Dancer Question for Rob

[Rob.Singer]

I'm waiting for arci to do himself in....even more, that is, than going broke by moving to LV as an over-anxious AP, and than causing irreparable harm to the family in the process! The result will be a comic best seller.

[bigfoot66]

Arci you say you have heard stories about Dancer lying? I would be interested in hearing these. I thought he was highly thought of?

[arcimede$]

Arci you say you have heard stories about Dancer lying? I would be interested in hearing these. I thought he was highly thought of?

I believe much of it was discussed on vpfree many years ago. It was stuff he wrote about in his books that many people did not care for. You might want to check the archives.

[Rob.Singer]

Poor arci--what he's NOT telling you and why he WON'T put up his usual links that he spends hours looking for is because that's when and why he was forever banned from vpFree--the only one ever humiliated in such a fashion there, really. All the bad-mouthing of Dancer, all his lies and defamatory remarks....the admin. warned him over and over again but he wouldn't stop. Now, he suffers, I laugh, and everyone else celebrates the clean disposal of a liar.

[arcimede$]

Poor arci--what he's NOT telling you and why he WON'T put up his usual links that he spends hours looking for is because that's when and why he was forever banned from vpFree--the only one ever humiliated in such a fashion there, really. All the bad-mouthing of Dancer, all his lies and defamatory remarks....the admin. warned him over and over again but he wouldn't stop. Now, he suffers, I laugh, and everyone else celebrates the clean disposal of a liar.

Once again wheels gives us more evidence of his pathological lying. Here is the content of the emails I received that led to my vowing to never comment on vpfree again:

"In most respects you are a very valuable member of vpFREE.
However, you have a disruptive habit of getting too personal when
making or responding to negative posts.

A recent example is your vpFREE post # 85793 where you wrote:

"Bob, you were doing fine until this idiotic last paragraph. This
analogy is ridiculous at best. Just because .25 plays are more
prevalent does change the approach a good VP player takes. It
makes no difference what denom one is playing since the math is
EXACTLY the same. Not surprising people think you're ego is tad
bit too large."

Your response violates vpFREE rules.

If you had removed the gratuitous personal comments, it would
have been fine:

If you wish to continue posting on vpFREE, please assure me
that you intend to observe the vpFREE Rules and Policies
(especially Guidelines #9a and #10) in the future."

Here is Bob's comment I was responding to: "Would you expect NFL coaches to actively seek the advice of high
school football players on how to win? The difference between 25¢ and $10
games is almost that large."

Yup, that's it. And all I would have had to do is "assure" the admin that I wouldn't break the rules again. I mean give me a break. That would have meant absolutely nothing. It is completely childish. I can only surmise the admin was a retired grade school teacher.

[Rob.Singer]

Wow! I didn't know I got to you that much enough to make yourself look like my little puppet! But you've also used selective posting and altered much of what you did post in addition to leaving a bunch out.

Joke of the day...."I VOWED never to post on vpFree again"!! hahahahaha!!! Exactly how hurt are you by all this anyway!!?

[Vegas Vic]

I have issues with what Vegas Vic says here -- if you're going to write autobiographical stuff, then don't leave out the failures, for one. Or does writing under a pseudonym allow you to just make s*** up? Leaving crucial information out is just as dishonest as inventing stuff. Secondly, while Dancer's teachings may have turned "a lot of so-so players into much better players," this statement can be counterbalanced by asking the question whether, on the whole and in totality, do Dancer's students win or lose? Because if they lose, then he's doing the casinos, not the players, a service. Plus, by providing entry level skills via his classes, he has sent gamblers on a track that, with the current state of video poker, is not likely to result in winning.

It's amazing that you question Bob's credibility because he wrote that book about his winnings but did not go into minute details of his losses to your satisfaction. So, to help you out, in his 6/26/12 column, he states "I still have positive EV at video poker. Since I started playing in 1994, I've only had one losing year at video poker--2009." BTW, we have a participant in this forum who goes to great lengths to repeatedly remind everyone of his great success. Have you inquired about getting any crucial information about his failures? Just wondering if you think leaving that out is dishonest in any way.

