I love how Rob asks for a bunch of proof, yet not once has never showed evidence himself.
I love how Rob asks for a bunch of proof, yet not once has never showed evidence himself.
Dancer admitted to having a losing year recently. He lost $100,000 playing Ultimate X that year.
The 7/5 FA's were in Northern Nevada. The 8/5's FA's were in Laughlin but they were linked banks. Except, the Pioneer unlinked their 8/5 FA's in late 1999. The 8/5's came in at 101.8%. The Pioneer had promotions galore so these machines got beat to death. Surprisingly, the Pioneer left this game in for over 2 years.Originally Posted by bocce ball
The extra $200 in the meter adds on about 0.4% to the game. I don't know the meter speeds on the game so can't fully analyze it. If the RF meter was the only meter on the game you need about a $3500 royal to be at breakeven. Rule of thumb is every $500 extra in the meter adds 1%.Originally Posted by dannyj
Kerry Packer would be $100,000 per hand at blackjack and cover all 7 spots. Some strip casinos didn't want his action because he affected their quarterly reports.Originally Posted by bocce ball
Originally Posted by redietzI think you guys are arguing different points. Redietz is talking about losers receiving some type of partial benefit that reinforces their addiction. On a slot machine, it could be a $3 spin that pays $1 -- creating the illusion of a win. Comps function along the same principles. A player loses $300, but receives $100 in comps.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, you're noting the principle that casinos in aggregate pay out less than they take in. But that doesn't preclude the possibility of individual players obtaining benefits exceeding their losses. Max Rubin's book "Comp City" offered scenarios for table players, and machine possibilities have been explored by authors such as Jean Scott.
So the 8/5's may have been only marginally profitable at best for the casino.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
That was an era of very limited public information about video poker. Did the AP/hustler community generally have accurate playing strategies?
Originally Posted by RS__
That's because we all take Rob at his word. You'll notice that nobody, not a soul, asked Rob to provide a photo op of his Patriots wager. That's because it's not that big a wager, and we all know he made the wager.
Red, I didn't make the bet because we changed our plans and are leaving for N. Nevada tomorrow morning, and instead, we're having a few couples over for a SB party. $1000 is not that big of a bet, but to you it is.
Notice how the AP's always hide from any kind of proof by deflecting the issue away from them. They want everyone to simply believe their bs, but when I came along and began challenging them publicly in GT, rather than prove me wrong they could only attack, which further hurt their baloney claims.
As I've said many times, proof that my strategy works better than any other, hands down, boils down to basically being optimal play with a factor involved. How that factor was derived would take a lot more space than here to explain. Either that---or going as many sessions as it takes in person with a witness or witnesses in order that the doubting Thomas's feel uncomfortable. Or, an in-person meet to thoroughly detail the factors. Wizard backed out of a bet on the session-playing method as did his team of queer, atheist "mensa geniuses". And you people are too overall stupid to understand much beyond "if it's +EV you'll win/-EV you'll lose".
Yup...too stoopid.
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 02-05-2017 at 09:46 AM.
And you believe him. Remember when arci kept saying how much he "won every year but one" then he foolishly submitted tax info that said his "winnings" were next to nothing--and there was nothing about whether those "winnings" included an AP's magic crutch--comps? One thing is for certain: AP's will lie about their results and only other AP's will believe them....unless they say they LOSE! And when they do say they lose, they make sure the masses understand that "it was only one year out of many" and that they really have a lot of money anyway.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Dancer further fools himself in that he got humiliated and soaked dry by Shirley for the disgusting was he treated her. His glaring hypocrisy cane into light at that time, in that all that "+EV profit" he claimed to make over the years suddenly disappeared into his ex's pockets, thereby instantly creating a -EV lifetime loser out of him.
But mickey, being the folklore loner loser that he is, likes the bs Dancer spews so he believes in it to his grave--even when paying for groceries with his food stamps.
Rob, if you can come up with any valid evidence that I'm on any kind of government dole, welfare, food stamps, rental assistance, social security, madicaid, or any other kind of government program, I will donate $10,000 to your favorite charity. Now get to it, Rob. You have nothing to lose.
