Bob Dancer hypocrisy!

I had been meaning to make this post for months but never got around to it.

On the 4/12/2012 show with Mark Gruetze (writer from a Pittsburgh newspaper), Bob mentioned during the discussion about PA's state-mandated rules that he would rather the government didn't regulate table game rules, to allow for an open market so that the casinos could offer a variety of games, and the smart gamblers could seek out and patronize the better games.

Just a few minutes later, while discussing VP and a casino which had switched to 6/5 JoB and a 94% paytable on Bonus Poker, Bob said, "that's...uh...should be against the law."

Which is it Bob? Should the government regulate gambling payouts or not?

This is mostly a joke, but I think it's interesting to see Bob's perspective on the two different situations, especially considering he is a pro VP player and BJ isn't his main game. I bit of bias, I think :).

Dancer would be considered "Contrary" in the neck of the woods where I grew up. In other words, a person who always keeps arguing for the sake of arguing, to the point where you don't know where he really stands on anything!

I think this surprised the Wizard on another occasion when Dancer started shooting holes in those 10 commandments that the Wizard gives. There seemed to be no reason for it but just to be, well, Contrary.

You may indeed be right... a "contrary" stance adopted because he is in reality a performer who is invited to appear on the show for his prior statements, not skills.

However, we all have a sense of frustration at times. We want a free press but look askance at the quality of the tabloids. We want an educated public to "vote with their feet" if a casino adopts bad games but look askance at how the drunken idiots just don't care what the rules are and have no idea what house edge means. So we all make statements that are exaggerated in content due to our frustrations.

Considering how PA currently has mandated Blackjack, PA is one of the best markets in the country. Good luck finding S17 in St. Louis...lol If the "free market" applied in PA, games would become significantly worse the very day the regulation was lifted. Believe it or not, sometimes regulation can be beneficial!

Quote: odiousgambit

Dancer would be considered "Contrary" in the neck of the woods where I grew up.

I thought the widely used idiom was "ornery."

Here's the thing. A free market approach to rules results in better rules and pay tables for higher minimums. This is a response to inflation, after all. But not everywhere. In Vegas the Strip casinos have a huge debt burden and bigger overhead than, say, Downtown and off-Strip and locals casinos. So they need to make more money per customer, which among other things means worse rules for low rollers. High rollers get a volume discount, as it were, in the form of better rules.

Bob is sometimes argumentative on the radio because he feels it makes for better radio. I don't know Howard Stern personally, but I get the feeling some of the fights on his show are a bit contrived.

Quote: tringlomane

Believe it or not, sometimes regulation can be beneficial!

Most regulation benefits one party at the expense of another, but the whole system is negative. For example It might cost party A $10 and benefit party B $5, so the regulation is beneficial for one half even though it is inefficent when you look at all the effects. Having never been to a PA casino, I would imagine one effect of the regulations would be generally higher table minimums. If I am right then the people who want to play $5 BJ and are willing to give up surrender and H17 miss out as does the casino.

Quote: bigfoot66

Most regulation benefits one party at the expense of another, but the whole system is negative. For example It might cost party A $10 and benefit party B $5, so the regulation is beneficial for one half even though it is inefficent when you look at all the effects. Having never been to a PA casino, I would imagine one effect of the regulations would be generally higher table minimums. If I am right then the people who want to play $5 BJ and are willing to give up surrender and H17 miss out as does the casino.

This is true (and table minimums lower than $25 are hard to find there), but the rules are more beneficial to those that "seriously" play blackjack, which is a significant subset of this forum. I'm an exception though here, I'll play less liberal rules if I can play $5/hand or less, but I draw the line at 6:5 BJ. Screw that.

Sorry but I disagree. Saying table minimums are higher because PA requires favorable player rules is not logical. Table minimums is all about location, location, location. And location boils down to, do you have nearby competition, and how affluent/eager is your customer base. If you are fighting with a nearby casino for customers, you will likely need to go lower. If your tables are always empty at $25, you will be forced to drop the minimum as well.

As long as a state is going to inhibit free enterprise, which PA is doing by only issuing x number of casino licenses, then it should be up to the state to make sure that the games offered are at least reasonably close to fair. Some gamblers have enough moxie to understand when they are being robbed and will stay away. But many others are too dumb to know they are severe underdogs, or, they know but just want to gamble so badly that they would make $10 bets on BJ to win $5 if that was the only game offered.

Quote: bigfoot66

Having never been to a PA casino, I would imagine one effect of the regulations would be generally higher table minimums. If I am right then the people who want to play $5 BJ and are willing to give up surrender and H17 miss out as does the casino.

I would also guess that PA casinos give worse penetration overall, since they have no choice about the house edge they expose to counters. Is this true east coast people?