[vpFREE] Scot Krause's LVA Players Club Bonus Points Update - 13 MAY 2013

 

Scot Krause's LVA Players Club Bonus Points Update - 13 MAY 2013

http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/greatdeals-slotpromotions.cfm

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Radio Guest Wanted

 

Do TR and Mlife properties ever offer +EV vp situations? Just wondering because while it would be nice to hear about the two on your show, I can't see an edge unless you count comps.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@...> wrote:
>
> Someone has suggested that we have someone come on the radio and explain the differences between the Total Reward system and the MLife system. I personally know the TR system rather well but have no knowledge of the MLife system simply because I'm not welcome to play at their properties and so haven't learned the inside outs of the system.
>
> So if you are at least Seven Stars in the TR system and whatever is the highest level MLife and are willing to come on the radio --- under your real name or a pseudonym --- please send me an email at gamblingwithanedge@... --- including your phone number and the best time to call. I will call all of the "volunteers" and interview them over the phone to see who would make a suitable radio guest.
>
> We are interested in a successful player rather than a recreational player. Recreational players have their own valid reasons for preferring one slot club over another, but the show is geared towards winning players and most of our audience consists of at least wannabe winning players.
>
> Bob
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Illegality, immorality and cheating

 

I'm enjoying the car analogy, although the primary specific example I have does not deal with stealing of the car itself.

I once overheard a conversation that a car had been "broken into" and Christmas gifts stolen from it. The other end of the conversation was "was the car locked?", and the response was "well no, but..."

That occurred in a small town of 20,000, and about 30 years ago, where it was standard practice to leave a car unlocked, even with valuables in it, and reasonably expect no one to take anything. Certainly at that time no one living in a large city would have had that point of view, and probably nowhere in modern times.

Does the owner have a responsibility to lock their car? Yes. Does failing to do so make it OK for someone to take things out of the car? No. I'm expressing my personal opinions in the answers to these questions.

I know two people whose cars were stolen from private driveways where they were parked, unlocked, keys in the car, car running. I am of the opinion that the thefts were illegal, and I am also of the opinion that the owners should have taken reasonable precautions against the thefts and likely would not have been "crime victims" if they had not provided such an easy opportunity.

Bicycle thefts of unlocked bicycles fall into a similar situation. I feel like bicycles should be able to be left unattended and unlocked and be safe from theft, but I also think owners should lock their bikes to reduce the ease of theft.

We have had alarm systems on every home we've owned, and have had one or two break-ins initiated, but none actually resulting in entry - the alarm chased intruders away. In our first apartment, a four-unit townhouse, we installed floodlights on our corner of the building and a deadbolt lock on our front door. Every other unit in the building was broken into, but not ours.

In my opinion, the casinos need to make every possible effort to protect their games, and if they've taken reasonable precautions, should be able to go to the manufacturers for recourse if an error in construction / programming results in unanticipated losses -- unless the manufacturer has played the casino's game, by selling machines "subject to inspection by the owner and owner assurance of proper operation" or some such legal clause. The player may use strategies that work for the player.

Again, the specifics of the particular case may be so extreme as to create an exception -- I do tend to agree that getting an additional payout from a machine after a wager is completed and paid is probably over the line - certainly unethical, and illegality to be determined by how the law reads and is interpreted, and by the full facts of the particular case. I also agree that the casino needs to "lock" its "cars" to make theft more difficult.

While many / most of us might not take advantage of such an "opportunity" repeatedly, I wonder how many would report the very first time it happened if we stumbled onto it? A few have said they would do so, I think, but I do have to wonder.

--BG
==================

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (17)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Illegality, immorality and cheating

 

Weighing in on this discussion for the first time, and doing so (as are most of the others, I think) without first-hand knowledge of the facts of the situation - which are critically important.

(1) Illegality -- there are laws, and there are the facts of each case. Whether someone broke a particular law is determined by the facts that apply to that particular case, and often by interpretation of the wording of the law. Only if the facts of that case are not legally determined to differ from those of prior cases does precedent even apply, although the meaning of the wording of the law may have been established by precedent and/or a higher court in a previous case. So there may be (and most certainly are) laws that cover what we call "cheating" -- but whether a particular action is found to be illegal will be determined on the specifics of the case. And a good lawyer may be able to argue sufficiently well to cause the wording of the law to be interpreted in such a way, and the facts of the case to be viewed in such a way, as to get his/her client off.