I have read through the archives of Dancers articles (which go back to 2003), and he has never misled anyone into thinking that following his method of playing will "win on the whole or in totality". He makes it very clear why the casinos are in business and why it is difficult to consistently (or even ultimately) be a winner playing VP. In no way has he ever guaranteed anything. So, how can you say he's doing players a disservice?

On the other hand, our resident "greatest VP player in history" has spoken of his many disciples who, by following him and heeding his very word, are the only players who have ever been successful playing VP, and that anyone who does not choose to join his flock...you know, that AP crowd... is doomed to fail. Apparently you have no issues with his "my way is the only way which works" approach, but only with Dancer who has always been brutally honest with the realities of playing VP.

[redietz]

Well, Arci does such a stellar job of critiquing Rob that I feel I have nothing to add, really.

I've read virtually everything "Dancer" has written. I employ quotes because someone pointed out to me that by writing under a pseudonym, one can invent chronologies, events, and such with impunity. One cannot call Bob Dancer a liar, this person told me, because "Bob Dancer" doesn't exist. He is a fictional character, much like "Rob Singer." It's tough to pin down fictional characters regarding anything.

If "Dancer" teaching classes results in casinos making more money, then "Dancer" is doing casinos a service. I think that's an unarguable point of view. And I think his teaching classes makes casinos more money. You are entitled to believe differently, of course.

Am I questioning his credibility? I think he has won every year but 2009 -- at video poker. I point that out because he does dabble in other gambling endeavors. If you read his recent column, you know he's flirting with the idea of becoming a professional poker player. My suggestion is that he should also take a stab at brain surgery and flying fighter jets -- we need more of those skill sets, too.

So let me pin you down on this -- if "Dancer" blew 200K in the days following Shirley's 400K win, you don't think that's relevant material that should have been included in his book?

[arcimede$]

Wow! I didn't know I got to you that much enough to make yourself look like my little puppet! But you've also used selective posting and altered much of what you did post in addition to leaving a bunch out.

Now that wheels has egg all over his face we see him trying to rescue his lost credibility. Sorry wheels, too late. You got caught in another lie. And, this is now happening on almost a daily basis.

Given that I posted the actual message number, anyone should be able to go back and find whatever you meant by "leaving a bunch out". However, we see you provided absolutely nothing. Just like everything else you've claimed, when the rubber meets the road you act more like road kill. You are looking more and more like a d---- every day.

[Alan Mendelson]

when the rubber meets the road you act more like road kill.

Arc, what a great line!! Is that something you came up with, or did you borrow it from another source? If it is your original line, I think you should trademark it. Brilliant.

(Oh, I have no comment about the rest of the discussion.)

[arcimede$]

Arc, what a great line!! Is that something you came up with, or did you borrow it from another source? If it is your original line, I think you should trademark it. Brilliant.

(Oh, I have no comment about the rest of the discussion.)

It just flowed out. Probably means I heard it somewhere before but don't recall when.

[Alan Mendelson]

A couple of things in this thread have stuck in my mind, so I'd like to address them.

First, from Rob:

If I had ever hit a big royal like that then it would be totally UNEXPECTED for me to give any of it back.

Rob, you said you've played $100/coin levels I think twice using your "system." Had you ever hit a $400,000 royal would you have quit playing for the rest of your life? If you didn't quit how could you say "it would be totally UNEXPECTED for me to give any of it back"?

And redietz:

I've read virtually everything "Dancer" has written. I employ quotes because someone pointed out to me that by writing under a pseudonym, one can invent chronologies, events, and such with impunity. One cannot call Bob Dancer a liar, this person told me, because "Bob Dancer" doesn't exist. He is a fictional character, much like "Rob Singer." It's tough to pin down fictional characters regarding anything.

While "Bob Dancer" is a fictional name it is still his "brand," and if the brand is soiled then the brand loses value-- and he loses value. He has to protect the brand. If the man behind Bob Dancer tried now to establish a new brand using another name, it would be a very tough road. So if someone thinks they can get away with lies, fiction, embellishments, etc because they used a fictitious name, they are very mistaken. In the end, it will still come back to bite them.

[Rob.Singer]

My stated goal before I began playing professionally was to quit at age 60 or the moment I reached a $1,000,000 net profit directly from the machines. A $400,000 royal would have meant nothing more than my collection of $4000, $8000, $20,000, $40,000 and $100,000 royals I received if it did not get me to my million dollars won goal.

