Is Dancerology based on 95% RNG?

[rapidbison]

Math gurus, please weigh in.....

[FloridaPhil]

Most players could care less about VP math.  What's important to them is what they
believe to be true.  Personally, I believe the RNG is 100% random and the games are fair.  I
have seen some very strange things playing VP, but nothing that
convinced me they aren't. Personally, I think it's a good idea to question and I will never criticize anyone for doing so.   I can tell you from experience, doing battle with Mr. Dancer's methodology is futile.  It relies on three very simple tenets;  play overall positive games, play computer perfect and have an adequate bankroll to last through the downturns.  I have never seen anything that convinced me there was any flaw with this strategy.  He has said many times that anything can happen in the short term.  If a player's results aren't the same as the odds predict, it's because they didn't perform on one or more of the three main points listed above or they haven't played long enough.   I have no doubt if you set up a computer simulation with his parameters and ran it for a million years it would come out positive.I am not an advantage player because I lack two of the above requirements.  I positively know why I don't risk Dancer sized money playing VP... I would lose it.  Not because his strategy or the RNG is flawed, the problem is with me and I can accept that.  By the way, I can't play football like Tom Brady either.  There's probably math out there somewhere proving that's true, but I don't need to see it to accept it as fact.

[case]

Rapidbison, are you still going on about your 95% RNG? You are probably the only one who believes in this fallacy.

[rapidbison]

I'm still perplexed why Bob Dancer---and only Bob Dancer--starting out with pockets 20 years ago...shallower than many avid, focused players on this site.....can win so much...for so long.....completely unrivaled......simply playing video-poker with the same strategies shared with millions of others since 1997........Regardless of level or denomination, paytables and comps----virtually everyone has ended up a loser.....long-term...
Stick that in a statistical pipe and see how it smokes....

[FloridaPhil]

If the RNG is only 95% random, who controls the other 5%?  My experience is very few players can play 100% perfect all the time.  A 5% error rate seems totally reasonable to me.  If you think you can play 100% correct for days, weeks or years on end, try playing error free for 8 hours in training mode on this website or use VPW software and test yourself.  You will find it's practically impossible for most people.  I have no way of knowing if Bob Dancer can do this either, so we'll have to take his word for it.  All I know is the math says if you adhere to the three factors I outlined above, the game is positive into infinity.  That fact is impossible to deny.  If someone believes in their heart the games are not 100% random, why would he/she play them?

[rapidbison]

Again, on 95% rng----the point is that the casinos technically-legally does not have to deal near perfectly random....and how does that affect strategies based on near-perfect randomness......

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=rapidbison]Again, on 95% rng----the point is that the casinos technically-legally
does not have to deal near perfectly random....and how does that affect
strategies based on near-perfect randomness......
[/quote]That depends on who or what you think controls the other 5%.  In all honesty you are asking for an answer without providing a complete question?

[billryan]

He is akin to a ninth grade algebra student trying to explain advanced calculus.
Several people have explained to him why his entire precept is mistaken but he just wants to hear himself ramble on. Why waste time with further attempts.
Alternative facts are huge these days.

[asteroid]

Dancer's posits are fine - one just needs to remember that many millions of hands need to played to converge on the EV.














Most players could care less about VP math.  What's important to them is what they
believe to be true.  Personally, I believe the RNG is 100% random and the games are fair.  I
have seen some very strange things playing VP, but nothing that
convinced me they aren't. Personally, I think it's a good idea to question and I will never criticize anyone for doing so.   I can tell you from experience, doing battle with Mr. Dancer's methodology is futile.  It relies on three very simple tenets;  play overall positive games, play computer perfect and have an adequate bankroll to last through the downturns.  I have never seen anything that convinced me there was any flaw with this strategy.  He has said many times that anything can happen in the short term.  If a player's results aren't the same as the odds predict, it's because they didn't perform on one or more of the three main points listed above or they haven't played long enough.   I have no doubt if you set up a computer simulation with his parameters and ran it for a million years it would come out positive.I am not an advantage player because I lack two of the above requirements.  I positively know why I don't risk Dancer sized money playing VP... I would lose it.  Not because his strategy or the RNG is flawed, the problem is with me and I can accept that.  By the way, I can't play football like Tom Brady either.  There's probably math out there somewhere proving that's true, but I don't need to see it to accept it as fact.

[asteroid]

Please see New2vp's explanation which describes what the 95% means - basically it is a confidence interval based on the chi-square test with a type 1 error (p-value) of 5%.Math gurus, please weigh in.....