I've read just about everything Bob Dancer has written over the years. I have definitely learned a lot from his columns, with the emphasis on the past tense, as nothing much he has written in the last four or five years has been terribly useful. That's not his fault -- vp is now pretty much a wasteland, and Dancer's not really an expert at other forms of gambling. This week's column at the LVA made me step back and ask the question I've asked before, namely:
"Has Bob Dancer helped players over the last five years, or contributed to casinos' bottom lines?"
I think it's the latter.
Now some might take me to task for asking a question that may be a false dichotomy. In other words, can one help players and contribute to casinos' bottom lines at the same time? I would argue that no, one cannot. One is either helping players, as a group, keep their money or one can help casinos take their money.
The most commonly used argument against my stance is that if players get more recreational time per dollar lost, then Dancer is indeed helping them, even if they lose more money. I have a tough time with that, as human life spans are limited, and pounding on video poker machines isn't likely to be viewed as terribly productive or healthy from any perspective.
There is also the point that Dancer's coaching, while helpful 20 years ago when vp could be beaten, is a "gateway drug" that leads to more machine time and eventually, more money spent.
I throw this out there for discussion.