With Bob Dancer, who is a member here in good standing, I think you'd have to write things that are not insulting. I suppose you could say all the good stuff about him, but wouldn't be allowed to say any of the bad stuff about him.
Just as in the law, actual malice must be proven in a defamation claim against a public figure.
Perhaps a bit more latitude should be granted re: criticism if the member being criticized is a public figure?
Just as in the law, actual malice must be proven in a defamation claim against a public figure.
Ask Kewlj how that worked out for him...
How would the mods react if Trump did try to join, for whatever reason: would / could membership be denied?
If Trump joined, then he would be enjoy insult protection from personal insults after the time he joined. It is also an unwritten policy you have to be somewhat active. You can't just join for the protection and never contribute anything.
In general itís like trying to convince Democrats that Trump is qualified to be president --- or, vice versa, trying to convince Republicans that Hillary was by far the more truthful candidate during the election. Many people have their minds made up and arguing with them is wasting your breath. So by and large, I let negative comments go as the lesser of evils.
That said, there were some points in the thread that should be clarified.
On the radio show, Richard is the star in my opinion. I LOVE listening to his stories and have learned a lot from him. All of us are fortunate he likes doing this radio show. Yes I crack jokes. Some people have said that keeps it interesting. Others have said they donít like it. You canít please everybody.
On the audio quality, yes weíve had problems. Itís a progressive thing and weíve been trying to get it better --- one piece of equipment at a time. Basically Richard --- with his background of being a movie producer --- has taken the lead in figuring out what equipment we should get. Beginning on the November 10 episode, weíve been using a new mixer. We think the quality is much better now. If you still think itís bad, by all means speak up. (I donít even know the purpose of a mixer. Sorry. Not my thing.)
I actually donít remember many episodes where I spoke about my sex life. (There was one about playing backgammon with a woman who always distracted the guys by going braless along with very low cut blouses --- but thatís the only time I remember. I was probably 27 years old when that happened --- and I still think itís a good story. Now Iím a few months shy of 70 years old --- and nobody wants to hear about geriatric sex).
About the South Point. Yes, they are a sponsor of the radio show and they allow me to teach classes and play there. I have lunch with Michael Gaughan every six months or so. If they cut me off as a player, most likely they wouldnít want to be a sponsor or allow me to play. In no way am I an employee there.
If you listened to the conversations I had with Gaughan, you wouldnít find what I tell him anti-player or me being on the dark side. Since by agreement I canít tell you exactly whatís been said --- many players choose to believe the worst. Oh well. Comes with the territory. I am definitely NOT happy with the number of players whoíve been restricted there. Iíve mentioned it to him a few times --- but continuing to bring it up would not change how he believes things should be done and would likely end my relationship with him. So, I donít bring it up any more. As I get older, I try to learn to pick my battles.
I will talk about whatever promotion the South Point is offering. Itís part of the deal of them being the main sponsor. (I did the same when the Palms was a sponsor). I do remember several times saying a promotion there was geared for low rollers. (Iíve played some of them even though Iíd prefer they were bigger.) Criticize that if you like, but itís the price for having sponsors.
Insofar as the subject matter of my columns --- there is a range of topics I write about. Some columns are technical --- many arenít. Iíve been writing weekly columns for 20 years and have exhausted the ďeasy pickingsĒ topic-wise. So often Iíll use recent examples of something some player did or said that wasnít very smart gambling-wise and ďteach a lesson.Ē Many of these are beginner-level lessons and some of you are beyond that level. Good for you! But there are new readers all the time and so some beginner lessons are necessary. And many readers need reminders.
I remember getting called in by the president of Station Casinos, Steve Cavallaro, objecting to me writing somewhere that Station Casinos has restricted more players
than the rest of the local casinos put together. He wanted to make a deal where I wouldnít say things like that. He offered to let me teach classes there. I said fine. Let me play with full benefits and Iíll teach classes. Iíll argue that if itís good enough for me to play, itís good enough for you (i.e. the class attendees) to consider playing there too.
Cavallaro wanted no part of that. I told him that me standing up in front of a class and telling folks that ďStations wonít let me play, but if you are dumb enough or unsuccessful enough maybe theyíll let you playĒ wouldnít lead to discussions that would do him any good. So Iím still restricted at Red Rock Resorts, and I still write what I want about them.
(Yes there are some strong players at various Station Casinos who have found ways to get a positive game while still remaining under their radar --- but I wasnít going to say that to Cavallaro. For most players, if Station Casinos allows you to play video poker, you arenít very good at the game.)
