Playing Without An Edge
This is my own personal view. I own most all his books. When he talks about VP opportunities, he states how much they are worth. Stating an opportunity is worth "X" amount of money an hour sounds like a guarantee to me.Quote: HugoSlaviaRidiculous. Try quoting Bob directly so we can judge for ourselves.
Quote: SingleCoinVPBob was right to be concerned. I am concerned that Bob leads people into believing Advantage Play strategy removes risk. Neither of us stated this directly, but it is inferred.
When is it inferred? When has Bob Dancer implied, in any way, shape or form, that there is no risk when playing video poker at an advantage? You who has read every single piece of video poker literature ever written and has seen every possible discussion on every possible video poker topic and has somehow missed the fact that Bob Dancer talks about risk-of-ruin and bankroll requirements CONSTANTLY?
I'm done with this. Sorry. I'm not calling you a troll, I'm not saying you're trolling, I'm not saying you're putting implications in peoples' mouths that they did not come anywhere close to making...I'm just saying my patience has limits and what I read above had me questioning my sanity until I read it five times, and had an independent and neutral third-party read it aloud to me so I could be sure it said what I thought it did.
Quote: SingleCoinVPThis is my own personal view. I own most all his books. When he talks about VP opportunities, he states how much they are worth. Stating an opportunity is worth "X" amount of money an hour sounds like a guarantee to me.
Do you single-handedly want to cause me to start drinking again? He's talking about mathematical expectation based on a wide variety of factors, including the assumptions of perfect play and a certain number of hands per hour. NOT ONLY does Dancer fail to make any implicit guarantees, he explicitly states all of the mathematical factors that lead to his conclusion as to the expected profit per hour.
You're extremely well-written and seem like a nice enough guy. I simply cannot fathom how a person who is as intelligent as you seem to be could possibly legitimately arrive at the conclusions at which you claim to arrive. Guarantee, I'm just befuddled.
Billy, what scandal are you refering to?Quote: billryanPlease tell the forum about how you discovered the biggest scandal in VP history but couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. For someone who is so concerned newbies might be misled by an author, I'd think exposing massive cheating like you found would be something worth talking about instead of regurgitating nonsense over and over.
Quote: SingleCoinVPThis is my own personal view. I own most all his books. When he talks about VP opportunities, he states how much they are worth. Stating an opportunity is worth "X" amount of money an hour sounds like a guarantee to me.
If someone said graduating from Harvard medical school was "worth" a multi-million dollar career as a doctor, would you think they were saying it was guaranteed?
He is using 'worth' to talk about value, or expected value. Perhaps the problem with the miscommunication is in the author. But you seem to be the only one to misread what he's saying.
It was pointed out one problem you have talking about this stuff is constantly making straw-man arguments. That was spot-on. I think other problems you have with being unable to engage productively with other video poker players are nit-picking at words and projecting your own thoughts about what is right for you onto others.
Quote: SingleCoinVPWhat I think we're missing is the value of playing the game of video poker itself. We get a lot of entertainment for our money even playing 97% games. This is in part due to lessons learned from people like Bob Dancer. When I go to the casino, I see people all around me that don't have a clue how best to play. People keep aces when playing Deuces Wild and throw away deuces go for three to a royal. We are far from being APs that's for sure. From what I read here, I'm not sure we want to be. Why can't some people accept that this is OK?
Look back over this post. We just spent six pages discussing the games among ourselves. Maybe you didn't like some of what was said. It's better than listening to someone talk about their last royal.
Missed this, so I will respond and then I am done with this thread.
1.) I can not imagine anyone disputing that you get entertainment from it.
2.) I imagine the people with no clue how to play are getting a similar amount of entertainment from it, arguably more. Have you ever considered that video poker is almost like a slot machine if you know (and unfailingly use) optimal strategy? Personally, I wouldn't make a hold just because I, "Feel like doing it this way this time," but I could see where that could be the most fun for some people. They are making what they consider the most entertaining hold.
3.) Who is not accepting that people are not APs? I'm going to do this so this point is no longer lost on you:
IF CASUAL PLAYERS DID NOT LOSE, ADVANTAGE PLAYERS COULD NOT WIN BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO CASINOS.
