royal.

I'm curious redietz, would you have broken up the three queens to try for the royal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Actually I never read that book, nor do I care about his life story, or about his personal financial situation. The only thing I care about is if he can teach me how to play video poker better.

---

I'm with you on this Alan. We're trying to learn how to be better VP players. Who's taking advice from him on how to live their life or how to have a successful marriage?

From what I can tell and have read, all his "methods" include making the optimal holds and playing computer perfect strategy for the game he is playing. The "math" supports his method and he uses math when factoring in comps, drawings, gifts etc. What supports Rob's systems other than his own purported success?

I'm an AP. If the charts say hold three queens, I hold three queens. If they say something different, I do something different. I follow the math.

As to Dancer, I cannot believe people actually evaluate him without reading that book. The book contains a helluva lot more info than any sessions with him will give you. I suppose you guys have read about, what, two dozen of his several hundred columns? How can you even give opinions about something if you haven't studied the subject?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm an AP. If the charts say hold three queens, I hold three queens. If they say something different, I do something different. I follow the math.

As to Dancer, I cannot believe people actually evaluate him without reading that book. The book contains a helluva lot more info than any sessions with him will give you. I suppose you guys have read about, what, two dozen of his several hundred columns? How can you even give opinions about something if you haven't studied the subject?

---

Are we supposed to be evaluating him as a person? I don't play video poker often, but if I did all I would want from him would be information on correct holds or profitable plays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

Are we supposed to be evaluating him as a person? I don't play video poker often, but if I did all I would want from him would be information on correct holds or profitable plays.

---

Dancer is a liar and failure in life. What else do you need to know to evaluate what he sells and says about the vp business?

The problem with Dancer as he currently writes is that it's tough to discern between what is helpful to a normal player and what is not. He operates with comp rates and (possibly) rebates not available to the average player. He evaluates drawings with info not available to the average player, and his drawing estimates may or may not be accurate. So the question is, "If the average player does as Dancer does, what happens? Does he win or lose?"

If he loses, then is Dancer doing the average player any good? To make an assumption that an average player would lose more without Dancer's "help" is sheer speculation. The average player might actually lose less because he/she would not assume they have an edge when they do not. In addition, many players do as Alan does, which is play to a "loss limit." If they play to a loss limit, then the effects of learning from Dancer are negligible, except that playing more hours and more hands before reaching that loss limit may create a stronger addiction to vp play.

I am able to separate Dancer's advice from his promotional talk. Can't you? I also can separate Rob's solid advice from his promotional talk.

O.J. Simpson was a murderer. It doesn't diminish how well he ran the football. And if he was explaining to me how to run the football, I would listen, regardless of his personal life. I'd also keep an eye on my wallet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I am able to separate Dancer's advice from his promotional talk. Can't you? I also can separate Rob's solid advice from his promotional talk.

---

Alan, I believe most people can't--or don't want to separate Dancer and his bloviating when it comes to vp. They just want to win, and when he can create a belief in he himself being a winner, then all they want to do is Be Like Mike. Nothing else matters.

It's way different with me. I only promote discipline, bankroll, aptitude, common sense, bold truthful talk,and where decent living can lead someone. Many of the people I've trained have met my wife, either on trips or at my home. Some have met my daughter and grandkids. They see someone with good family values who actually wants to help players do better and enjoy the game more because I've found success with it--and never for any charge. Compare any of that to what you get with Dancer. Sure, some people like arci like to lie about me and my family and what I've done, but that's only because how badly their lives turned out and how much disbelief they have that a professional gambler in vp can have such a normal life. It has to be very disheartening.

I don't know how you can possibly separate promotional talk from advice or even what that means exactly. What do you mean, Alan? For example, do you believe Dancer's estimates of drawing odds? Are those estimates promotional talk or advice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Alan, I believe most people can't--or don't want to separate Dancer and his bloviating when it comes to vp.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I don't know how you can possibly separate promotional talk from advice or even what that means exactly. What do you mean, Alan? For example, do you believe Dancer's estimates of drawing odds? Are those estimates promotional talk or advice?

---

I doubt Dancer is going to lie about the math in video poker, or about other gems of advice such as this one which I will never forget:

Dancer question: When you are dealt a King high straight flush do you hold it or draw for the royal?

Correct answer from Dancer: It depends on the game.

Explanation: In deuces wild you try for the Royal since a straight flush in DW pays so little. In other games you hold the SF.

Now, does it matter to me that Dancer went through a divorce, had an affair, his ex wife hit the $400,000 royal or that he almost got mugged and robbed and defrauded during a trip to Atlantic City to meet with a con artist? No it doesn't. And I can separate the factual info from the BS.

If there is any doubt about the "math" there are many other sources for confirming it. And frankly, there are many other sources to also confirm his correct video poker strategy.

First guy I worked for was a class A bastard. He was mean, viscious, ill tempered, etc. He cheated on his wife and his girlfriends, and he overbilled. When he walked in the office every day you could see in his eyes if he was in a mood and was gonna kill you. We would grab our files and run to the law library to avoid him.

He also was an absolute genius from whom I learned everyrthing I know about my practice. So again, I absolutely hated him and couldn't wait to leave his employ. But I left with all the knowledge and skills that I would have had a hard time getting elsewhere.

So I watched and listened and learned, despite the fact that he was the scum of the earth in his personal and professional affairs.

Side note--

I didn't take any of his clients with me, but I did screw his wife.

How about this one, Rob: I learned from you even though you can be an ass sometimes.

I can't believe all I've read. Keep up the good work, Rob. Geez.

Alan, being an Internet ass is a requirement in this day and age. Being an ass in real life most definitely isn't. I have always done what is necessary.

Dancer is an ass in the virtual world as well as in the real world. With whom would you rather be friends, and which of the two would you most likely trust to tell the truth about ANYTHING? (And, which one would you most trust your wife with??)

You did not answer, Alan. Do you believe Dancer's estimates of drawing odds? These odds have become more and more an integral part of his deciding whether or not he should play various games in various casinos. Nobody else furnishes estimates on these odds, and there are no ways to confirm whether he's correct or not. So do you believe he really, precisely, knows the drawing odds, or is the inclusion of drawings just a way to (1) justify his playing negative games and (2) justify to his readers reasons to play negative games?

So are the drawing odds factual info or BS? Not as easy to discern as Alan's says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You did not answer, Alan. Do you believe Dancer's estimates of drawing odds?

---

It's a moot point. I don't play in those casinos, I don't take part in those promotions, and I have never gone to a casino with the intent of playing only because of such drawings. Again, I look to Dancer for info about how to play video poker. However, it does humor me that he takes a bath on these promotions.

Let's just say he knows his video poker, but he's nuts throwing money after drawings the way he does.

Well, it's not a moot point to Dancer's other readers, and that's my (moot) point. And still you avoid the question, into which category do you place those drawing odds estimates -- BS or "factual info?"

You seem to be struggling with the answer, even as you previously said you can tell the difference between the two with Dancer.

I am not struggling with the answer. I am sure his odds are close and I am sure he has an advantage. It doesn't mean he is going to win. It's the same when you sit down at a positive expectation video poker machine... are you guaranteed you will win? Ask Rob about that. Ask Arc about that. It's still gambling... when you sit at a machine with an RNG or take part in a drawing... it's all gambling. You take your chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Dancer is a liar and failure in life. What else do you need to know to evaluate what he sells and says about the vp business?

---

Didn't Abraham Lincoln own slaves?

Tournament distortions are not the only "guesstimates" players like Dancer include in their "positive play" creations. My column constantly blasted these people for manufacturing such things out of thin air, in order that they could continue banging away at the machines in the midst of vowing never to play again once the pure "+EV" games disappeared. Jean Scott's on record saying a sunny day and her hosts' smiles figure into the formula, as does the value of the coupons she finds via dumpster-diving, and how many free rolls she can stuff into her purse from the lunch & dinner buffets.

If anything, the antics of these people were a ton of fun to write about, as they were the true definition of the gifts that keep on giving. Now, deep into his declining years with virtually nothing at all to show for all his wasted hours at the poker machines, we get to watch the "expert" close out his vp days desperately manufacture "plays" that are not really there, with his only satisfaction being legions of dumb minions that he believes believe in him....and Bonnie's left hand that more likely than not just tweeted with some casino executive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

Didn't Abraham Lincoln own slaves?

---

No, he did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

No, he did not.

---

George Washington did. Should we talk about Thomas Jefferson?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

Didn't Abraham Lincoln own slaves?

---

He had a good financial advisor. He leased with an option to own.

Why don't we just talk about the next/upcoming episode of "watching grass grow"? That's got to be way more interesting than all the previous blablabla of a certain gentleman.

I have two clients selling artificial turf.

Alan is sure Dancer's estimates are close when it comes to drawings odds. Now this is my point -- why does Alan believe this? Because Dancer has been above board in his reportage of video poker happenings? Because Dancer has been above board in his reportage of the details of his life?

There seems to be some assumption that spotty, distorted reportage of one's personal life has absolutely no relationship to how one reports one's gambling life. So we are to conclude that despite Dancer's twisted reportage of his personal stuff, he's pristinely accurate when discussing video poker and gambling.

Why would anyone believe that?

redietz, this is really too much and absolutely over the line. You have an axe to grind against Dancer. I suggest you contact Dancer or post your comments on a forum where he participates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

redietz, this is really too much and absolutely over the line. You have an axe to grind against Dancer. I suggest you contact Dancer or post your comments on a forum where he participates.

---

+1, may I suggest the LVA forums?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

redietz, this is really too much and absolutely over the line. You have an axe to grind against Dancer. I suggest you contact Dancer or post your comments on a forum where he participates.

---

Why is any of that over some line? If you've been reading some of the other forums the past several years, you'd see where even the most accommodating and kind posters have been voicing their extreme displeasure with how the guy runs his video poker life. He makes up scenarios just to mislead interested & honest players astray in order that his opportunity doesn't evaporate, he works with casinos to hurt fellow vp enthusiasts, and he lies about himself just to keep on selling his brand to unsuspecting others, which helps keep higher limit gambling money in his pocket.

Now move over to his wretched personal life. He wrote two perverted books on gambling & sex because he has a very sick mind, and for some reason he thought his readers might look at him as some sort of "macho" character who gambles, and the cocktail waitresses would swoon over and flirt with him whenever they ran into him in their casinos. A true sicko.

His twisted divorce was despicable enough, but the method and the way he went about "announcing" it along with newly discovered facts about it, have proven beyond any doubt that he will lie and deal from the very bottom of the deck, without any shame and regardless who it hurts, for the sole purpose of showing everyone that no one can show him up.

And you think one aspect of a pubic figure's life tells nothing about how he handles another aspect? The guy's a worm Alan, and time will only give us the opportunity to watch him keep diqging his life's hole that much deeper. It's unfortunate, but it is only because of the choices he has made.

The sad thing is that I have no ax to grind against Dancer. I just ask the obvious questions.

If you've read Dancer's columns over the last year or so (I've read maybe 80%), you'd see that his personal life is inserted and explained and defended in a large number of them, including one wherein he explained his new relationship at length, and one wherein he posted photos of he and his new lady friend on vacation. I'm surprised LVA didn't rein him in. Go ahead, look them up in the LVA archives. Read them. In any case, he gave details of how his new relationship ostensibly unfolded.

Now, since "Bob Dancer" is a fictional character and he uses fictional names for others, there is no law that says he had to accurately report these things. It turns out that he may have been less than forthright in his reportage. Any adults reading these columns would not have been surprised by this.

My questions are simple. If he's less than accurate when reporting material that most readers can't check from his personal life, why would one assume he's completely accurate when reporting material most readers cannot check from his gambling life? Video poker payback and proper strategy can be cross-referenced. Drawings odds cannot be -- therefore my question. Why does Alan consider Dancer's reportage of drawings odds factual with no other source to cross-check the material?

It might be because Dancer has demonstrated pristine reporting in the past. Has he? Remember the foggy details of his reporting of the Riviera promotion? His mysterious jumping of denominations in his book?

Since the value of the drawings has become increasingly a key element as to whether certain machines are play or no-play, this is not an irrelevant point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

My questions are simple. If he's less than accurate when reporting material that most readers can't check from his personal life, why would one assume he's completely accurate when reporting material most readers cannot check from his gambling life? Video poker payback and proper strategy can be cross-referenced. Drawings odds cannot be -- therefore my question. Why does Alan consider Dancer's reportage of drawings odds factual with no other source to cross-check the material?.

---

The same can be said about everything Singer has claimed. But at the same time he's condemning Dancer with everything he's got. But see what happend when some of us gave Singer the same approach as you and Singer are giving Dancer right now.....

As Alan said, he who lives in glass houses shouldn't shoot bullets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Why is any of that over some line? If you've been reading some of the other forums the past several years,

---

Oh... you mean your posts on other forums?

redietz, you have every right to question Dancer about his methods and play and reliability, etc. And I think you should raise those questions in a forum such as videopoker.com where Dancer participates. While I allow the comments to be posted here in the interest of free and open discussion we haven't had anything new to discuss. It's just been a rehash of the same old thing. If we start rehashing things about Dancer someone is going to ask Rob about the records in the storage locker.

Fair enough. What I found weird about Dancer's "personal" columns was that he felt it necessary to broadcast his situation to the world at all. Then I realized it was one-way damage control -- his ex-wife had no way of really countering what Dancer was presenting to thousands of readers and listeners. It's not as if she had an LVA column and her own radio show.

As I said, I take what I can from Dancer and use it. The problem is that normal folks might swallow everything Dancer has to say and try to apply it, and that could be a really, really bad idea when it comes to playing negative games and relying on drawings and (non-guaranteed) cashback to allegedly flip those games into positive territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

As I said, I take what I can from Dancer and use it. The problem is that normal folks might swallow everything Dancer has to say and try to apply it,

---

I also take what I can from Dancer and use it. I doubt the general public uses and accepts everything he writes about. After all, how many people have his kind of money to throw at a promotion to win a car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Oh... you mean your posts on other forums?

---

These past 3 or 4 years are the ones I'm talking about. In that timeframe, here and vpFree are all I've posted on, and I've given him a fair shake over there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I also take what I can from Dancer and use it. I doubt the general public uses and accepts everything he writes about. After all, how many people have his kind of money to throw at a promotion to win a car?

---

I'd say lots of people do, only they're much more responsible with their lives than that. It also reflects on Dancer's personal life. He's a snake, an addicted vp gambler, and his value system is in the trash. Then he tries to compensate by throwing out things like how much tournaments or drawings are "worth", and since none of his assertions can be verified other than it being an underhanded attempt at dragging others in under a misled guise, well....you know the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

an addicted vp gambler,

---

I am curious about this: how do you separate him as "an addicted vp gambler" from his business and profession which is writing about video poker and giving lessons and information about video poker? I would expect a video poker author and authority to also play video poker and to play in tournaments and promotions and to provide information about those events. Even when losing the information he provides is beneficial (not that I am going to throw thousands at trying to win a car, or anything like that).

I guess you could say I am addicted to marketing and advertising and Internet marketing because I am constantly reading and going to meetings and seminars about advertising and the Internet and marketing. I think I owe it to my clients to be up to date.

I think Dancer has an obligation to keep playing new games and promotions and at various casinos so he is up to date.

Gee Rob, do you think he also is able to deduct the cost of groceries when figuring his taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

The same can be said about everything Singer has claimed. But at the same time he's condemning Dancer with everything he's got. But see what happend when some of us gave Singer the same approach as you and Singer are giving Dancer right now.....

As Alan said, he who lives in glass houses shouldn't shoot bullets.

---

Sure the same can be said about me--by those who don't know me and/or have never met me. Dancer leads a dirty life, and how can anyone trust or believe anything about such an admitted sub-human?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I am curious about this: how do you separate him as "an addicted vp gambler" from his business and profession which is writing about video poker and giving lessons and information about video poker? I would expect a video poker author and authority to also play video poker and to play in tournaments and promotions and to provide information about those events. Even when losing the information he provides is beneficial (not that I am going to throw thousands at trying to win a car, or anything like that).

I guess you could say I am addicted to marketing and advertising and Internet marketing because I am constantly reading and going to meetings and seminars about advertising and the Internet and marketing. I think I owe it to my clients to be up to date.

I think Dancer has an obligation to keep playing new games and promotions and at various casinos so he is up to date.

Gee Rob, do you think he also is able to deduct the cost of groceries when figuring his taxes?

---

I do believe you're addicted to your profession, because of how addicted you are to gaming action. Traits usually aren't selective.

Dancer's profession only serves to define his entire life. When someone so completely encompasses oneself in gambling along with presenting himself as a representative of it's sleazy side, smart money says to stay away.

Yes, you're unable to divorce yourself from your fascination with my having deducted some groceries over my 11 year stint as a professional gambler. Try it....you'll like it. And don't worry. Your idol Obama won't send the IRS after you :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Sure the same can be said about me--by those who don't know me and/or have never met me. Dancer leads a dirty life, and how can anyone trust or believe anything about such an admitted sub-human?