Sometimes people suggest topics to write about --- and sometimes I take them up on it. I very much appreciate such suggestions. If I knew more about taxes, Iíd write about that. But thatís not my expertise. Spending hundreds of hours each year learning all the ins and outs of the tax code in various jurisdictions so I can create a few columns doesnít strike me as a good use of my time.
When I get hostile suggestions on what to write about I generally ignore those. I do not see it as my job to answer every question posed. There are many secrets I keep --- while at the same time sharing more useful information with wannabe successful video poker players than any other knowledgeable player. Some people have waited for years for me to answer their question --- and they still have another 30 years to go!
Thanks for your candor, and humility in saying that Richard is the star.
Regarding the audio: since I'm the one who mentions it most, I'd like to respond.
There are two audio problems:
1- Telephone/Skype participants tend to have bad sound quality. Not sure how to fix that.
2- The volume levels are not consistent. This is the purpose of a mixer, butit only works when a sound engineer is monitoring the show and adjusting the input levels so the output is uniform. But there are also methods of automating this.
Frankly, a salesperson at your local Guitar Center might be able to help you with both of these issues.
I also complained about your talking about your sex life. I think you do it more often than you're aware.
Otherwise, it's a fine show and keep up the good work.
This is a little complicated...Richard is a world class AP. Bob is not. But because of how profitable video poker was for many years, Bob (and others) could fly under the radar, well, there was no radar to begin with. I'm not trying to insult Bob here, but back in the day, you didn't need very much AP skill to be successful at machines.
I like Richard a lot. Bob, well, is Bob. It's commonly thought in the LV VP community (which I am not a part of) that Bob's deal was to be the only VP player, not the best one. I can't say I disagree with that analysis.
I started off with blackjack, then when it dawned on me how much more money you could make with virtually no heat, I switched over to VP. Yes, I still dabbled with BJ. And the BJ training helped, because I'm still good pretty much everywhere, with an exception or two. The joint gets too douchey, I just take the business somewhere else. A couple of places I ran too good and got tossed for repetitive winning, but man, it's tough to blow a 4% edge, which is where one of the places I got tossed offered. Not that long ago either.
VP was so strong, especially in the early to late 90s, hell, even as late as 2005, that even an AP with less talent than a chimpanzee could find $150K on the floor playing in local LV casinos without that much effort, or even that much bankroll. Yes, that much, seriously. VP was so good there were many plays where you could theoretically never hit a royal ever and still have significant +EV. I wish my ego would have let me figured that out sooner, because all I saw were disgusting coin hustlers handling even more disgusting coins. When I played BJ, it was usually with purple and golden colored chips.
I think the problem I and others have with Bob is that he disseminates a lot of valuable information. He was like the Stanford Wong of VP, except Wong did a lot more damage. I mean, I was already playing Halves when Professional Blackjack came out. Stanford did more to wise up the pit than Bill Zender could ever dream of doing. I don't understand why Bob feels the need to validate himself like that, certainly he's won millions over the years.
See, there's a reason why the guys who are VP of Tables make a lot more than their Slot Ops counterparts. Especially at local LV casinos, where the pay scale is a lot lower.
Bob gets a lot of blame for "killing" VP in Vegas. As much as I would like to concur, the reality is once the economy went into the toilet in 2007, it was just a matter of time before VP would be taken a closer look at. If anything, what's happened is that the Slot Department has gone from being totally somnolent, because the joint is making money, to accusing anyone who hit a dollar royal and up of being APs with no statistical justification whatsoever. It's crazy, yes, but remember, it was crazy the other way for the longest time, and in the AP business, you have to take the bitter with the sweet. But Bob's musings certainly didn't help. VP became a political football, a method of securing employment for slot personnel in perhaps the worst economy since the Great Depression. Look...if a game pays 99.54% and you're holding 1% what should your theo be? You have years and years of data on so many accounts, the win loss and everything. It doesn't take a genus to determine who is profitable and who isn't.
But to be fair to Bob, being an AP is not a team effort, nor is it a zero sum game. If Bob's column could make money for him elsewhere, more power to him. But, the rest of the community certainly can reserve the right not to like it.
Finally look at what types of articles Bob has written in recent years. It's indicative of the sea change how video poker is viewed by many a casino or slot director (most of whom still don't have the third grade math skills to set the floor properly, but it doesn't seem to matter).
I'm not a fan of Bob, but he's 72 or something, he's made his money, dude has to have something to do in retirement lol. I have no time nor the energy nor desire to hate anyone these days. There's a guy in his late 70s still playing what's left, there's a bartop progressive in town that's still very good. Please, when I'm 78 and still have to play machines to eat, just shoot me instead.