Advantage players need casual players if there are going to continue to be advantage players. You need ultra-casual players unless you want to either quit playing or start eating a house edge greater than 3%. If everyone played perfectly, they would probably downgrade video poker to 95% with optimal strategy, if not worse. Actually, some casinos all of the video poker is already worse than that, though only a few.
Quote: SingleCoinVPIf you uncovered a positive VP opportunity that required playing $100 a coin and you didn't have an adequate bankroll, would you play it?
Depending on how much the opportunity was "worth" (as defined by the Expected Value formula, not as a "guarantee"), I would first secure an adequate bankroll, than I would play it.
Quote: SingleCoinVPIf you uncovered a positive VP opportunity that required playing $100 a coin and you didn't have an adequate bankroll, would you play it?
Depends on the risk/reward. Suppose I had exactly $5,000 and there was a ten-play UX with a 2x multiplier on one of the lines, in that event, I would see if I could call someone who might want to, "Buy," the play for $100 and refund me any losses if that's what happens. We could do Facetime or something so they know I am not jivving them on something I had already played and lost.***
On the other hand, if I had a screen loaded with 12x multipliers, I'm taking that play myself because, if I hit a royal, I will never do any kind of work (other than extremely conservative investing to live off of interest) again or ever walk into a casino again as long as I live.
***Assumes no tax implications just for the sake of answering the question.
Quote: SingleCoinVPWhen you write a book stating that you did this because the opportunity was positive and you made a million dollars in six months, it leads some people to believe it could do the same for them. When to tell people it won't work for them because they aren't intelligent or skilled enough, I makes them want to prove you wrong.
The reason is it could do the same for them, but it probably won't. I want to say that he even admitted to overplaying his bankroll at some point in the book, but I would have to go back and read it again.
MegaBucks is at 14 million and change right now, so someone COULD win 14 million dollars in two and a half seconds by playing MegaBucks. Sooner or later, someone WILL win that amount or more. In that particular case, the opportunity is likely extremely negative.
What the hell do you want Dancer to do? Say that he did not have an expected profit when he did have?
Also, and no offense to Dancer or anyone else, but you certainly do not have to be a genius to play video poker these days. Memorize some stuff, use a chart and maybe some light algebra if you have to factor in other things.
Bill Clinton wrote a book that talked about taking advantage of opportunities presented to him to eventually become President of the United States. I tend to believe that reading that book does not cause most readers to believe they will become POTUS.
And you're wanting to put implications or guarantees in people's mouths that they simply did not make. Ask Dancer, he'll tell you. He could not have done what he did if casinos did not have losing players and I could not imagine him saying otherwise.
I want him to say expected profit is not a long term guarantee of anything. It's "expected" and expectations are not always realized.Quote: Mission146What the hell do you want Dancer to do? Say that he did not have an expected profit when he did have?
Quote: SingleCoinVPI want him to say expected profit is not a long term guarantee of anything. It's "expected" and expectations are not always realized.
Quote:Now you’re going to have losing months regularly. Losing years are not out of the question. This is a VERY small edge.
https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/gambling-with-an-edge/how-much-stress-should-there-be-in-gambling-part-i-of-iii/
That took a whole ten seconds, and I haven't even read everything the man has ever written like you have.
Quote:Before we discuss this wiggle room, let’s talk about how EV is most properly used. EV gives you a “best guess” of how a situation will turn out — on average — if you play it out zillions of times. It’s not a guarantee at all of how things will turn out this time.
https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/gambling-with-an-edge/theres-ev-just-ev/
There you go, but you've certainly read this entire article on EV since you have read everything on advantage play ever written because you know everything that there is to possibly write has been said.
ZILLIONS OF TIMES ON AVERAGE NOT A GUARANTEE---Bob Dancer
Please read that article zillions of times and return when your position on Bob Dancer has become cogent.
Quote: HugoSlavia
And Bob was concerned that your frequent references to a winning streak implied claims of validity for your system.
Yes, that's also how Phil's tone came off to me when those posts were written as well, which I thought was a bad thing for uneducated players to read and believe to be true. The odds of Phil being ahead with the way he played at the time were quite unlikely assuming a fairly programmed machine.
Quote: SingleCoinVPThis is my own personal view. I own most all his books. When he talks about VP opportunities, he states how much they are worth. Stating an opportunity is worth "X" amount of money an hour sounds like a guarantee to me.
Then you might have misunderstood Bob's books at the time. Somewhere in his book(s) I assume he wrote something to the effect of "in the short term anything can happen, but the more you play advantageous situations, the more likely you'll come out ahead."
Now yes, it's a bit of poor form to write something like "Playing quarter Full Pay Deuces Wild is worth $7.50/hr." without using a qualifier like "on average". But if he wrote that every time, it makes the book longer. But every knowledgeable AP knows that when a play is worth $X per hour, that's the average expectation, NOT a guarantee! And results can widely vary on short plays with small advantages.
Quote: SingleCoinVPSuppose you only buy one of Dancer's books. You have never read or heard anything else he has ever said or written. You happen to buy a copy of "Million Dollar Video Poker". This book is full of references to what I am talking about. You see his posts on a public forum and you question why you are losing. He calls you unintelligent, undisciplined and questions your motives. He then informs you APs are more intelligent than the average player and continues by saying he finds positive opportunities in a gas station. What would you think?
I would think I was a fool for doin so little research and critical thinking on these concepts
I am not concerned with the effect his writings have on knowledgeable APs. I think this thread has jumped the rails. Let get back to unadvantaged play.Quote: tringlomaneNow yes, it's a bit of poor form to write something like "Play quarter Full Pay Deuces Wild is worth $7.50/hr." without using a qualifier like "on average". But if he wrote that every time, it makes the book longer. But every knowledgeable AP knows that when a play is worth $X per hour, that's the average expectation, NOT a guarantee! And results can widely vary on short plays with small advantages.
Quote: SingleCoinVPSuppose you only buy one of Dancer's books. You have never read or heard anything else he has ever said or written. You happen to buy a copy of "Million Dollar Video Poker". This book is full of references to what I am talking about. You see his posts on a public forum and you question why you are losing. He calls you unintelligent, undisciplined and questions your motives. He then informs you APs are more intelligent than the average player and continues by saying he finds positive opportunities in a gas station. What would you think?
Here is what I think: I think that I include disclaimers in most of my gambling articles, but with that, not every sentence written about gambling needs to have six and a half million disclaimers and modifiers both before it and after it.
I think that Million Dollar Video Poker is, before anything else, an autobiography. I think I have also read it, and the reason I believe this is because I wrote a review about it:
https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/million-dollar-book-review/
And if we go back over three years ago, I noted a few things:
Quote:The first aspect of this book that needs to be pointed out is that it is NOT a strategy book, it is a biography that, at times, reads like a novel.
And this observation:
Quote:Around the mid-point of the story, the author embarks on a play by which he is GROSSLY over-betting his bankroll and knows it. There may have even been a subtle implication that he would have had to drop back down a level had that not went well for him.
Quote:He over bets his bankroll at a later time in the book too, though not nearly as grossly as he did in the middle part of the book.
So, most of the book is just referencing what happened involving him, personally. Most of the plays he speaks of in the book (if not all) don't even exist anymore, so how could anyone possibly do them?
As far as calling anyone names, he's a member here and I've never seen him do that.
Now, perhaps it is not correct to make, "APs are more intelligent than the average gambler," a general statement...but they are GENERALLY going to be more intelligent when it comes to gambling-related matters.
Here's an example: You claim that the forums are boring because it is a Good Ol' Boys club and everything that there is to say about AP has already been said. You are an above average video poker player, but not an AP. You did not know what a must-hit looks like until yesterday.
Is it wrong for me to conclude I am more intelligent than you are when it comes to advantage play or gambling, in general?
Even then, I don't know that Dancer even said more intelligent without specifically saying, "As relates gambling," or that at least being implied by context.
Quote: SingleCoinVPI am not concerned with the effect his writings have on knowledgeable APs. I think this thread has jumped the rails. Let get back to unadvantaged play.
TRANSLATION: My presented argument is completely indefensible.