(2) Immorality -- as indicated, is in the eyes of the beholder. Whether cheating requires intentional deception may even vary -- if someone is being introduced to a game and is told by his cheating friends "this is how we play it" -- and they proceed to describe a playing strategy that would usually be considered cheating -- the new player might play with that strategy with no intent of deception, but others might very well perceive that strategy as overt cheating.

In live poker, intentional deception is part of the game, and how well one deceives one's opponents may be a major determinant of how successful one may be -- but there are sometimes rules that apply -- for example, in the World Series of Poker events, it is against the rules to speak the truth about your hand to your opponent (a rule that many players find very odd). There are also more commonly applied rules about what one can do to deceive one's opponent, but intentional deception is most definitely an integral part of the game, and in most circumstances is anything but cheating.

In blackjack, if a dealer deals in such a way some / all of the time as to expose cards that are supposed to be dealt face-down, and a player sees these exposed cards some / all of the time, at what point is the player obliged to point this out to the casino - if at all? And is the player cheating on any specific such occurrence, even if they can't resist watching the dealer as he/she deals in order to see if they keep doing it (certainly the player is allowed to watch the dealer closely to assure that true dealing mistakes don't occur)?

Likewise, if the dealer mis-pays a bet, is the player obliged to point this out when it's in the player's favor? In the house's favor?

Personally, my attitude has always been that it's my responsibility to assure that the rules are observed when they serve me -- e.g., that the dealer does not UNDERpay me, or that a given machine is actually paying the amount that the paytable states it should pay for particular hands.

If, however, the dealer is over-paying me, it's my opinion that it's the responsibility of the casino to pick up on this -- that's why they have a pit boss watching the dealers, although most of them are not very vigilant at watching for dealer errors. And that's why they have technicians and others to check out machines.

The exceptions to this begin to occur when the casino posts "rules" - such as rules that a machine malfunction voids all pays, an often-seen phrase. At least here, the casino is beginning to tell us that if the machine is not working as intended, we can't make money off the malfunction. The grey area here, if any, is what constitutes a malfunction, of course, and that's for the courts to determine if it gets to that point, as you can usually be pretty sure that the player and the casino are not going to agree :)

To defend its own interests in cases of "malfunction" the casino often overtly states that it is the player's responsibility to assure that cards are "held" correctly in video poker, to the detriment of a fast player on a machine with sticky on less-than-optimally responsive buttons. While some casinos will review the tape to see if you really hit all five buttons when holding a dealt royal, and perhaps compensate for a sticky button problem, I'm sure some others will point to the posted rule about the player's responsibility. We've heard stories here about sticky button issues and how different casinos handle it - but I don't recall hearing the story on a royal, probably because everyone is very careful to check the "holds" before hitting "draw" on a royal.

--BG
==================

> 2b. Re: Illegality, immorality and cheating

....

> I think everyone will agree that cheating is wrong. However,
> even this with specific examples will have gray areas, but
> please let's start simple.
> Did these people cheat?
> Cheating requires intentional deception and yes what they
> did repeatedly was intentional, but the issue I have is the
> deception part. They were lying through omission to the
> manufacturer and casinos about the defective software (not
> an ATM glitch that occurs 1 in 5,000,000 times). This seems
> like a stretch that patrons are responsible for integrity
> reporting on the software code. I at least think that video
> poker is between player and machine regardless of
> manufacturer or location, so the person needs to be
> deceiving the machine. This is the crux of the issue. The
> software was doing exactly as it was programmed. This makes
> it similar to Mickey's example of a progressive reset to a
> much higher base or Bob's example of a much higher than is
> supposed to be comp rate for that game; however, in this
> instance far more money is involved and the defect was more
> difficult to find. Are any of these situations wrong, maybe.
> Are they cheating? I do not see how that can be the case.
> The software had a flaw in its programming these people did
> not cheat the machine.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (16)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Illegality, immorality and cheating

 



--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Slowpoke" <decca@...> wrote:
>
>
> A casino buys some machines that have buttons that occasionally come unstuck due to a programming glitch. The casino discovers the flaw but decides to leave the machines on the floor because only a few players will take the trouble to call a slot attendant to get a refund when the malfunction occurs.
>
> Is this cheating?
>

I would consider this cheating. In the help screen, I believe it tells you how to select your cards and draw replacements. If this glitch in effect does not allow you to select what cards you want to hold, it is in violation of the posted rules in the help screen and therefore would be cheating by definition.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (15)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Radio Guest Wanted

 

While most people here are interested in VP, could you ask if other games make a difference in choosing? I would also like to here if one is better to work your way up the ladder with.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@...> wrote:
>
> Someone has suggested that we have someone come on the radio and explain the differences between the Total Reward system and the MLife system. I personally know the TR system rather well but have no knowledge of the MLife system simply because I'm not welcome to play at their properties and so haven't learned the inside outs of the system.
>
> So if you are at least Seven Stars in the TR system and whatever is the highest level MLife and are willing to come on the radio --- under your real name or a pseudonym --- please send me an email at gamblingwithanedge@... --- including your phone number and the best time to call. I will call all of the "volunteers" and interview them over the phone to see who would make a suitable radio guest.
>
> We are interested in a successful player rather than a recreational player. Recreational players have their own valid reasons for preferring one slot club over another, but the show is geared towards winning players and most of our audience consists of at least wannabe winning players.
>
> Bob
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Illegality, immorality and cheating

 

Please forgive an awkward attempt to invoke a little irony for having obscured my true take here ...

I simply marvel how some find that in essentially having been invited to game, players feel they should be free to walk with whatever they can grab onto, by most any means short of outright deception.

I might have a little empathy if the players didn't have any suspicion that they were engaged in behavior that wouldn't be condoned by the casino (or were at least willing to stand behind that behavior and confront any consequence).

But when the reaction to a machine malfunction is, "Oh f***!", and they abandon the machine with credits on the meter, all bets are off.

- H.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "seedub49" <seedub49@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, but the "car thief" analogy fails on a key aspect: lack of invitation ...
> >
> > The car thief has tampered with/hotwired the vehicle -- clearly accessing the vehicle in a manner that isn't normally permitted.
> >
>
> Manipulating a machine to pay you on bets you never placed is also using it "in a manner that isn't normally permitted."
>
> And regarding someone not returning a car that they took for a test drive, I would have to guess that by breaking the contract terms in which the car was loaned to them, they would also be facing criminal charges of theft.
>

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (14)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Bob Dancer Divorce Column Discussion - Moved to FREEvpFREE

 

Please use private email or FREEvpFREE for any further
discussion about Bob Dancer's Divorce Column.

FREEvpFREE:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/">
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/</a>

Messages can be read on FREEvpFREE without becoming a member,
but you must be a member to post.

vpFREE Administrator

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Illegality, immorality and cheating

 



--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but the "car thief" analogy fails on a key aspect: lack of invitation ...
>
> The car thief has tampered with/hotwired the vehicle -- clearly accessing the vehicle in a manner that isn't normally permitted.
>

Manipulating a machine to pay you on bets you never placed is also using it "in a manner that isn't normally permitted."

And regarding someone not returning a car that they took for a test drive, I would have to guess that by breaking the contract terms in which the car was loaned to them, they would also be facing criminal charges of theft.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (13)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: Who The Real Sicko Gamblers Are

 

I made a post here that was pro-Dancer. Or, at least, it was not
anti-Dancer. I actually thought that my post was primarily pragmatic. I am friends
with many, many well-known people and some, those who are authors, well-read
people on the player's side of the table/machines in this business. Rob
Singer is not one of them. I don't know Rob. Nobody that I associate with, on
a business or on a personal level, associates with Rob. I have never met
Rob. From what I used to read in the past, in old Gaming Today articles, and
from what I have read here online, I never want to meet Rob. Certainly, he
is entitled to his opinion, just as I am to my opinion and my preferences.

After making the above-referenced post, this man that I have never had
contact with, Rob Singer, decided that he should write to me personally to
criticize Bob Dancer. What he wrote to me and what my cordial, yet sarcastic,
response was is below. Interestingly enough, after my response, Rob Singer
has not written to me again. However, I believe that after making this post
there is a 99.5% chance that Mr. Singer will respond to me, either publicly
on this forum, privately via my personal E-mail, or both. But having a
response from him is not the point, or the desired purpose, of my post. Such a
response would simply only be an unwanted, uncontrollable byproduct. My
point is to concur with Mr. Dancer.

My post, followed by Mr. Singer's words to me followed by my response to
him

What is wrong with some of you people?

1) For those that ask, "What happened to those vows "in sickness and in
health?", this seems like a mutual decision. The article stated "even
showering immediately after I came home wasn't good enough." This is a persons,
Shirley, whom I know personally, health and life we are talking about here.
As a conclusion after reading the Dancer article, this seems like the
logical best move for both parties involved.

2) For those of you that want to counter with "I don't know why Dancer
chose to share this slice of his private life, but I wish he hadn't",
wonderful, but what is written is written and your wish has, is and will not be
granted. It is likely not easy to write a weekly column. Especially not when
one is going through such stress and anguish in a life and death situation.
Dancer can write what he wants to. That is a right that Bob has earned
based on the works that he has accomplished in his career. I doubt any of you
will not dare to read his columns in the future for fear that you wished
that you had never "opened the envelope"..

Everything Dancer writes is only to build up his own brand. Why Curtis
promoted and highlighted letting him make a fool of himself is the real
question.

It's obvious COPD was just his excuse for their constant arguments over
money--and his gambling addiction--as an explanation for divorce. No human
being, esp. one so public, would ever say he's divorcing because he has a
sickly wife and he chooses playing video poker over helping her. But, in the
overall scheme of things, to him it's better to be ridiculed for that than
to let everyone know what's really going on. Arrogance--and ignorance--at
its finest.

Dear Mr. Singer,

Thank you for the personal reply. Actually, I am honored. I understand
that you are equally recognized in the literary gambling world as I have seen
your name associated with articles in the past in Gaming Today.

I have no idea if your hypothesis is factual. It is, at least, opinion. I
think that all people in "the field", including yourself, strive for their
own build up. At least that is the impression that I got about you from
back when I used to read your articles. I equated them to what I may read from
an author such as Doug Grant or Jerry Patterson in the blackjack world.
However, regardless, I harbor no ill will to you nor anyone who tries to make
a living. Some people sell vegetables at the market and have to make their
vegetables more marketable, for example.

From what you state, you seem to know more about Bob and Shirley's
personal lives, both independently and well as together, than I do and I have no
reason to attempt to confirm or deny your claims.

Again, thank you for the personal reply.

In a message dated 5/13/2013 9:55:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bobdancervp@hotmail.com writes:

I assume the person you are describing in these posts
is Rob Singer. If not, please correct me.

Rob has made a career out of writing anti-Dancer's-methods
posts and articles. I sometimes think that he really believes the ignorant
X%$#^%$@
he dishes out. I sometimes think that he loves to stir up controversy. I
often
think that he has some sort of chemical imbalance and sometimes he thinks
one
way and sometimes the other.

He's sent me some private posts as well. One time he berated
me very negatively and personally for changing co-hosts away from Frank
Kneeland. (For the record, about 10% of the people who have talked about
this
to me prefer Frank over Richard Munchkin and about 90% prefer Munchkin. It'
s
okay to be on either side of those percentages. People prefer different
things.
But writing an email repeatedly insulting me on the subject is not
something to
completely ignore.) On a later occasion Rob wrote and suggested we
publicly be
friends. I declined. As I said, a chemical imbalance could explain the
about
face. I can't think of anything else.

I appreciate your public support, Mickey. Several others on
this site have posted publicly or sent private messages offering best
wishes
and told me not to let the idiots on this site get me down. I thank these
people as well.

I'm actually used to ignoring the posts from some of the
people here. However badly I've been chastised in the past week over my
recent
divorce, it would have been 10 times worse if I didn't post something to
that
effect and people starting seeing me with a girlfriend. Some suggested a
paragraph about the subject would have been better than an article.
Perhaps. I
disagree and anyway it's too late to go back and re-do it. I suspect even a
paragraph would have been enough to get the anti-Dancer folks here just as
rabid as the article did.

Those who suggested that I threw Shirley away without
fighting as hard as I could to keep her are very much mistaken. Those who
suggested that Bonnie was a girlfriend WHILE I was married are also
mistaken. I
took my marriage vows seriously and kept them and last November would have
bet
anyone any amount that Shirley and I would be together as long as we were
both
alive. In December my world fell apart completely out of the blue.

Whether you're the type of person who prefers to kick me
while I'm down or wish me well in getting my life together again says a lot
more about you than it does about me. The fact that Rob is choosing to be
one
of the leaders of the kickers should surprise nobody here.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (9)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: Who The Real Sicko Gamblers Are

 

This forum should not be used for lies and personal attacks against me or anyone else.

Thank you.

_____________________________________

"Bob Dancer" wrote:

I assume the person you are describing in these posts
is Rob Singer. If not, please correct me.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)