Arc's tax returns only showed wins from W2Gs playing his $1 game. He said that here, on the forum. So, we don't really know if he actually had greater winnings. We do know that he showed a profit. It's possible that his profits were even greater, or they might not have. We'll never know. But we do know he showed a profit.
There are many other gamblers who would be happy showing any kind of a profit. I am one of them. I admit to not having a profit despite two $100K royals in two years. However, I do have a profit at video poker -- and it's because of craps that I have an annual loss.
About Bob Dancer: I think he very well could have profits of six figures or more each year without the casinos banning him. And there are several reasons why:
1. If his profits come from multiple casinos, he will not show up on the radar at any one casino for being a huge winner. Dancer's profits could conceivably be something like $50,000 per casino and no casino would care about that.
2. Would any casino want to take a black eye for banning Dancer if he won less than $100K in a year? I don't think so.
3. Frankly for a casino to bar any gambler there has to be something "else." Card counters in blackjack are an exception, I think if you successfully count cards you're not going to be welcomed anywhere except if you are a very small player. One of my TV buddies is a card counter but goes to Vegas maybe once a month and plays just enough at low denominations to win a couple of thousand at different casinos. No one bothers him. Winning one or two thousand dollars at big casinos allows him to fly under the radar.
In summary: casinos need winners. If no one won, no one would play. It might as well be Dancer.
Alan, casinos do ban winners of any amounts who they determine they can't make a profit off of. I play -EV games with 2 winning trips to SP--profit of only $26,700--and they decided I'm not worth their time any longer. I've won even less at Silverton and much less at Tropicana Laughlin and all on those terrible negative games, and they don't accept me under most circumstances. Casinos also have been said to ban AP's who only play in certain "advantageous" ways, whether they win or lose. That's Dancer to a tee.
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 02-05-2017 at 01:34 PM.
SS isn't a govt entitlement program. You get it if you've ever worked in private industry.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
People can actually deduce things about you based on your slug life. Whole you have such low standards that make you believe an insufficient income is the bomb, the rest of the civilized world wouldn't want your fate if it came with a Madonna blow job. And just add it all up--you make truly stupid claims of "making six figures yearly" from nickel & 25c VP & keno in the middle of nowhere that you have never been able to support, back up, or prove, and you brag about being a bum, a hobo, and a loser with no dental plan, yet you expect others to believe you shun the Obama dole. It's easy math mickey. You're a lowlife loser, or else you would NEVER have gone to a dump like Montana.
I agree. Some casinos do have win tolerances regardless of who you are. My take is that Sweat Pointe tolerates him because he's somewhat friends with the owner and because of his classes that keeps the saps returning there. Personally, I'm not a fan of his. He needs to rely on promos and such to make a profit. Table games don't require such things.
In addition, it's possible that Dancer has negotiated loss rebates, which it's unlikely he'd report.Originally Posted by jbjb
Like I said, Rob. It's $10,000 to your favorite charity if you can show that I'm on any kind of government assistance. Put up or shut up, slug. And you keep on with this put up proof stuff. YOU HAVE NEVER PUT UP ANY PROOF. So why don't you finally put up some proof. You don't have any, do you, slug?Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Last edited by mickeycrimm; 02-05-2017 at 02:39 PM.
Yes, I know, Rob. I worked in private industry until I was 40 years old. I've received letters from SS telling me I'm eligible. You filed at 62, the moment you became eligible, because you needed the money after blowing your dough at negative expectation video poker. I don't need the money now so will get a bigger check when I do file.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Dancer got his card restricted at MGM. He was no mailed a long time ago by Stations. His was no mailed from Boyd. In a recent column he lamented Stations buying the Palms because that would make Palms dead in the water to him. Dancer plays under his real name in the casinos not by his pen name.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Last edited by mickeycrimm; 02-05-2017 at 03:13 PM.
Hopefully, these links work.
Booting Players The Suncoast Way-Part 1 of 2
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/1029.cfm
Booting Players The Suncoast Way-Part 2 of2
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/1105.cfm
There are currently 11 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 11 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