[Alan Mendelson]

My stated goal before I began playing professionally was to quit at age 60 or the moment I reached a $1,000,000 net profit directly from the machines. A $400,000 royal would have meant nothing more than my collection of $4000, $8000, $20,000, $40,000 and $100,000 royals I received if it did not get me to my million dollars won goal.

In that case, what was the point of saying this? "If I had ever hit a big royal like that then it would be totally UNEXPECTED for me to give any of it back."

[redietz]

Alan, I guess my point is that it's easier to just report the positive with a fictional character, and to skip the negative, and get away with nobody calling you on it, than it is to do the same with your actual identity.

Any account of what "Bob Dancer" has done can be purely fiction, and the use of multiple identities obfuscates any reporter's attempt to verify or disprove "Dancer's" accounts of events. Obviously, you would have a tougher time running down the facts for an AKA than for a person. My brother-in-law, a long-time professional investigator, would be similarly hampered.

In a sense, the brand exists (in part) for the purpose of making any verification of the claims or history of the brand difficult.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, "Bob Dancer" has to answer to critics such as yourself, because he doesn't want to be a "fictional character." He gives lectures, his name and face is used to brand "full pay video poker machines," he gives endorsements to casinos, he sells teaching materials. He can't afford to have negative information about him known.

So that brings us back to the original question: was he obligated to report his loss on the $100/coin video poker machine? And there comes the question of "artistic license." Did he say in the original book he would never play again if he hit a royal at that level? Or, was the climax of the book hitting the royal just a dramatic moment used in the book without any promises made?

Unless he made promises that he would quit and never play again after reaching the "Summit of Mt. Olympus of Video Voker," so what if he kept playing?

[bigfoot66]

Actually, "Bob Dancer" has to answer to critics such as yourself, because he doesn't want to be a "fictional character." He gives lectures, his name and face is used to brand "full pay video poker machines," he gives endorsements to casinos, he sells teaching materials. He can't afford to have negative information about him known.

So that brings us back to the original question: was he obligated to report his loss on the $100/coin video poker machine? And there comes the question of "artistic license." Did he say in the original book he would never play again if he hit a royal at that level? Or, was the climax of the book hitting the royal just a dramatic moment used in the book without any promises made?

Unless he made promises that he would quit and never play again after reaching the "Summit of Mt. Olympus of Video Voker," so what if he kept playing?

This is a great point. I have read "Million dollar video poker" as well as Mr. Singer's "Ramblin and Gamblin thru NV". Singer talks a lot albeit indirectly that it is Dancer's strategy to continue to play as fast and as high as is prudent so long as he percieves that he has an acceptable edge over the house. He refers to it as "long term strategy". Dancer does discuss long losing streaks, and the whole premise of the book is "here is the story of a wild 6 month ride where we won $1 million". That it was a lucky streak suggests that there were losing periods before and after.

We all know that Dancer continues to play, it is not suprising that he has had losing streaks is it? Rob, have you ever lost 60% of a royal between royals? Allan, have you? I certainly have...

[Rob.Singer]

I used to lose a high % of my royals "in-between" regularly, as an advantage player. That rarely happened when I began playing my own strategy since I won 85% of the,sessions I played, and hitting any royal would require me to quit until I returned the following week.

That was a good point about how Dancer's million dollar winning streak had to be surrounded by losing streaks. It was the reason I asked him about it and most likely the reason he sent nasty messages in reply.

[bigfoot66]

That was a good point about how Dancer's million dollar winning streak had to be surrounded by losing streaks. It was the reason I asked him about it and most likely the reason he sent nasty messages in reply.

Well I enjoy reading both of you, it is clear that there is no love lost between you though...

[Rob.Singer]

Bigfoot, that's more my doing than his. I knew I'd irk him when I chose my pen name, but I didn't expect it would forever bother him. All the rest of the stuff--the stuff about how he's so easy to figure out when he so often has told tall tales in order to conjure up what to write in his columns--and how I've kept exposing how he's full of more BS than his enemy arci when it comes to his results--that's just added fuel to the fire.