Just read Dancer's Million Dollar Video Poker. At the end he wins $500k at the MGM in one night and then they bar him. He says that the way he feels about his 6 month $1 million run to the song The Dance by Garth Brooks where he sings about the pain of losing a lover versus the joy of the relationship. Good Lord! You want to take it from here Rob?
I would love to be barred from a casino after winning a half million dollars in one night. In fact, I might put myself on a "do not ever let him play again" list if I ever won a half million in one night. And if I were barred after winning a half million... I would thank them as they walked me out the door.
Exactly why Dancer has the need to continuously lie in order to keep selling his junk and keep enuf cash coming in so he can still play the high limit vp machines. You've already seen how he treats a relationship when it comes down to a choice between living up to his vows....or keeping his serious addiction to vp alive.
If you want to believe Dancer won the $500k, label yourself as being misled. He and Shirley were both playing the same machine when the $100k hit, but it was only she who hit the $400k royal. And he was not banned after that, in fact, he continued to keep going back to play that "lucky" $100 machine on his own for months, with his wife actually needing to go in after him to drag him out in a humiliating turn of events. These are facts I obtained from both watching him in there on my own multiple trips to play at MGM, and being told about his and his wife's arguing by staff. The reason he eventually was banned was because of the same type of actions that he still engages in today: he manipulated his slot club benefits in multiple ways to get far more points into his account than he earned, and he took comps only allowed for use inside the "Mansion" and sold them on the outside. He got caught, got embarrassed, and got banned.
How is that done? Did he hack the MGM computers?Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
If you read that book carefully, you'll also read a bit of a hole in the explanations of how he expanded his bankroll at a couple of points in the narrative. He makes a few leaps in bankroll that go unexplained.
But let's face it. As others have pointed out, "Bob Dancer" is a fictional character. Nothing in the book HAS to be factual. The book's protagonists are fictional. And the endpoint of the book, as Rob pointed out, is convenient in that it fails to mention any post-400K issues and losses. I'm sure the publisher recommended the endpoint.
You have pointed this out many times in regard to Rob's claims since Rob Singer is not his real name. But I have to disagree with you: for both of these men their fictional names are their reputations. So if you were to prove that the one who calls himself Bob Dancer has published falsehoods it would be equally damaging to him as if he published the falsehoods under his real name -- after all his reputation is built under Bob Dancer.Originally Posted by redietz
The same holds true for Rob Singer. Since his reputation is built under the name Rob Singer he must publish the truth as Rob Singer or that reputation is at risk.
But that's a side issue.
Let's get back to the issue at hand. Now, I admit I haven't read the book, but if his book is about how he won a million dollars in a five year stretch then there is no lie if he detailed how he won a million over five years. If he lost it over the next five years that is certainly of interest but it's a separate book.
Let's take Rob Singer. He could write a book that says he won a million dollars over ten years -- and if he did he is not obligated to also report that he had a previous bankruptcy, or that he now lives in a giant RV. Those are secondary "stories."
In my opinion it really is another "issue" if Dancer lost the money later or was divorced, or if Rob had a previous bankruptcy. What is important is this: were the stories that were told accurate?
Did you see where he read his book to his girlfriend? (in his latest article) She can't read herself? Weird.
Maybe see has trouble getting to sleep.
Alan, I'm going to disagree vehemently with you on this one. If an investment specialist wrote a book about how he made his clients 30% return in a year, but neglected to mention the following year when he bankrupted everyone, that just wouldn't fly as a "true" report. Similarly, any events involving variance, wherein one cherry picks the data segment one prefers to report, while ignoring others, is not exactly an "accurate" report by any scientific measure. In science, you can't compartmentalize data and just report what you prefer. You can do that in modern capitalist advertising, but that doesn't make the reportage "true" in any overall sense.
If Dancer did indeed blow a healthy chunk of his 500K immediately after the convenient end-point of the book, as Rob reports, then he's cherry-picking his data. Whatever the opposite of a "hatchet job" is, he's doing it. It's as if I reported winning 17 consecutive games (which I did three years ago), and then neglected to report I immediately lost 18 in a row (which I did not). Did I tell a "true story?" Maybe by modern advertising standards. But certainly not by any scientific ones. You can't just choose what you want to report and think that's a valid representation of reality.
Last edited by redietz; 01-13-2014 at 08:44 AM.
Awww.... how romantic.Originally Posted by quahaug
In this context I will agree with you.Originally Posted by redietz
But suppose Dancer was writing a book about hitting a $400,000 royal on a $100 machine? In the book he detailed his weekend -- the hotel check-in, the room, the dinners, the other key slappers sitting next to him, the fight he had with a cocktail waitress who got his order wrong, and so forth. That book would not have to detail what happened the following weekend... or the following ten years.
But redietz, by your standards, you should want Rob Singer to tell us in detail about every session in between those that include his big wins that he reports here. After all, what's good for the Dancer is also good for the Singer.
One of the worst transgressors along these lines is the WSOP, which lists "WSOP Earnings" under players' names during broadcasts, but neglects to tell people "Money Spent Entering WSOP" under those same players' names. In other words, "WSOP Net" never gets broadcast. The "Money Spent" should be just as media-accessible a figure as "Earnings," but they choose to not report the overall truth of the matter.
Last edited by redietz; 01-13-2014 at 12:49 PM.
Good point. But most of the pros make their money playing cash games and not from tournament play.Originally Posted by redietz
Some of these big name pros play in a $10,000 tournament every week -- and there is one a week somewhere in the USA. That's an outlay of a half million dollars a year unless they "make the money" which is usually the top 10-percent of players.
Negreanu has been quoted as saying that the number of players who make a living playing tournaments is the same as the number of "birds with thumbs." He's the top-rated tournament player at this point in time, and I believe him. But somehow this context, which frames the entire tournament circuit, doesn't get mentioned during broadcasts. That, my friends, is cherry-picking data at its finest.
Before big poker tournments became soooo big the "winners" made up a small clique. It all changed with Moneymaker. Now tpurneys are nothing more than lotteries.
Dan Negreanu is a big cash player. I was at his table in a tourney about 8 years ago. He busted out before I did.
Alan, here's the scoup on what's happened since I hit the big winner: I went 3-1 in the playoffs yesterday! There has been no vp play since winning almost 50k in 3 ARTT sessions. I expect to play a few days after around the 20th.
How did Dancer manipulate the point-accumulation system? He sat at a high limit machine that was put out of order because it was accumulating points at a slot machine rate, which of course is much higher. He paid certain staff who knew this but allowed him to play it anyway....for weeks. No record of how he did this, but what I was told sounds just like him.
If true it seems to me that someone should have been fired at the MGM. What happened? Or is this another Rob Singer Exclusive that no one else can confirm?Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Here's the scoop on what happened to me since I converted $660 of free play into $605.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I went back to Rincon for $440 of free play and got it up to $800, but then lost all but $150 which I took home. Still had a profit, but it was just $150 less the $40 or so of gas. I don't think anyone will dispute this honest report... but I am sure you will criticize me for it.
Alan: If you had played through the $440 only once as Rob usually suggests, where would you have ended the session? I'm assuming it worked its way to $800 after the play-once-through was over?Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I can't criticize that because you didn't state what your objective was before going in. But given your track record, I believe a good bet would be that you either had none--or made one up on the go. And probably because you just couldn't bear the thought of pulling yourself away from the machines. However, that's very, very common among vp players, and it greatly contributes to why casinos don't go broke. At least you made something, which is always far better than losing anything.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote