http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2014/0527.cfm
Waiting for it....3...2...1..
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2014/0527.cfm
Waiting for it....3...2...1..
You're waiting because you know that's ridiculous.Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
The logic was pretty obvious. If you couldn't understand it then maybe you should avoid making silly assertions. The key point was based on playing with an advantage. If you are not playing with an advantage then that point no longer holds.Originally Posted by slingshot
Money management IS an advantage-mixed with short term strategy. Thinking you have ANY advantage over any machine is a silly assertion.Originally Posted by arcimede$
If I were a professional and had a huge bankroll and was playing at an advantage I can understand why win goals would not make sense and why you would keep playing because you are a professional, you have a huge bankroll and you are playing at an advantage.
But curiously there is no mention about loss limits for those days when things are not going right.
Since I am not a professional, and I do not have a huge bankroll, and I am not playing at an advantage (even with free play and super points, etc) I will stick with my loss limits and win goals.
By the way, the questionable part of Dancer's post lies with this statement:
So if double points last for three more hours and you are feeling great, then this is a probably a good situation for you to continue playing. But if your score drops down to $200 and your money management rule says to stop, then your money management rule is costing you money.
This makes no sense to me: how can quitting when you have lost money cost you money? As soon as you quit you start saving money unless you believe a winner is coming. And frankly, my crystal ball broke in the Northridge Earthquake of 1994 and I haven't been able to replace it.
Even then, Alan-wouldn't it make sense to stop at say a couple of small to medium size hits and then when the big hit occurs, you add them altogether?Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This is Dancer doing his best self-promotion again. He writes this nonsense because he gets PAID to write it, which is the same reason he does and says everything else having anything to do with gambling. So he's finally admitting he's old enough to quit playing so much? In his dreams....if he only COULD! You don't see him say he's "certainly old enuf to retire from working all of his jobs" because he's such an overwhelmed vp addict that only illness will stop him from the huge rut in which he lives. What's funny about all this is in the past he's always blabbed often about how having Shirley as his wife and vp-playing partner was part of his "overall advantage" he supposedly held over the game. A big HA-HA to that!But gee, we never saw the fool say a word when his "partner advantage" threw him out the door, as she took well over half his net worth away from him. Guess all those supposed "vp profits" never really happened at all.....
You can make good arguments for and against using money management. The silly stuff about it being irrelevant when you concoct that you're "playing with an edge" is right up there with the nonsense about that clown Munchkin. Dancer said the same line of praise about Frank Kneeland, and we all know Frank was broke, a bit eccentric, and he never played vp with his own money. This Munchkin character probably isn't far removed from that. Dancer uses these guys and their purported gambling prowess as a way to build on his own brand and nothing more. He's as shameless in his methods as Jean Scott is in hers as she constantly uses her "boyfriend" as some super-hero vp player that miraculously keeps them "in the positive" year after year. You know, sort of like arci....only he'd NEVER give credit to his other half, even if it were possible!
The only point that made sense in his article was what he said about the Wizard. You could tell Dancer didn't really think it was useful advice, but he felt that by inserting the guy's respectable name it would somehow enhance his own weak content.
My father used to say this about the stock market: "no one ever went broke selling at a profit."Originally Posted by slingshot
And I apply that to casino gambling this way: "no one ever went broke cashing out small wins."
That's smart and very reasonable for sure, but you'll never convince the long term theorists of that. They like to believe that whenever you quit playing with a profit, a bigger one awaits if you were only intelligent to keep on banging away at the buttons like a fool in heat. It never occurs to them in their theoretical state of mind that you overwhelmingly will lose if you play on, simply because it does not fit into their very dangerous theoretical probability calculations.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Some idiot on vpFree just criticized Dancer for talking about staying on and possibly hitting several royals etc. This guy claims you'd be better off trying NOT to hit the big payoff hands if you chose to play on after hitting a royal. He's worried about being "no mailed" if you can believe such stupidity. I'm ahead six figures this year at CET and close to that at Wynn, and the offers keep POURING in, even though I don't and won't use most of them. So these so-called "experts" only post such nonsense out of some weird need to see their fantasies in print or something.
I just saw this. Alan, you would not want Dancer or Scoblete or Grochowski etc.etc. to post their articles here. Everything they all do has a fee attached, and that's because they know, thru experience, that the advice they sell cannot and will not make anyone gamble with better results, and it won't make anyone a winner.
Okay, Rob, I'll address the win goal nonsense later, but for now -- what is your point in the post above? People should give away their gambling advice/expertise if it works? People do give away their gambling advice if it works? If it doesn't work, they should sell it/do sell it? What the hell is your point?
First of all, I thought you were a champion of flag-waving capitalism in all of its forms? Yet you give away expertise because...why? You're big-hearted? A communist? Not too bright?
Please explain why someone who wins at gambling should give away their expertise. Then please explain how that is different from any other expertise that deserves compensation.
Being left of Marx, I'm all for charity, but it seems strangely out of place for the Rob Singer raison detre.
Being left of Marx, I'm all for charity Not to change the subject but Marx and charitable hardly go together. Wow.
Each gives according to means. Each takes according to need. That sounds "charitable" to me. I wasn't referring to the existence of charities per se, but charity as a governing principle.
Now, back to the point at hand, what the hell is Rob trying to say?
It's my philosophy redietz. I was a loser for almost 7 years after buying the so-called experts' products & advice, then I won by NOT having to pay for anything. As such, it immediately struck me that if you've developed a true winning strategy, where's the need to sell anything about it? You win, right? Since I do it all at N/C then you could say it's "charity" but to me it's only because of a desire to help others enjoy what I enjoy doing. So, instead of preying on the masses for some more profiting, simply go out and WIN just a bit more. Should be easy if it's true. But if not....then the problem is exposed. There is absolutely no need for any true gambling winner to take other people's money when all the money you want is easily gotten for just a little more effort. Losers, however, have no choice but to sell their wares, as we see all these so-called famous names continually doing with their gambling businesses.Originally Posted by redietz
Rob, ahem, I am about to say something that is really very obvious. I love you, but let me point out how you are completely wrong in two massive ways.
First of all, a good chunk of gambling is either parimutuel or has parimutuel aspects to it. So giving away your expertise doesn't enable other people to win -- in fact, it can almost guarantee that people who adapt your system or priorities or style will lose. In horses, parimutuel wagering purely, it can be the difference between getting $4 for a winning horse and $3. Other people piggybacking your system inevitably has a negative feedback consequence that eventually turns you into a loser if you "share your winners." In sports, it can be the difference between getting +6 1/2 and +8. Not parimutuel unless you bet moneylines, but a value issue.
In poker, sharing your style can negate your advantage. Ask Doyle Brunson about whether he really should have published "Super System."
Secondly, in video poker, which should be more immune to such issues, the fact is that if your system won, and if people widely adopted it, casinos would adopt countermeasures, probably within 3-6 months of the popularization of your style of play.
Anyone who gives away their gambling expertise is sabotaging themselves and their clients. All the money you want is not gotten with a little more effort. It's gotten by keeping the combination to the safe in your pocket and your mouth more or less shut.
I can only address the video poker aspect of your post. These "famous names" who sell strategy are all self-proclaimed winners, just as I am. In other words, all of us win with our chosen strategies. The point then goes to who it is that is benefitting from what we each say we know. Well, it's US! We win, therefore we play. And what about the others who either pay for knowledge from the optimal play crowd....or get it my way from me for free.
To the Dancers etc., they get a stream of income from those who want to learn that particular strategy. And will these "customers" actually win? Very unlikely, as you said. It takes a certain type to do so, and few either can or have the true ability to do exactly as the math books say. But what about those who've shown an interest in my approach (and there have been many, regardless of what a few assert)....Will THEY actually win? Even less likely, because my strategy requires all that the optimal play crowd needs to master, PLUS the many intricacies of what I do that goes over & above all that. And very, very few people have or will come into this that have my unique and complicated attributes. So no casino would ever be in danger of closing because of what I preach.
Originally Posted by redietz
Red: Did you check to see whether or not Rob loves you, too?
Something is wrong here... Rob is ahead something like TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS so far this year and he isn't playing with his professional standards? Does this mean the strict Singer professional standard is not as profitable as a less formal system of play?Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I suspect all six figures are zeroes.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Nothing is wrong Alan if you read what I wrote. I won that amount in 2013, and most of it was won using my play strategies and special plays. I didn't file as a professional because I didn't keep all applicable receipts throughout the year.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Arci likes using "zeroes" because that's about all his life has ended up being worth these days.....even after buying all the meds
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote