Stephen Paddock

[Eduardo]

Obsession is right. For some reason Dancer's detractors are more obsessed with him than the people who actually follow his articles. It can't be healthy.

Let's do a little experiment, Phil. You don't mention Bob Dancer once before the end of the year and we'll see how often people who "idolize" him bring him up.

[billryan]

When someone starts calling members evil for teaching poker classes, I think it is time for intervention.

[Webman]

While I don't think that's exactly what FloridaPhil was meaning to say, I do take issue with his ongoing rant about high limit play - which is primarily based on one thread about $5 play and ignores the accompanying warnings about engaging in such a practice if you cannot afford it.

"Teaching people that playing VP bigger is a necessary part of your strategy is evil."

What if playing bigger IS a necessary part of a person's strategy? Does highlighting that truth make it evil? If anything, it should be a warning that their strategy may not be for you. There are some situations where an advantage play is only possible at higher denominations. This is not an encouragement to play high stakes games if you cannot afford it. It is helpful information that you can take or leave, and most certainly SHOULD ignore it if you cannot afford the opportunity. This is the kind of information people come here for... telling people they should keep it to themselves and not speak about it does us all a disservice.

By all means, DO encourage people to play within their means. I believe even the experts do this. But you need to stop demonizing people who play differently than you and CAN afford it. People want to know about these opportunities and people have every right to share them.

Having said all that, in light of the current subject, it's a reminder that it's important for everyone to stay grounded when it comes to gambling. Do not bet more than you are prepared to lose. If you believe you may have a gambling problem or would like to find out whether you do, please click here for some resources.

[FloridaPhil]

Suppose I said I had a strategy that could make you money in the stock market? I told you I made a million dollars in 6 months with my system. I wrote a book showing you my strategy is based on math. I asked you to buy my book so you could learn how I did it. I told you I live a great lifestyle off my strategy. I have a radio show where I could talk about it some more. Would you wonder why I am selling books if I can make that kind of money just sitting at my desk?

You open my book and it tells you that only one in a million people are intelligent enough to make my strategy work. It says you must be willing to lose $30,000 a day with no guarantees and no time limit. Who gets the money you ask? A casino! Would you be skeptical?

I have no doubt there are a few people who make a nice living gambling. I see some of them playing live poker on TV. Have you ever noticed the faces of the winners keep changing? What happened to last year's winner or the year before that? Do any of these people ever go bankrupt waiting for math to make them rich? There is something fishy about an Advantage Play millionaire that is allowed to screw the casino for 20 years straight. If you don't think so, you aren't thinking.

[billryan]

Twenty years,eh?
Everyone knows you aren't much of a math guy, but South Point opened in 2005.

[FloridaPhil]

Twenty years,eh? Everyone knows you aren't much of a math guy, but South Point opened in 2005.

Is South Point the only casino in Las Vegas? I doubt he even plays there.

This post is not about my personal doubts about the effectiveness of Advantage Play. It's about Evil.
I have no problem with Advantage Play Strategy. I use parts of it myself and I have benefiting from it. It gives me more play for my money and makes me aware of comps. My problem is with the way it's marketed. It's marketed as a "can't lose long term" strategy. The extension of this assertion is because you can't lose, you should bet bigger to make more profit. To add credibility to the marketing, a celebrity was created that has achieved great wealth from this strategy. All kinds of math and complicated simulations are used to "prove" it works.

The sad fact is, it doesn't work that way for the majority of players. Why is this? Because people are not computers. They don't do the same thing all the time. They make errors in play and in judgement. The number of hands they play are different. The games are the not the same everywhere and comps vary. Even their playing lifespans are different. Out of a million video poker players, how many people live a nice lifestyle from the game? Why is it the person who makes this claim is the marketer of the strategy?

So what? Selling a few books is not evil. What's evil is encouraging people to gamble more or bigger because you can't lose. If you can't lose, why stop? If quarter play gets you free drinks, why not bet dollars, $5, $10 or even $100? The hero in the books bets hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars and look what he gets. Why not clean out your IRA, triple your rent money or use up all your dead husband's life insurance check?

There are huge holes in this strategy. First, positive VP games are nearly extinct. Second, very few people can play like a computer forever. And the biggest glitch of all. When the casino loses, they change the rules. If the guy in the book is living a great lifestyle off the casinos, he is doing it because the casinos want him to. What the casinos want is for players to believe it's possible. As long as Advantage Play "marketing" is successful, the casinos are happy.

Gambling for entertainment purposes is not evil. When you claim to live a great lifestyle based on a "can't lose" gambling strategy without limits, you are potentially harming people and families just to make a buck. That is evil.

[Webman]

I guess I was wrong... I admit, giving people the benefit of the doubt is a weakness at times.

I'm going to close this thread. There are a number of issues to address here, but we're clearly off the point of the original discussion, which is a sensitive one.

Phil, please re-read my post above. I don't make a point of "defending" Bob Dancer much on this forum because 1) I don't think he needs it and 2) He is a public figure and should expect some criticism. However I believe you've gone too far in this particular critique and you willingly overlook so much of what he teaches in order to make your point. In the future, if you want to make a characterization about him, please include a direct quote from one of his articles or another source so there is context for your statement. Repeatedly bashing him for things that are not accurate is not acceptable.

Again, re-read my post above. People have a right to post about high limit plays if they want to, and that should not be confused with encouraging people to make those plays if they cannot afford it. People should absolutely be aware of their personal limitations (bankroll, skill, or otherwise) so posting such reminders in a topic about high limit play is a great idea. However, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to demonize the person who brought it up. Bob Dancer has said specifically, many times, that high limit play is not a good idea for you or for many people. I'll leave it at that.