This deserved its own mention. Check out the top paragraphs for Bob Dancer on Wikipedia.
See, this is why someone like Dancer could use a good editor. This is funny because it skewers Dancer with his own columns, and its all true.
And I happen to know Mr. Singer isn't responsible. I'm not, either, by the way. But I'm still laughing.
Somebody needs to alert Shirley as to the new listing.
Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dancer
That's the problem with Wikipedia. Anyone can post anything.
Priceless............
The people posting reference Dancer's own columns as their source material, and sure enough, if you check the columns, they'll verify what's been posted.
If ever anyone doubted the value of having an editor, this'll sure cure that doubt.
The person who did it wasn't very experienced with Wikipedia.
They didn't use an account, and their IP address of 166.137.209.173 showed.
At least they were smart enough to use an AT&T cell phone to do it.
Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com
I am happy to say that no one using IP address 166.137.209.173 has posted here.
They might be posting here.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That IP is that of an AT&T cell phone, and those change frequently (without you even trying to do so).
Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com
I'm fairly certain they're not posting here. Personally, I'll join their fan club. I wish I had done it.
There was a gentleman who, in the 80's and 90's, annually published the multi-year records of dozens, if not hundreds, of sports handicappers. He was, I believe, a former reporter for a major newspaper. As part of his annual report, he provided biographical info and behavioral info he felt the public would like to know when choosing sports handicappers. So if the guy was a convicted felon, he said so. If people ran sleazy telephone boiler room operations, he said so. If they got flagged for stealing buffets, he would certainly have published it and made some snarky comments. I have absolutely no issue with the Wikipedia page since it basically draws its info from Dancer's own columns. As to whether that info should be applied to one's decision-making as to employ or hang out with Dancer, well, that should be up to the informed reader. The more informed, the better.
Last edited by redietz; 11-26-2013 at 06:23 AM.
This is a good question for a journalism class. When does it become appropriate to publish info about a known personality admitting that they take partake in a low cost hotel buffet that they didn't pay for?
I would say it is always appropriate to discuss that or mention it in an article or review.
But what makes me uneasy about this particular article is that it was written not as an overall article about Bob Dancer, about his life and times -- it was a planned character assassination under the guise of being an overall article.
If there were a review board meeting for Wikipedia (and I am sure they do have some review method of some sort) I would think they would rule the article to be prejudicial -- even though the elements of the article are true. And they would probably say, missing from the article are other parts of his life and career to justify a Wikipedia article.
In other words, I think they would sum it up as something belonging on a website discussion forum and not belonging on Wikipedia.
Well, I'm old school and consider Google listings (which are influenced and ranked by commercial considerations) and Wikipedia, which is overly fluid, not real sources for serious research. If you want to know something about something, and I mean really know it, maybe you start with Google or Wiki, but that is it. Then you step away and do real research.
Technically, any Wikipedia listings that trumpet Dancer's video poker successes and fail to mention that his wife actually won the big money, or that fail to mention he went broke playing backgammon, are also "prejudicial," but in the other direction.
Just a question for anyone who cares to answer. Why all of the fixation on all things "Bob Dancer" or "Rob Singer?" If they have useful information and are willing to share it, fine. If they want you to pay something for it then evaluate its worth first. If they've wronged you personally in any way, then go ahead and argue/fight/defame. I just don't get it.
Eddie, I'm old(er). That means I was around when learning from Dancer was a good thing and helped people make money and beat the casinos and so on. The reason I have a problem with him today is that the game has changed and his pitch is the same. Whereas once he actually aided players, I think his popularizing of video poker now primarily serves casino interests. I think every column he writes should have a prologue, "I'm Bob Dancer. I turned 6K into a million dollars playing video poker. You currently have 0.0% chance of doing the same." That would be honest.
I bet sports. If sports books tomorrow decided you had to lay -120 instead of -110, I would simply quit and preach that everyone quit. I would not keep singing the same song about it being a beatable proposition.
At some point, Dancer went over to the dark side. His existence, in my opinion, isn't really helping the public. It's helping the casinos. That's the issue I have with him.
Let's make the assumption that this is true.Originally Posted by redietz
Now, if you were a casino marketing manager who hired Dancer, how would you feel about his recent article reporting about how he ripped off low priced buffets at hotels? Is that the caliber spokesman you would want representing you -- whether openly or not? I know that various contracts I signed in the past had a morals clause.
Good question. You know, sometimes when I read Dancer's stuff, I wonder if he's just arrogant or has some kind of --what is it -- Asperger's Syndrome? He seems socially off a few clicks for someone who interacts as much as he does with the public.
Regardless, I cannot believe the LVAdvisor, which is directly employing him, doesn't edit him a bit. I find it startling.
What makes you think they edit him or even care what he posts? It wouldn't surprise me if they give him carte blanche to write whatever he wants and they are grateful to have his column free of charge.Originally Posted by redietz
This is what Anthony posted in a thread about it on LVA:Originally Posted by redietz
Can you post the link to Anthony's comment?
edited to add: I found the link to the discussion over on LVA. http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum...hreadid=321771
Anthony doesn't seem to be too concerned about the criticism and there was certainly some of it by regular readers.
Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 11-29-2013 at 04:11 PM.
Nope. Seems more like a case of any publicity, even bad, is good publicity as far as he's concerned. I'm not quite sure how a brand, (LVA), that was made at least in part on maximizing value could capitalize on a practice that would seem to have questionable ethics attached to it.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I have had some dealings with Anthony. I put him on my Vegas TV show (when I had it several years ago) and I also had him on my KABC radio show so I know a few things about his business. The website is an "after thought" for him. His main concern is the book publishing business. I don't really think he cares about reaction to his website, and what Dancer writes is certainly no reflection on Anthony and his business.
Perhaps the attitude is "if Dancer wants to dig his own grave, let him."
Earlier today I was discussing the Dancer/buffet issue with a friend of mine who offered this: perhaps Dancer really does want to get barred/banned from casinos -- and by publishing this stuff (as well as all of his reports about losing big money) he really does want to get banned. It might be, my friend offered, as a cry for help -- that he is in too deep and can't get out without someone recognizing he is in trouble.
By the way, if this sounds like something Rob Singer would say... it did not come from Rob Singer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote