Technically, it was a 14K loss when you figure in cashback and such.

The most troubling aspect to this storyline, if you're a Dancer fan (and I'm not), is that we're supposed to take his word for it that the hold on those slots was roughly 4%. Now maybe he had inside info from the casino, or the floor personnel, or the manufacturer who supplied those machines to that casino, but how the hell do you guess that it's a 4% hold and base your 100K in play on that? Turned out it was holding 14% without big jackpots. I have to assume he had inside info to make that "assumption."

Other troubling aspects -- while it's true that playing the occasional slot will improve your mailers, this really breaks a barrier in his recommendations to readers. Many readers will have an excuse now to try to play slots, and will assume similar 4% holds, based on the "it's a good play" speculation. Who benefits? The folks who usually benefit most from Dancer writing will benefit, and that would be South Point and other casinos.

I'm surprised he wrote this for publication. I'm surprised LVA published these blog entries. They must clearly be in South Point's corner. I like South Point -- they don't need any help.