Dancer Question for Rob

[redietz]

In one of the threads, you mentioned Dancer giving back 60% of his $100 Royal hit in the days immediately after he hit it, followed by his wife pulling him away from the machine. Now, to me, this is a story worth following up on, because it puts Dancer's behavior in a crucial light. It basically suggests that all of his micro-managing spouting of adherence to detail and such is vulnerable to bouts of lack-of-discipline.

So my questions are, "How credible/reliable was your source for this story? Are other people aware of this?"

I think this storyline is a big deal, because somebody who writes entire blog articles about minutia regarding discipline would lose all credibility if this it were true.

[Rob.Singer]

At the time, I also played on occasion in the MGM's high limit room. It was "hosted" by who we referred to as the wicked witch of the west, but I can't remember her name at this moment. She'd been there a long time and still may be there. One night I walked in and saw who I thought was Bob and a woman arguing on their way out. So I asked the witch if that was our high rolling friend. Her answer was that everyone who hits them up big eventually gives it all back, and that that particular fellow was about 60% there. Later, one of the other attendants, who was listening to our conversation, told me it indeed was him.

[vpguy]

I guess this is why Dancer has to continue to work other jobs give his little clinics on play at casinos etc. The times I spent talking with him and emails we sent back and forth that the guy was always full of a lot of bs. I finally stopped reading Casino Player or any of his articles or comments. In fact I have found in my encounters with all of the so called Ap Gurus that they are all full of hot air. Thanks for the story Rob as I thought that it would come out someday that he lost all or most of that back.

[Alan Mendelson]

I am missing the significance of this discussion? Would someone clue me in as well as the others who might not be up to date about the issues involved here?

So far, what I get out of it, is that someone hit a royal that paid $400,000 on a $100/coin machine and then kept playing at that level and lost much of it back? Okay, totally expected, after all it is video poker and when you push the buttons it's not like pushing the buttons on an ATM with withdrawals guaranteed.

[redietz]

If you haven't read Dancer's book, Alan, you wouldn't get it. The fact that he (actually his better half, Shirley) won a huge chunk on that $100 machine is the lynchpin of the book. He doesn't mention any aftermath. He doesn't mention playing on it and losing afterwards. The whole book is designed to give his personal history from nickel-and-diming up to the "big score," which is why it's called "Million Dollar Video Poker." That royal on the $100 machine is the culmination of the book. Now if he gave half of that back just days later, well, it's pretty dishonest of Dancer (and Huntington Press) to cut the chronology short without mentioning that.

That story is a little weird, anyway, as Dancer makes steps up in stakes that he doesn't justify in the book. He preaches risk-of-ruin throughout the book, and having sufficient bankroll, but then doesn't explain his sudden leaps to more expensive machines.

Obviously, if he lost half of it back, the thrust of the book gets undercut in a big way. But it wouldn't surprise me if what Rob says is indeed the case.

[Alan Mendelson]

You're right, I didn't read the book. Did the book end with hitting the royal and making a promise that he would never play again, and never lose a dime of it back?

[redietz]

No, but the book ends with him as a rational, uber-disciplined hero who doesn't scare hell out of readers (and potential gamblers) by losing 200K in a matter of days.

[arcimede$]

I've never been much of a fan of Bob Dancer. He is quite arrogant (which is probably a psychological shield) and dishonest in many ways. However, this is all hear-say and I would take it with a grain of salt.

[Rob.Singer]

I am missing the significance of this discussion? Would someone clue me in as well as the others who might not be up to date about the issues involved here?

So far, what I get out of it, is that someone hit a royal that paid $400,000 on a $100/coin machine and then kept playing at that level and lost much of it back? Okay, totally expected, after all it is video poker and when you push the buttons it's not like pushing the buttons on an ATM with withdrawals guaranteed.

Redietz summed it up nicely, but I really don't believe you don't get it. If I had ever hit a big royal like that then it would be totally UNEXPECTED for me to give any of it back. You don't see the difference?

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I see the difference between you and Dancer. But you are you. You limit your play. Dancer is always playing, isn't he? I mean, that's the impression I get from reading his columns. He is ALWAYS playing.

So giving back half of the win on a royal makes perfect sense to me as being realistic.

Now, getting back to his book. Because I understand that you don't hit royals one after another it makes perfect sense to me that if he kept playing at the $500/hand game that he is going to give back a lot of the win. Do I think that damages his credibility? Well, it depends what he wrote in the book. Again, I ask, did he promise to stop playing after hitting the royal? Did he say he was going to never play at that denomination again and would return to playing $1 games? Unless he said something like that, what's the problem?

It seems to me that Dancer is a target for any criticism and people will reach to find something to criticize him about. People who are "on top" get criticized all the time for their success. Isn't that right, Rob? Haven't you been criticized for your success? Heck, I've been criticized for my success in the Infomercial and advertising business after leaving the news business. Some of my "friends" and "colleagues" from my 35+ years in the news business won't even talk to me now because I became successful "on the other side of the street."

[redietz]

The crucial aspect of this is that Dancer's selling a persona based on reported results. If you can't trust him to report his bookkeeping, you can't really buy his whole song-and-dance. If he dropped 60% of his big score, playing at a level at which he was not sufficiently bankrolled, then those are key disclaimers regarding what Dancer's selling. Those key factors, if true, also have a lot to say about his behavior.

Cutting those facts, if they are indeed facts, out of his autobiographical account turns it into a work of fiction. And what's the selling point of a video poker book that's fiction? Any of us could write that.

[arcimede$]

The crucial aspect of this is that Dancer's selling a persona based on reported results. If you can't trust him to report his bookkeeping, you can't really buy his whole song-and-dance. If he dropped 60% of his big score, playing at a level at which he was not sufficiently bankrolled, then those are key disclaimers regarding what Dancer's selling. Those key factors, if true, also have a lot to say about his behavior.

Yes, Dancer is a salesman. You see that in a lot of his writings. I also believe his moral values aren't real strong. I've seen many stories (including his own) that reference taking advantage of other people. He also sells his "expertise" to casinos. However, none of that has anything to do with sound VP advice. As long as it is factual it doesn't matter who is repeating it.

Cutting those facts, if they are indeed facts, out of his autobiographical account turns it into a work of fiction. And what's the selling point of a video poker book that's fiction? Any of us could write that.

And I suspect one of us already has.

[Vegas Vic]

I've read Bob's book, and it doesn't matter what he did with his big hits nor does it matter what any of us does with our winnings. Continuing to play, quitting to play another day, or retiring on the spot doesn't take away from having made those hits. Bob sells his system and his teachings have turned a lot of so-so players into much better players. (At least Dancer, Jean Scott and Dan Paymar have systematic programs that others can learn from and follow as opposed to indeterminable "special plays").

[redietz]

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.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

Perhaps in the next edition of his "autobiography" he can update us with the next 40 years of his life.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, I see the difference between you and Dancer. But you are you. You limit your play. Dancer is always playing, isn't he? I mean, that's the impression I get from reading his columns. He is ALWAYS playing.

So giving back half of the win on a royal makes perfect sense to me as being realistic.

Now, getting back to his book. Because I understand that you don't hit royals one after another it makes perfect sense to me that if he kept playing at the $500/hand game that he is going to give back a lot of the win. Do I think that damages his credibility? Well, it depends what he wrote in the book. Again, I ask, did he promise to stop playing after hitting the royal? Did he say he was going to never play at that denomination again and would return to playing $1 games? Unless he said something like that, what's the problem?

It seems to me that Dancer is a target for any criticism and people will reach to find something to criticize him about. People who are "on top" get criticized all the time for their success. Isn't that right, Rob? Haven't you been criticized for your success? Heck, I've been criticized for my success in the Infomercial and advertising business after leaving the news business. Some of my "friends" and "colleagues" from my 35+ years in the news business won't even talk to me now because I became successful "on the other side of the street."

OK, I understand where you're coming from. I guess Dancer always plays--when he's not making his living working, that is. I do know that he kept playing the big machine because it was the same theoretical +EV for several weeks while they had that locals promotion. It was a 9/6 JoB machine.

[Rob.Singer]

Vic, those 3 personalities you mentioned don't sell "their" system, but the simple mathematical version of how to play that way. Jean Scott takes the trhee dollar bill a step further, by pretending everyone alive has to buy her Frugal Gambler book in order to get the best out of the slot clubs, when simple common sense gets far more than she has ever conjured up. The point is, they are making money off of others--and in Paymar's case, shamelessly so, with all his desperation by-lines and plugs on every forum with every post he makes--when the info they peddle is available multiple places and within one's own head absolutely free.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, it is true that today you can find just about everything on the Internet -- which pretty much has killed the book business. Even paid magazines are dying. But as recently as five years ago, guide book and informational book publishing was still a solid business.

Back as recently as 2005 I was still buying books about "dice influencing" and as recently as last year I still bought books about poker because the content was still not available on the web.

But as consumers quote passages from books and as the Internet search engines scour forums and small niche websites eventually print will be dead. Print is just dying about fifty years later than first predicted, if you know what I mean?

Rob, if you wanted to write and publish and sell another book, your chances of success now are slim to none because of the Internet. Who is going to bother to buy a book when after a few clicks you can find the same or similar info online?

And what books do remain will be published online for a dollar or two a copy, because you won't need paper and binding and printing anymore to "publish."

[Rob.Singer]

I didn't write how-to books. One was how "not to" and the other was about a month long trip around Nevada. It also depends on the author. Over my pro career I got thousands of e-mails asking me to write another book. Of course now I won't, because I have much tastier fish to fry in my final years.

We have kindle fires. We buy lots of books for them.

[Alan Mendelson]

my final years

Rob, you probably have another 20-25 final years left. That's plenty of time to write an ebook.