The Adventures of MDawg

Quote: MDawg

Anyway all the markers from Day 43 session were already paid off. With their money.

After all, I am paying you with your money.

Now I know you do not believe that one. You are in fact 68K in the hole.

Quote: darkoz

Why do you believe MDawg touches the cards?

Well, he has said that he does. No reason not to believe him.

I'm still curious as to whether these are preshuffled from the box.

I reckon either MDawg or Wizard could answer that without breaching any NDA

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/454/#post802674

Quote: MDawg

Day 22 play
One issue that occasionally recurred with at least one of the pit bosses is that I was being told to calm down when I was winning and not be so loud, and not throw the cards on the table. I literally threw some of the winning cards off the table a couple of times ...

Wizard is forbidden by confidentiality from making any further comments on what happened or did not happen during our observed session. Anyway, I've already said too much myself.

Quote: Wizard

For me, the Central Limit Theorem is all you need to know to prove betting systems not only can't work, they can't even dent the house edge.

As I've said before, neither does flat betting work. Getting back to my coin toss example, absent any house edge whatsoever, if you flat bet, over time you should win nothing. But if you vary your bet, you may win something, such as my example of 8 bets in a row betting ten bucks, and then betting one million on just one toss, the 9th toss. You might win a million, or you might not.

So it comes to, house edge or no house edge, whether you want to win anything at all, by not flat betting.

In Goodfellas and Bronx Tale, the wiseguys are clearly betting against each other, same as any street corner craps game. So why wouldn't every mobster always insist on playing the role of the House? I suppose there is no such option. Instead they just take opposing sides, some betting that the shooter will pass, some betting that he won't.

Quote: OnceDear

Well, he has said that he does. No reason not to believe him.

I'm sorry but that's selective reasoning.

For the last several pages you have said MDawg's statements can't be trusted

That MDawg may even be deceitful enough to fill the Wizard.

But when it comes to saying he touches the cards that's sufficient to suddenly have "No reason not to believe him"?

Anyway, it's interesting that MDawg says he won't discuss that aspect and neither can Wizard without giving up NDA privelige.

I would say the evidence is mounting imo

Quote: darkoz

Why do you believe MDawg touches the cards?

Simply being a high roller does not mean you automatically touch the cards.

Case in point:. Phil Ivey entire play was to go through a deck, rotate cards,
then have the exact same deck used. He was betting much higher than MDawg.

So your theory to protect MDawg holds zero weight

My theory to protect MDawg? Zero weight? LOL.

There are different variations in Baccarat.

In Midi Baccarat the cards are handled and revealed by the player
with the largest bet placed on either the player or banker wager.
In Mini Baccarat the dealer handles and reveals all cards.

The player chooses which variation he wants to play.

MDawg has consistently written about which game he plays,
he touches and reveals the cards if he is the high bettor.

Ivey needed the dealer to rotate the cards, and for the dealt cards
to be put back into the automatic shuffler in the orientation required
for the edge sorting to work for the next shoe.

That's why Ivey didn't touch the cards.

Wise up.

Quote: darkoz

it's interesting that MDawg says he won't discuss that aspect
and neither can Wizard without giving up NDA privelige.

Will you please wise up already.

MDawg has written from the beginning that he reveals the cards,
and he also recently wrote about a playing a shoe where another
player was the high bettor and "opened" the cards.

Quote: MDawg

Day 41 play

Interesting session. Played most of it with this other player who bet anywhere from 2000 - 20000, with most of his bets being 3000. As a result, I was not usually the high bettor (once I bet 7000, another time 5000) so this player had the option to open the cards pretty much at all times, although was willing to let me open too. Pretty easy going player.

Quote: coachbelly

Will you please wise up already.

MDawg has written from the beginning that he reveals the cards,
and he also recently wrote about a playing a shoe where another
player was the high bettor and "opened" the cards.

It's called misinformation.

He has you believing it pretty easily

Wise up!