Quote: SingleCoinVPI am not concerned with the effect his writings have on knowledgeable APs. I think this thread has jumped the rails. Let get back to unadvantaged play.
We jump the rail because you we're pointing out your misconceptions. It happened a lot at the other site too.
As far as -EV goes, I basically look at it as play the best games/promos you can for the level you can afford and the games you want to play. Expecting to lose less money is better than more at least to me.
Now Bob usually will tell you just not to play a -EV game, but he is also trying to do this for a living too while you're not. Would your wife pay a net loss of $2000 just for the enjoyment to sell a house? Of course not.
If selling a house involved an RNG chip, she wouldn't have gotten into the business to begin with.Quote: tringlomaneWould your wife pay a net loss of $2000 just for the enjoyment to sell a house? Of course not.
https://www.videopoker.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=112540#p112540
Someone (Axel iirc) pointed out SCVP's passive-aggressiveness, and this is a good example. SCVP complains that Bob's advice is unusable because people are unintelligent, but then takes offense when Bob acknowledges that people are unintelligent.
There is literally nothing Bob can do to satisfy SCVP.
Quote: SingleCoinVPIs there anything else you want to know?
I don't believe that I asked you any questions.
I'm sorry, I thought if you went to the trouble of looking me up on the Internet you would have more questions? Is it standard practice on this Forum to post other member's real name and location? I don't need to hid behind a pseudo name, but I don't believe that is good for anyone. Be careful what you ask for.Quote: DRichI don't believe that I asked you any questions.
Quote: SingleCoinVPI'm sorry, I thought if you went to the trouble of looking me up on the Internet you would have more questions? Is it standard practice on this Forum to post other member's real name and location? I don't need to hid behind a pseudo name, but I don't believe that is good for anyone. Be careful what you ask for.
I believe that you were the one that posted something along the lines of; You people don't know who I am or what I do. At first i thought you might be Warren Buffet because of your investment profession, but then I realized that he is already banned from this site.
I have never met Warren Buffet. I have a friend who lived down the street from him in Omaha for over 20 years. I bought some of his stock years ago. Still have it. Some people think Warren Buffet is a gambler. Like an AP, he only invests when he believes he has an advantage. There are no random computer chips in the back of dark smoky casinos determining Warren's returns. He does his research and uses his skills alone to make his decisions. He is not always right. No one is.Quote: DRichI believe that you were the one that posted something along the lines of; You people don't know who I am or what I do. At first i thought you might be Warren Buffet because of your investment profession, but then I realized that he is already banned from this site.
Quote: DRichBuffet
Quote: SingleCoinVPBuffet
* Buffett
But at least you guys agree on something.
Quote: HugoSlavia* Buffett
But at least you guys agree on something.
We can't help it if Warren spells his last name improperly.
Quote: DRichWe can't help it if Warren spells his last name improperly.
My uncle owns a few shares of Berkshire. He has a little bit of a stutter, so in his case it's B-buffett.
Quote: SingleCoinVPI have grown tired of posting about Bob Dancer. I don't believe he is a bad guy and I wish him well. He is about my age. I wouldn't trade places with him and I'm sure he wouldn't with me either. Video poker had it's day. I'm moving on to table games myself.
TRANSLATION: My point is completely indefensible.
Quote: SingleCoinVP Let's talk about the games the majority of us play. [/q
Phil,
If that is truly what you want to do? And you have the expertise to start and run a website, as mentioned in this thread.
Why not do that? You could have your own gambling website/forum.
Here's some suggested names.
VIDEO POKER Redundant 2.0
or
SHORT COIN ROYALS
or
My Story: One coin at a time.
I imply, or is it infer? That such a gambling website/forum. Would have a 100.76% chance of becoming the most active, most popular gambling website/forum of all time.
No Guarantees though!
Since you're moving on to table games I thought I'd let you know there's a couple forums that are dedicated to table games players, good luck.Quote: SingleCoinVP
Before you go, we're still interested in knowing about the so-called glitches you keep running into.
I'm glad to see that you're taking the time to get your story straight because If I'm understanding what you were sort of describing, I'll just say, I'm very skeptical.
Quote: HugoSlaviaI think this is the Bob Dancer post:
https://www.videopoker.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=112540#p112540
Someone (Axel iirc) pointed out SCVP's passive-aggressiveness, and this is a good example. SCVP complains that Bob's advice is unusable because people are unintelligent, but then takes offense when Bob acknowledges that people are unintelligent.
There is literally nothing Bob can do to satisfy SCVP.
In my opinion, this is a questionable post for a few reasons:
1.) It makes the assumption that recreational players who would turn pro if they were, "Smart enough," to be able to do it. That statement completely ignores the possibility that there are recreational players who DO NOT turn pro simply because they have no desire to do so, though they might have the ability. If I recall Mr. Dancer's article correctly, he had a marriage dissolve, in part or in whole, because his wife (at the time) could not handle the smoke he brought home with him from casinos.
It occurs to me that supremely intelligent people might consider video poker a fun hobby (even -EV video poker) but do not view sitting in a smoky casino for hours on end in the same chair the whole time as a desirable profession.
Furthermore, is there not a skilled surgeon out there somewhere who is a recreational video poker enthusiast? Perhaps there are supremely intelligent people out there who do not play video poker because they can/do make more money elsewhere, or otherwise have a career that they find more rewarding.
I'm obviously not saying there is anything wrong with being a VP Pro, or any other kind of advantage player, but I certainly don't put them on the pedestal that Mr. Dancer seems to in the above-linked post as paragons of the ultimate profession.
2.) Quote from source:
Quote:You will not find average and below-average IQs among successful video poker professionals.
I disagree with the above quote, for the most part. I can stipulate that you wouldn't find substantially below average IQ people amongst the ranks of video poker professionals. That said, when it comes to people with average IQ's: why not?
Anyone who is going to bring the concept of IQ into the discussion knows or should know that an IQ test is a general intelligence test that seeks to measure many different skills in a relatively short timeframe AND with a relatively limited sample size of questions as pertains those skills. Relevantly, the first part of that is the differing set of skills. It is possible to test well above average in the categories related to memory and problem-solving whilst testing poorly in areas such as verbal comprehension.
In other words, someone with a perfectly average IQ could excel in those areas that would also grant one the capacity to be a video poker professional.
3.) Quote from source:
Quote:Simply put,
the average person cannot figure out how to beat the casino --- although he can clearly troll Internet forums and TELL people how to do it.
I disagree for the same reasons as stated in Item #2, but also, because the average person does not need to figure it out, per se. If a person is capable of learning a concept and repeating it, then that person can be an advantage player. It's simply a matter of learning the rudiments of how to recognize an opportunity and then how to exploit that opportunity.
With the myriad of online resources available in this regard (not to mention potentially knowing people) one would not need substantial ability to figure out what one needs to know.
4.) Quote from source:
Quote:If you're not at least as bright as the average vice president of marketing.
So...If I am not at least as bright as some of the people who (based on certain promotions and offers) clearly lack any understanding of math whatsoever and have the arrogance to roll something out without asking those in the casino who might be more mathematically inclined first I can't do it?
Good thing for me this sets a REALLY low bar.
If I were in the security or slot department of a casino, I think I would spend every day of my life angry and blaming marketing for many of my problems...and I would be right.
CONCLUSION:
Anyway, I would be willing to conclude that video poker players (or some AP's) are of at least average intelligence, generally speaking, but hesitate to put them on any pedestal higher than that. What positions can you think of that require the use of rudimentary math and ability to use the internet? Entry-level bookkeeper? Don't have to be a genius.
Imagine a garbage company worker whose job it is to draw up optimal routes...is a video poker pro smarter than that guy? Sounds like a pretty tough thing to do to me.
Quote: HugoSlaviaMy uncle owns a few shares of Berkshire. He has a little bit of a stutter, so in his case it's B-buffett.
I just read this entire thread in one sitting at a burrito joint and this was, by far, the best post within all 14 pages.
Great post! APs are obviously intelligent people or they wouldn't last long as APs.Quote: kumaI just read this entire thread in one sitting at a burrito joint and this was, by far, the best post within all 14 pages.
I would never create a post claiming to be more intelligent than anyone else. If you come to me with a broken 1966 Ford automatic transmission, I could fix it. Could Bob Dancer? I doubt it. Does that make me more intelligent than him? Of course not. He specializes in video poker and knows all about it. One of my hobbies is restoring old Fords and I rebuild my own transmissions.
I think experts who teach video poker should concentrate less on how to beat the casino and more on keeping the casino from beating the players. By now, anyone who needs lessons on video poker is not going to do what it takes to be an AP. Start with the games everyone has access to and work up. What good does explaining a .03% play when the average video poker game is 97%? I would like to see a book entitled "Playing Video poker in 2019". They can hold classes at the Hard Rock.
Quote: SingleCoinVPGreat post! APs are obviously intelligent people or they wouldn't last long as APs.
I would never create a post claiming to be more intelligent than anyone else. If you come to me with a broken 1966 Ford automatic transmission, I could fix it. Could Bob Dancer? I doubt it. Does that make me more intelligent than him? Of course not. He specializes in video poker and knows all about it. One of my hobbies is restoring old Fords and I rebuild my own transmissions.
I think experts who teach video poker should concentrate less on how to beat the casino and more on keeping the casino from beating the players. By now, anyone who needs lessons on video poker is not going to do what it takes to be an AP. Start with the games everyone has access to and work up. What good does explaining a .03% play when the average video poker game is 97%? I would like to see a book entitled "Playing Video poker in 2019". They can hold classes at the Hard Rock.
Maybe an opportunity for you? Seems like you know a lot about the subject.
And that is a compliment.
When 9/6 Jacks became 8/5, we continued to play as before and we lost more. When 8/5 Jacks became 7/5, we began looking for ways to hold down our cost to be equal to other forms of entertainment. I went out on my own and came up my own methods to reduce my cost to play. It wasn't perfect. It wasn't profitable. It sure as hell was better than feeding money into a game guaranteed to empty your wallet. I quickly discovered when you play games that negative, math turns upside down. You are no longer playing for profit, you are playing for smaller losses.
If you never play the games I play, you don't need a thing from me. Ignore everything I post because it's worthless to you. If the games I play sound familiar, perhaps you should rethink what you have been told.
Quote: SingleCoinVP
I think experts who teach video poker should concentrate less on how to beat the casino and more on keeping the casino from beating the players. By now, anyone who needs lessons on video poker is not going to do what it takes to be an AP. Start with the games everyone has access to and work up. What good does explaining a .03% play when the average video poker game is 97%? I would like to see a book entitled "Playing Video poker in 2019". They can hold classes at the Hard Rock.
(Quote clipped, relevance)
I have no idea what the first quoted sentence means. Here is how, as a player, you can keep the casino from beating you:
Don't go to the casino.
Works every time.
What you are talking about accomplishes nothing except creating a stop loss and controlling the amount to be lost, on an expected basis, per hand. It doesn't DO anything, playing a losing game is playing a losing game.
Granted, there's nothing wrong with explaining how to lose less, after all, that's one of the things WoO is about. But to phrase it in the context of, "Keep the casinos from beating you," just makes no sense. If you're playing a -EV game (all things considered) then the casino is beating you. You can say keep them from beating you more quickly, I guess.
Quote: Mission146In other words, someone with a perfectly average IQ could excel in those areas that would also grant one the capacity to be a video poker professional.
Average people can succeed financially, but usually they need awareness of their limitations. The Dunning-Kruger phenomenon can lead to disastrous outcomes such as Martingale threads or careers in politics.
The problem is that he's discussed it ad nauseam.Quote: Mission146(Quote clipped, relevance)
I have no idea what the first quoted sentence means. Here is how, as a player, you can keep the casino from beating you:
Don't go to the casino.
Works every time.
What you are talking about accomplishes nothing except creating a stop loss and controlling the amount to be lost, on an expected basis, per hand. It doesn't DO anything, playing a losing game is playing a losing game.
Granted, there's nothing wrong with explaining how to lose less, after all, that's one of the things WoO is about. But to phrase it in the context of, "Keep the casinos from beating you," just makes no sense. If you're playing a -EV game (all things considered) then the casino is beating you. You can say keep them from beating you more quickly, I guess.
Quote: SingleCoinVPI started playing video poker at a time when odds began their steady march downward. Casinos were just starting to come to Florida. I remember waiting in line for a seat in the high limit room because there were only four Class III machines in the entire building. We thought 9/6 Jacks or Better was the road to riches because we idolized Bob Dancer. We lost and he kept winning. Later we learned about comps, free play, incentives and drawings.
Why do you keep putting this on Dancer? I guess I finally understand your opinion now because it is clear you have a vendetta against him. I am most definitely not the President of the Bob Dancer fan club, but when you go around saying this and that about guarantees being implied...that's where I am going to get a little upset.
Here is an article I wrote with the first part having to do with sports touts:
https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/the-rundown/
Anyway, they throw the word, "Guarantee," around all over the radio and their website. Thus, when I see you trying to pin the word, "Guarantee," on anything Dancer has said it irritates me because it is a blatant mischaracterization. He never said anything of the sort that I have seen and anything that I have seen him say has as much as directly stated the opposite.
And, again, I'm not the President of his fan club. I don't like him, I don't dislike him.
Anyway, you look at this page:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/tables/jacks-or-better/
It says that 9/6 Jacks or Better has a return of 99.543904%. I'm not a gambling or math expert, but I believe that is less than 100% and, therefore, losing on its own. If you can't figure out on your own that 99.543904% is less than 100%, I don't know what to tell you. You kind of have to figure he's making up the difference elsewhere.
And, in Million Dollar Video Poker he talks about comps, gifts, free play kickbacks, same day free play and cashback...all of it. There is no way I can imagine anyone reading that book and coming to the conclusion they could just sit down and play 9/6 Jacks and be profitable without anything else. Less than 100% is less than 100%, your wife worked in banks for decades according to you...I have to believe she is at least skilled enough at math to understand the implications of something being less than 100%.
Dancer's articles talk about comps, free play, drawings, cashback...etc....and as far as I can recall, always have from time to time. I can't remember how many times I have read, "Well, it was a 99.2% game, but with this promotion..." etc.
Quote:When 9/6 Jacks became 8/5, we continued to play as before and we lost more. When 8/5 Jacks became 7/5, we began looking for ways to hold down our cost to be equal to other forms of entertainment. I went out on my own and came up my own methods to reduce my cost to play. It wasn't perfect. It wasn't profitable. It sure as hell was better than feeding money into a game guaranteed to empty your wallet. I quickly discovered when you play games that negative, math turns upside down. You are no longer playing for profit, you are playing for smaller losses.
You don't play 9/6 Jacks or Better for profit absent other factors. It's not a profitable game on its own.
Quote:If you never play the games I play, you don't need a thing from me. Ignore everything I post because it's worthless to you. If the games I play sound familiar, perhaps you should rethink what you have been told.
I guess. I'd need an outstanding reason to learn optimal strategy for a 97% game, which is to say something that pushes the deal a bit over 100%. Otherwise, my advice would just be to not play it at all.
The only thing that you and anyone else accomplishes with single-line one credit (or playing at all) is indicating an acceptance of the trash paytables. Let them know you'll put up with that and they'll eventually make them worse. 5/4/3 Jacks or Better, anyone?
Quote: Mission146Missed this, so I will respond and then I am done with this thread...
Dancer could easily have been helpful to players who play negative video poker. He could have discussed these games objectively. He could have concentrated on advantages other than profit. He could have suggested ways to be entertained for less. Instead, he chose to respond with condescending comments and outright insults. He followed up by touted the superior intelligence of Advantage Players. Time and time again, recreational video poker questions and comments were disregarded or treated with contempt. The final straw for me was his article stating he would be pleased if his daughter married a professional gambler. What response was he expecting?
It's not only what Dancer says that annoys people, it's how he says it. Gambling is a sensitive topic. When you address the public, your words can be read by anyone. They may be interpreted far differently than you expect. A teacher should take this seriously into consideration.
I have said some things about Dancer that I regret. For that I am sorry. If he wants to remain relevant, I think he needs to switch gears and talk more about everyday video poker, not just games with an advantage. He won't take my advice that's for sure. I doubt he cares anything about players who play 97% games. I do and will continue to talk about them as long as I am allowed to.