---

Your arrogance is more present than Dancer's. Most people who read Dancer's stuff will never know him or meet him. Most people who read your stuff will never know you and will most likely not even want to meet you. No difference so stop twisting things. You're in the same position as Dancer, being a known VP public person. Your behavoir towards your readers is way worse than Dancer's. So you're the last person to be judging Dancer even if he's an arrogant "whatever you want to call him" and messing up his life. In reality, in the pr department Dancer is way ahead of you. Not because the general public out there loves him, but because after reading your stuff most people really, really dislike you. Your online profile has got "God complex" written all over it. News flash Rob, the fact that you won some money (at least that's what you claim) and you say you're good to your family and friends doesn't make you any better than the rest of us. The more you demand to be recognized, the less you will receive it.

Enjoy the rest of your crusade.

Here's your problem, Rob: you make judgments that you are not qualified to make. And you try to pass off your judgments as the gospel truth when in fact it appears to others that your judgments are merely attempts to make up for your own deficiencies. You have given us some examples:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I do believe you're addicted to your profession, because of how addicted you are to gaming action. Traits usually aren't selective.

---

Yes, I am addicted to my profession and admit it. Professionals often are addicted to their careers. Artists and writers are constantly creating. But you have decided that I am "addicted" to gaming action. Why? Is it because I use a player's card? May I remind you, Rob, that never in my life did I walk into a casino with $72,000 cash in my pocket nor did I ever chase my losses to the tune of $53,000. If my entertainment budget is an addiction -- then so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Dancer's profession only serves to define his entire life. When someone so completely encompasses oneself in gambling along with presenting himself as a representative of it's sleazy side, smart money says to stay away.

---

Professionals usually do define their lives by their work. How do you define your life Rob? Again you pass judgment on his alleged "sleazy side." Rob, you have a tattoo. And to some that is a symbol of being sleazy. You claim to have won a million dollars playing video poker, and that too will appear to some to be sleazy. You regularly made trips to casinos only to gamble and not to enjoy players club benefits and because you only went to gamble and "beat the casinos" you will also appear to be sleazy. You're a gambler, Rob, and that to many people is sleazy. Being a winner doesn't make you less sleazy to those who say gamblers are sleazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Yes, you're unable to divorce yourself from your fascination with my having deducted some groceries over my 11 year stint as a professional gambler. Try it....you'll like it. And don't worry. Your idol Obama won't send the IRS after you :)

---

I wouldn't use the term "fascination." I would use the term "interested" and I really would like to see something from the IRS that says such deductions are okay. Heck Rob, if you have discovered a valid deduction I want to use it. I have asked several professionals since you made this claim and so far I haven't found one who says this would be valid. But I am interested in finding out.

Learn from me guys, and your time on here can never be thought of as wasted. And Alan, there's a distinct, noble difference between a person who gambles and has had to endure multiple divorces--which strongly suggests a problematic connection--and a person who gambles and has always had a stable marriage. Most people would get the hint, with or without the tattoo:) The same can be said of someone deeply immersed in the world of gambling, like Dancer....and his choices to write sleazy, perverted books, cheat on a sick wife, and run across the country totally unprepared for con men and the criminal element because he fancies himself as a macho gambler and big deal womanizer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Learn from me guys, and your time on here can never be thought of as wasted. And Alan, there's a distinct, noble difference between a person who gambles and has had to endure multiple divorces--which strongly suggests a problematic connection--and a person who gambles and has always had a stable marriage. Most people would get the hint, with or without the tattoo:) The same can be said of someone deeply immersed in the world of gambling, like Dancer....and his choices to write sleazy, perverted books, cheat on a sick wife, and run across the country totally unprepared for con men and the criminal element because he fancies himself as a macho gambler and big deal womanizer.

---

Rob, stop it. You are really reaching. You have gone so far you don't even make sense anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, stop it. You are really reaching. You have gone so far you don't even make sense anymore.

---

I don't think He even realizes what He's saying. Or it's all just a goof to him if He does. SCH-C Rob!

Most of Singer's comments are pure projection. He is analyzing himself. When you realize this fact it all makes sense. He knows deep down that his behavior is immoral. In order to feel better about himself he forces himself to believe that everyone else is exactly like him. Hence, when he attacks Dancer, he is really attacking himself.

Also, I think we can now safely say that Singer's claims of sending in for tax forms to be sent to Alan was another lie. Added to all his other lies it should be getting pretty clear that nothing he says can be trusted.

Thank you Arci for bringing us full circle back to the phantom tax returns. Now can this thread end???