Bob Dancer's latest

[Vegas Vic]

The final two paragraphs are enlightening and are worthy of discussion. IF the resulting followup commentary by everyone can remain civil, it might make for interesting reading. Be my guest.


http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/0416.cfm

[redietz]

My initial response is that if "feelings" enter into it, the person is playing for too high stakes vis-a-vis his/her bankroll. No endowment loss should be "devastating," which is the word Dancer uses.

But some people play per-hand or session stakes too high for their bankroll for the express purpose of experiencing emotions. Those people, I think, already have an issue or are well on their way.

If people want to play less-than-optimally, more power to them. They subsidize the rest of us. It is really sad, though, if some people really are "devastated" by simply doing correct things for small amounts of money. I mean, no video poker hand under a $100 machine is going to change anybody's life. Maybe emotionally investing in something close to meaningless is just some kind of momentary play-acting.

[regnis]

While I agree with everything both Red and Dancer said, keep in mind that for an infrequent/casual gambler who doesn't play enough to get enough shots at the 4 dueces, he may prefer to take the 50 and run. Dancer points out that you get the 4th duece 4.25% of the time. So you have to play a lot of hands to get three dueces dealt and this may not be realistic for the infrequent casual gambler who only plays a few hundred hands a year.

Again, otherwise I agree and I, of course, would always go for the kill.

[Rob.Singer]

Dancer's been slowly moving into my camp for the past three years, as witnessed by his closing para.

This hand, had I looked at it for special play purposes IF I included this DW game into my strategy, would be an easy hold the 3 deuces....unless, of course, the fifty sure bucks attained a win goal for me. For this purpose, his column probably seemed a little "out there" and somewhat needlessly complicated, but when I saw what he was getting at overall, he was really being simplistic about it all.

[bigfoot66]

While I agree with everything both Red and Dancer said, keep in mind that for an infrequent/casual gambler who doesn't play enough to get enough shots at the 4 dueces, he may prefer to take the 50 and run. Dancer points out that you get the 4th duece 4.25% of the time. So you have to play a lot of hands to get three dueces dealt and this may not be realistic for the infrequent casual gambler who only plays a few hundred hands a year.

Again, otherwise I agree and I, of course, would always go for the kill.

I don't agree with you. Dancer is right that it sucks to throw away a good hand and lose money as a result. You really feel like an idiot. I think your example is a little different. This guy is in a casino. He is there to gamble. After the hand in question, he will play another 10 hands and wager that same $50 on a negative EV game where he just had the chance to wager the $50 on a situation with a 40% advantage. It is incredibly short sighted to choose the guaranteed $50 over $70+ of EV. If it is the last hand of video poker you will play in your life, the argument is a little different, but that is basically never the case.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm not a DW player but I thought the "correct strategy" was to hold just three deuces when dealt a SF with three deuces?? The only time you hold three deuces with the dealt cards is when its a Royal Flush with deuces or five of a kind -- I always thought.

Now Mr Dancer is talking about holding an inferior hand because it's okay to pocket the dealt, though smaller, win?

He must really have lost a lot of money on those other promotions.

[arcimede$]

No, Dancer did not say it was OK to hold the inferior hand. What he said is something that was covered on vpfree years ago but he must have missed it. The strategy a person uses should be based on their own personal goals. That is all he said.

For example, Vito has a contract out on you for not replaying a loan of $10000. You sit down at a $5 VP game and you have $25 in your pocket. You put it in the machine and you are dealt (AKQ)Q4 playing JOB. What should you hold?

Obviously, holding the AKQ gives you a chance at a $20,000 RF that will allow you to pay back Vito. The slight long term advantage of QQ is worthless since you will not tomorrow unless you hit the big win.

For the majority of people they will continue to play into the future and so their goals will be different than the person in this example. However, many of them will still have different goals from regular players. I have no problem with other goals as long as the people hyping something other than expert play acknowledge the pursuit of those goals will lead to increased losses over time.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, Dancer did not say it was OK to hold the inferior hand. What he said is something that was covered on vpfree years ago but he must have missed it. The strategy a person uses should be based on their own personal goals. That is all he said.

So Rob Singer isn't so crazy afterall.

[redietz]

Neither was Gomez Addams from the Addams Family. He spent each day trying to lose money on the stock market.

If someone wants to play Martingale on negative EV games, it takes some torturous reasoning to define that as "trying to win." Maybe they're like Gomez Addams, but they don't want to admit it.

[Rob.Singer]

The pursuit of goals, in my case as a professional player as well as in Spades these days as a recreational player, has led to INCREASED WINS. So unless arci has another solid example outside of his incorrect world of theory, I suggest he review that lie.

[arcimede$]

So Rob Singer isn't so crazy afterall.

Logical fallacy. However, as I've stated many times, no one cares how Singer plays, it is what he claims that is false. That's why I said this .... "I have no problem with other goals as long as the people hyping something other than expert play acknowledge the pursuit of those goals will lead to increased losses over time. "

[arcimede$]

The pursuit of goals, in my case as a professional player as well as in Spades these days as a recreational player, has led to INCREASED WINS. So unless arci has another solid example outside of his incorrect world of theory, I suggest he review that lie.

Even if it was true it would be meaningless. It's like saying hitting a Powerball jackpot validated whatever method you used for picking the numbers.

[Alan Mendelson]

it is what he claims that is false.

I'm not exactly sure what he says that is false. He certainly doesn't lie about what the math says about his special plays. Win goals and loss limits are a matter of personal taste. He might think that machines are rigged but he plays them as if they're not.

Early on I suggested this hullabaloo was about nothing.

[Rob.Singer]

And here we get another glimpse of arci's fallacy. OF COURSE lots of others care how I play...especially arci. Why else would he obsess over everything I've written, done, said in the media and online, and.... (DELETED BY MODERATOR)

Even in retirement, I get 50 or so e-mails a week from players around the country, asking me to define my approach as clearly as possible so they can apply as much of my methods as possible to better their results.

And as we've seen here often in the "BIG CASINO WINS" thread, it pains some people to see any jackpot I've won. Is it any wonder why arci first tried to perpetrate the lie that I went around casinos looking for others' jackpots to photograph, then when that fizzled he tried, thru Spock, to claim the pics were fraudulent because of multiple cameras in use....until, eh-em, I showed proof of four different devices I carry?

At the end of the day, it's all about the money. Arci simply can't stand to see my winning and has always detested it. Wanna know what REALLY doesn't matter? How he does at the Indian casinos That irks him too.

[arcimede$]

One can only chuckle at someone who really believes other people care about their results. Those kinds of fantasies are demonstrative of well known mental problems. I won't say anymore as it is pretty obvious what they are.

[Alan Mendelson]

I just deleted Rob's personal attack and along comes Arc with one of his own about 40 minutes later. Should I just give up?

[redietz]

Let me state this clearly and slowly for the uninitiated.

The problem isn't that Rob claims he won. I actually think he did win.
The problem isn't that Rob has a series of systems and special plays that, he says, were followed while he won. Maybe they were.

The problem is that, going forward, Rob claims that his strategies will win, and that people who follow his strategies will win. There is no basis for making this claim, just as a lottery winner in an unrigged lottery has no basis for making this claim.

I believe this is the primary issue. If you'd like to take another poll over at Wizard of Odds, this would seem to be a worthy topic.

[Alan Mendelson]

Let's ask Rob.

Rob: will people who follow your strategies win? How much and how often?

[Rob.Singer]

The basis for my knowing anyone who plays the strategy exactly as I have will or should win, going forward, is no more or less certain than any AP claiming that playing +EV machines math-perfect means they should win....or even has a better chance of doing so than anyone playing my method on slightly "negative" games. Why? Because the ONLY way to consistently beat any machines is via good luck. I would not have done any better in my career if I had played 12/5 BP, 10/7 SDBP, and 10/6 TBP +....all, in video poker circles at least, highly "positive" games. So why not? Because the only important aspect of my strategy is quitting as soon as a goal is hit--each and every session. I may have reached my win goals slightly earlier in some of the sessions by playing only positive games, but the win amounts wouldn't have been much, if any, different at all. You see, when you actually realize that .8% or 1.5% has little to nothing to do with whether or not a goal is hit, the mind begins to open up. But you have to understand that the math really only works for the casinos, and in a single session--which they ALL are, like it or not--it's not the math at all that's in charge of determining your outcome. It's luck--nothing more/nothing less.

AP's have a flawed tendency to be mesmerized by the fallacy that +EV means WIN & -EV means LOSE. And that's the only reason their ability to grasp the winning concept of the SPS, cannot get thru. It's just not in their nature to do so, and as a result the ingenuity factor is forever blocked.

[Rob.Singer]

I just deleted Rob's personal attack and along comes Arc with one of his own about 40 minutes later. Should I just give up?

No....and no! It's actually a good thing for arci to have a method of release here. Amidst all the zingers I've hit him with, it wouldn't be much of a stretch in saying I don't feel sorry for the situation he's in. In fact, I just told my wife I loved her again, just in case it happens to me.