What's a shame is that I can't post pictures or get into more specific entertaining or illustrative details in the trip reports, as I did in the prior years, because of a ne'er do well here and there who wants to use the info nefariously.

Quote: mwalz9

I do know this...

Unless you are cheating or lying, you were a victim to the house edge.

I don't care how rich you are, what you think you know, how good you are at guessing what cards are next, what streaks you think are happening or not happening, you play long enough, you WILL fall victim to the math!

Sure some days you will win big. Some days you will lose big. Some days you will win small. Some days you will lose small. Some days you will break even.

Play long enough, you'll see you are down approx. the house edge.

Leave it at that!

Yeah, you're right about the catastrophic losing streak. So let's look at it in a little more detail by way of example:

Joe Punter's an avid gambler, like MD, of all things! Joe is wealthy, like MD, of all things! Joe has $100,000 worth of capital at his disposal. But Joe's a smart gambler (like MD) and so he only wants to risk 10% of his capital at any one time. 10% of $100,000 = $10,000. So every time he goes to the casino, he only risks $10,000 of his $100,000 capital. Got it?

Because Joe's a smart gambler, he has a smart strategy for winning most of the time. In fact, he averages (including losses) $1,024 every time he goes to the casino. He knows this coz he keeps meticulous records.

However, as you mentioned, every 50 visits to the casino, on average, he experiences a catastrophic losing streak!!!

So for 49 visits X $1,024 = $51,200. And then we remove THE CATASTROPHIC LOSING STREAK!!! $51,200 - $10,000 = $41,200 profit, after approx. every 50 visits Joe makes to the casino! Jeez, he's a pretty clever guy this Joe!!!

But, hang on. I AM WRONG!! Well according to many here, I am. But how is the above math wrong? 🤷‍♂️

Now's your chance naysayers. Tear me apart with derision, but nothing of substance to debunk the above. Afterall, enough derision by the masses clearly proves the masses are correct, right? 🤔 Plus add on centuries of math knowledge to that (but don't mention lifetime gambling winners coz we know they're all fake, right?)

Leave it at that!

Quote: Wellbush

Yeah, you're right about the catastrophic losing streak. So let's look at it in a little more detail by way of example:

Joe Punter's an avid gambler, like MD, of all things! Joe is wealthy, like MD, of all things! Joe has $100,000 worth of capital at his disposal. But Joe's a smart gambler (like MD) and so he only wants to risk 10% of his capital at any one time. 10% of $100,000 = $10,000. So every time he goes to the casino, he only risks $10,000 of his $100,000 capital. Got it?

Because Joe's a smart gambler, he has a smart strategy for winning most of the time. In fact, he averages (including losses) $1,024 every time he goes to the casino. He knows this coz he keeps meticulous records.

However, as you mentioned, every 50 visits to the casino, on average, he experiences a catastrophic losing streak!!!

So for 49 visits X $1,024 = $51,200. And then we remove THE CATASTROPHIC LOSING STREAK!!! $51,200 - $10,000 = $41,200 profit, after approx. every 50 visits Joe makes to the casino! Jeez, he's a pretty clever guy this Joe!!!

But, hang on. I AM WRONG!! Well according to many here, I am. But how is the above math wrong? 🤷‍♂️

Now's your chance naysayers. Tear me apart with derision, but nothing of substance to debunk the above. Afterall, enough derision by the masses clearly proves the masses are correct, right? 🤔 Plus add on centuries of math knowledge to that (but don't mention lifetime gambling winners coz we know they're all fake, right?)

Leave it at that!

Do you actually know a single person (actually know personally, not on the internet) who has won 51 straight times?

Quote: Wellbush

But, hang on. I AM WRONG!! Well according to many here, I am. But how is the above math wrong? 🤷‍♂️

You are wrong. If Joe isn't playing with an edge then that catastrophic losing streak is going to greater than the sum of his wins. Adding negative numbers produces a negative number. Fact, not opinion.

Quote: OnceDear

Well, he has said that he does. No reason not to believe him.

I'm still curious as to whether these are preshuffled from the box.

I reckon either MDawg or Wizard could answer that without breaching any NDA

For the sake of argument let's assume the advantage is not shuffle tracking or a weak shuffle.

That could mean pre-shuffled cards that are improperly pre-shuffled.

It has occurred where a box of "pre-shuffled" cards was not pre-shuffled. The result was lots of money won in the Golden Nugget AC. The sequence is not easily seen but once it is it's easily predictable and the golden nugget players cleaned house (although they didn't win in court)

So for sake of argument, let's say it's not as egregious as no pre-shuffling but rather weak pre-shuffling.

It's almost guaranteed that humans are not doing the pre-shuffling manually at the factory. They would rely on shuffling machines.

So is it possible a particular company has machines that pre-shuffled in a weak manner such that deck after deck gives one an ability to come close to predicting streaks? It would not be 100% of the time but enough to give one an edge?

The cards are printed on sheets in the exact same order every time (4x16 sheets if I recall correctly), the sheets are cut, the joker's and extra company cards removed and pre-shuffling occurs. It's possible I suppose that some pre-shuffling flaw could have been identified.

If that's the case, MDawg would want to touch the cards as that would guarantee new pre-shuffled decks put into play with the flaw that he identified as the re-set.

It would be something that would appear to never be a cheat in the sense he would be playing to the Casinos concept that the decks were always being replaced so how could there be any shenanigans.

And because there are still some shuffling involved there would still be losing sessions. His advantage would be simply identification of patterns implicit in the flawed pre-shuffling process.

An easy way for the casino to foil this would be switching to a different pre-shuffling system, different manufacturer of the cards or even just doing there own shuffle and replacing the cards in the pack and resealing it (which as long as they just shuffled the cards shouldn't violate any gambling statutes)

Just some thoughts for the forum!

Quote: darkoz

I'm sorry but that's selective reasoning.

For the last several pages you have said MDawg's statements can't be trusted

I haven't got the hang of /s tags
Can any statement from an anonymous forum id be trusted. We cannot and will not call anyone a liar, but maybe we can fail to believe their every word.

Quote:

That MDawg may even be deceitful enough to fill the Wizard.

But when it comes to saying he touches the cards that's sufficient to suddenly have "No reason not to believe him"?

No reason to believe him either, I guess. It's just a courtesy, not an obligation.

Quote:

Anyway, it's interesting that MDawg says he won't discuss that aspect and neither can Wizard without giving up NDA privelige.

I would say the evidence is mounting imo

Maybe. Maybe the evidence itself is a deliberate misdirection.

Future session reports might be enlightening. Or not.

It's amazing this thread has survived as long as it has. Threading the line here: past history points to a losing progression into streaks. Loss rebates may explain some things; however, this is not what is being played. Difficult to mis-represent your losses when playing solo and without a team. Next we have the potential for poor shuffles.. Wynn is anal about their decks, so much so that each is logged, next MGM performs a one pass shuffle on a preshuffled deck... finally Venetian performs a multipass shuffle... nevermind Baccarat needs absolute precision, a 9 in one hand vs, another is catastrophic!

Finally, if we managed to find that elusive edge, why would we wager less than our historical average? IF, and a huge massive IF, someone was outside 3SD from expectation, cameras would be right up their tail, so much so that the dealers would be called into account. Marketing would overreact and freak- stripping incentives. We aren't so far removed from when Marketing removed comps from those wagering both Bank and Player fearing some unknown shenanigans.

Kudos to MDawg for providing (unreal) 500+ pages of entertainment, Kudos as well, for those who demand accountability in denying the feasibility of these claims. While there are always new tricks to learn, new angles to play, MDawg has nothing new to offer, a stale, selective memory accounting of a run defiant of the baseline math supporting it.

Duplicate.... gah

Quote: Wellbush

Yeah, you're right about the catastrophic losing streak. So let's look at it in a little more detail by way of example:

Joe Punter's an avid gambler, like MD, of all things! Joe is wealthy, like MD, of all things! Joe has $100,000 worth of capital at his disposal. But Joe's a smart gambler (like MD) and so he only wants to risk 10% of his capital at any one time. 10% of $100,000 = $10,000. So every time he goes to the casino, he only risks $10,000 of his $100,000 capital. Got it?

Because Joe's a smart gambler, he has a smart strategy for winning most of the time. In fact, he averages (including losses) $1,024 every time he goes to the casino. He knows this coz he keeps meticulous records.

However, as you mentioned, every 50 visits to the casino, on average, he experiences a catastrophic losing streak!!!

So for 49 visits X $1,024 = $51,200. And then we remove THE CATASTROPHIC LOSING STREAK!!! $51,200 - $10,000 = $41,200 profit, after approx. every 50 visits Joe makes to the casino! Jeez, he's a pretty clever guy this Joe!!!

But, hang on. I AM WRONG!! Well according to many here, I am. But how is the above math wrong? 🤷‍♂️

Now's your chance naysayers. Tear me apart with derision, but nothing of substance to debunk the above. Afterall, enough derision by the masses clearly proves the masses are correct, right? 🤔 Plus add on centuries of math knowledge to that (but don't mention lifetime gambling winners coz we know they're all fake, right?)

Leave it at that!

Wellbush, you cannot even make your own math example accurate. Here is why to quote you:

Quote: Wellbush

"Because Joe's a smart gambler, he has a smart strategy for winning most of the time. In fact, he averages (including losses) $1,024 every time he goes to the casino. He knows this coz he keeps meticulous records."

You tell us how Joe can average win $1024 every 50 visits " with $41200 proffit" that he goes to the casino with your below example? Key words you used are:
"(including losses)"

Quote: Wellbush

"So for 49 visits X $1,024 = $51,200. And then we remove THE CATASTROPHIC LOSING STREAK!!! $51,200 - $10,000 = $41,200 profit, after approx. every 50 visits Joe makes to the casino!!!!"

Quote: SOOPOO

This site lists dozens of examples how ‘the math’ shows how to win at gambling long term. BJ card counting. +EV video poker. Free play. Hole carding. Edge sorting. 1/2 point parlay cards. Arbitrage situations. Loss rebates. Bonus opportunities. Comp
Point multiplier days. Weak dealers. Slot/VP vulturing opportunities.

There have been members who knew as little as you who came with an open mind and chose to learn some or all of the above, and now do become long term winners. Some even make a living doing so. As the simplest example.... I now when I go to the casino start by scouring some slot/VP machines and on average win around $30-40 doing so. It is NOT difficult. By happenstance, I’m way ahead of that $30-40 figure because I got lucky on one of my trips and hit a multiplier royal flush. But ‘the math’ tells me what my average will be over the long term. I think you would benefit from an extra $30-40 a day if a casino is nearby?

The ways mentioned above seem kinda difficult to make any decent return. I mean if some gambler was seriously good at any of the above, would he not have to also play many other hands in-between the hands he was taking advantage on? So he's only winning on a select few hands, and trying to stay in the game on the majority of hands?

Far better for a player to have a legitimate strategy, in my book at least.

Quote: LVJackal

, MDawg has nothing new to offer, a stale, selective memory accounting of a run defiant of the baseline math supporting it.

This thread ain't stale to me. Plenty of controversy in-between the history making wins. If gravity defying constant wins against casinos is stale, what's exciting?

Quote: MDawg

Wizard is forbidden by confidentiality from making any further comments on what happened or did not happen during our observed session. Anyway, I've already said too much myself.

Quote: Wizard

For me, the Central Limit Theorem is all you need to know to prove betting systems not only can't work, they can't even dent the house edge.

As I've said before, neither does flat betting work. Getting back to my coin toss example, absent any house edge whatsoever, if you flat bet, over time you should win nothing. But if you vary your bet, you may win something, such as my example of 8 bets in a row betting ten bucks, and then betting one million on just one toss, the 9th toss. You might win a million, or you might not.

So it comes to, house edge or no house edge, whether you want to win anything at all, by not flat betting.

Dawg, why bet the previous 8 bets? Why not just bet your one million on the first hand. The odds don't change by waiting for the 9th bet. It is still 50/50 and a gamble.

Quote: Wellbush

But, hang on. I AM WRONG!! Well according to many here, I am. But how is the above math wrong? 🤷‍♂️

Here is where the math goes wrong: "However, as you mentioned, every 50 visits to the casino, on average, he experiences a catastrophic losing streak!!!"

Where does this "average" come from? If you can't show the math behind the way you came up with that number, it is almost certainly wrong.

If you are just going to make up numbers, why not just make it 1 in every 500 visits to the casino where he experiences a "catastrophic losing streak"? Or 1 in every 1,000,000?

Quote: Wellbush

The ways mentioned above seem kinda difficult to make any decent return. I mean if some gambler was seriously good at any of the above, would he not have to also play many other hands in-between the hands he was taking advantage on?

That is not true for some of the examples listed. In some of those examples, every bet made gives the player a positive expected value.

Quote: Wellbush

Far better for a player to have a legitimate strategy, in my book at least.

You have already demonstrated you are never going to every describe a strategy that does provide a legitimate positive expected value for the player. (same is true for MDawg). If you disagree, feel free to prove me wrong at any time. Talking about how the previous examples provide such a limited edge, but the word salad strategies that you come up does give an advantage to the player is trolling.

Quote: vegas

Dawg, why bet the previous 8 bets? Why not just bet your one million on the first hand. The odds don't change by waiting for the 9th bet. It is still 50/50 and a gamble.

Betting more than one hand is more realistically in line with what someone would do in a casino, albeit it's an extreme example to bet ten dollars eight times then a million on the ninth coin toss, still unless you're a desperate Texas real estate developer, you're going to place more than one bet.

Actually, even that guy apparently first won 777,777 on a single don't pass craps roll, returned a few years later, won 538,000 on one roll plus another 117,000 on three rolls, then a few months later LOST a million on one craps roll, and committed suicide a few months later.

Eventually (not necessarily on the day(s) of play), the session reports will continue, including that from that monster -68K losing session I worked a discount on the payback, and also got 6000 promo chips allegedly not because of that session, but because of my prior play. Which prior play, I couldn't say. Every time we leave one resort and move to another I assume they view that as a completed trip.

I tend to think that the recent loss had something to do with the 6000 promo chips, but this casino says it had nothing to do with it and that promo chips are issued only based on prior trips' action (in my case, prior theo loss).

What will happen (or has already happened) to those 6000 promo chips? I'll let you know in a day or so I think. 6000 is something at least. Not like 400 or 500 that just ends up disappearing quickly.

Yesterday (or maybe 😊 it was today), we went to Red Rock Canyon and hiked the TurtleHead Peak trail. 4.6 miles, although it seemed longer.

Before the trail started getting hard, we ran into an older couple who told us that it was "very taxing" and asked us how much water we had with us. We were pretty much just doing it as day hikers with a couple of small bottles of Fiji stuffed in my Tommy Bahama shorts along with some roll on sun block (no room for cell phone, don't like bringing a phone on short hikes anyway).

"Oh, no," one of them declared, "You need at least five liters of water to make that hike."

When they realized that we were going to do it notwithstanding their warnings, they handed us each a large bottle of Arrowhead water, and cautioned that the trail back was "scary at times" due to steepness.

We ended up going straight up the middle - right up the gully - which was definitely harder than the actual trail that we used on the way back. Somehow we lost the actual trail on the way up, and figured that the gully was a sort of shortcut. Going up the gully wasn't on the level of jumping from boulder to boulder in Humboldt's Basin, which I have done with a full backpack on, but it took at least some climbing and effort. It was actually pretty taxing, and near the top she wanted to just call it a day, but I figured we might as well go all the way around the Capitan looking rock to the end of the trail, and towards the end went up some side trail that I believe was called (painted on the side of a rock) "Juuka" or some such.

Along the way up and back there are a lot of white, green and red dots painted on the rocks. Maybe someone who has hiked this trail may comment on whether the colors mean anything? Are the red dots indicative of the more advanced route?

Views were quite fabulous (and the wind was definitely blowing, but not excessively) at the upper elevations.

Worthwhile experience, and it wasn't too hot either (seventies or so near the top, eighties near the bottom).

I have a pass for all federal parks, but I left it at home so we just made a reservation and paid the $17. online to enter. Wouldn't have even done it were it not for that I have been lately keeping my hiking boots in this particular car. She did it in running shoes.

She did yoga and breathing exercises at the two summits. This was definitely the road less traveled, as we saw only four other people the whole time up and down. I believe most of the visitors at this Red Rock Canyon spot opted for the adjacent 2.2 mile Calico Tanks trail.

Route was kept very clean - I liked that. One small plastic bottle was the only piece of trash I noticed along the way. One idiot had defecated in the gully and left a pile of that exposed along with some toilet paper. These are the idiots one reads about who have (or had) infested Lake Tahoe, who all need to be horse whipped.

Approach, driving in.


From the parking area before we started on foot.



Red Rock Canyon dust on my boots, post hike.


Post hike view from trail starting point again.


This was the trail we took, although we went up the hard way, straight up the gully, missing most of the trail on the way up.


View from a bit afar of the "El Capitan" that we climbed, driving on the way back.

Great Pix !

Quote: TomG

Here is where the math goes wrong: "However, as you mentioned, every 50 visits to the casino, on average, he experiences a catastrophic losing streak!!!"

Where does this "average" come from? If you can't show the math behind the way you came up with that number, it is almost certainly wrong.

If you are just going to make up numbers, why not just make it 1 in every 500 visits to the casino where he experiences a "catastrophic losing streak"? Or 1 in every 1,000,000?

Right. Yeh, because I'm not coming up with exact numbers, I don't have a point. Ok. You win.

Can you tell me, Tom, how often a catastrophic losing streak occurs?

Quote: TomG

That is not true for some of the examples listed. In some of those examples, every bet made gives the player a positive expected value.



You have already demonstrated you are never going to every describe a strategy that does provide a legitimate positive expected value for the player. (same is true for MDawg). If you disagree, feel free to prove me wrong at any time. Talking about how the previous examples provide such a limited edge, but the word salad strategies that you come up does give an advantage to the player is trolling.

I'm quite happy to answer all your queries, Tom, but WOV ain't. As soon as I do, OD (and many others) jumps down on me like a ton of bricks. So instead of a good solid discussion, I remain quiet, lest I'm nuked.

Quote: JohnnyQ

Great Pix !

Thanks!

If I had had even a small backpack or something to hold the water bottles, I would have brought along the phone for pics, but in general we prefer to just enjoy the scenery and hike itself without taking pictures along the way. Can get distracting.

Quote: Wellbush

Right. Yeh, because I'm not coming up with exact numbers, I don't have a point. Ok. You win.

When you make up numbers it doesn't matter how many significant digits there are. The numbers aren't exact, they're pulled out of thin air.

Day 44 play

Using the 6K in promo chips I was given (which were very nice chips...play 'til you lose), I managed to claw myself to +28K, but I was trying to win back more of what I dumped before, and due to a variety of new and old factors, just couldn't do it, and ended up dumping everything I was ahead. Paid off the markers and fled the table. +0 (minus commission actually).

Part of this is PLAYER FATIGUE I'm just not playing at my best. Part of this is due to new factors introduced by the casino that I now am able to perceive.

Talked it over with my wife and it's Time to go home. Ride out some of the comps earned, and leave while ahead.

Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.


I'm willing to present a side Challenge. If anyone doubts that any one, just any one of the Session reports I present during this trip is not entirely accurate, throw down a red flag! Put up a mere ten grand in cash, let's work out how to verify the Session to your satisfaction using the Wizard as the judge, and winner takes the twenty thousand.

I'll contribute five hundred from my end for the Wizard's time if the Challenger will do the same, so that's a net $19,000. to the winner of this side Challenge.

This Side Challenge remains good for the duration of this particular Vegas trip.

Quote: MDawg

Day 44 play

Using the 6K in promo chips I was given (which were very nice chips...play 'til you lose), I managed to claw myself to +28K, but I was trying to win back more of what I dumped before, and due to a variety of new and old factors, just couldn't do it, and ended up dumping everything I was ahead. Paid off the markers and fled the table. +0 (minus commission actually).

Part of this is PLAYER FATIGUE I'm just not playing at my best. Part of this is due to new factors introduced by the casino that I now am able to perceive.

Talked it over with my wife and it's Time to go home. Ride out some of the comps earned, and leave while ahead.

Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.


I'm willing to present a side Challenge. If anyone doubts that any one, just any one of the Session reports I present during this trip is not entirely accurate, throw down a red flag! Put up a mere ten grand in cash, let's work out how to verify the Session to your satisfaction using the Wizard as the judge, and winner takes the twenty thousand.

I'll contribute five hundred from my end for the Wizard's time if the Challenger will do the same, so that's a net $19,000. to the winner of this side Challenge.

This Side Challenge remains good for the duration of this particular Vegas trip.

Looks like the ol House Edge is finally sending him back to the Dawg House! 😜😜😜

It's interesting knowing that we could stay here for literally months without wagering a nickel, just moving around. But we'll probably leave within a couple of weeks. Without playing another dime.

It might not be the same situation at the other casinos, but, at this particular moment I don't have the desire to test it.

When I quit playing about a decade ago, I was still getting comp'ed years after stopping....

Quote: JohnnyQ

Great Pix !

Have you ever done that Turtlehead Peak hike? The day after your legs are sore, and this is coming from someone that works legs hard at the gym every four days. We did go straight up the gully which was harder than the regular trail, but regardless, it's not an easy hike.

One thing we kept trying to do was keep moving. At least until we got to the top. But seriously, that particular hike is very hard to keep moving constantly it is taxing.

I am wondering if that's one of the more strenuous public trail hikes in the Vegas area?

Quote: MDawg

Have you ever done that Turtlehead Peak hike?

One thing we kept trying to do was keep moving. At least until we got to the top. But seriously, that particular hike is very hard to keep moving constantly it is taxing.

I am wondering if that's one of the more strenuous public trail hikes in the Vegas area?

Congratulations on conquering Turtlehead! I have done that numerous times. So many that I'm bored with that one.

The most strenuous trail in the Vegas area is surely Mount Charleston. There are two main trails to the top, both about 4000 feet of elevation gain and 17 miles round trip.

Thanks!

Wow, 17 miles...yes.

TurtleHead peak: Wizard, have you ever gone straight up the gully? We didn't take the trail up - we went straight up the gully in the middle. I am not certain that that path is more difficult than the trail, because the only complete experience we had with the actual trail was on the way back - we kept to it on the way down - but on the way up we somehow lost track of the trail and reasoned that climbing up the gully was a shortcut. We rejoined the actual trail at a much higher elevation.

One trail we'd like to experience is the Trans Catalina Trail. 8600 feet in up and down, 38.5 miles long. However, the way we would do it is to have someone set up our camp for us and cook the food each evening. Somewhat wimpy yes, but that way don't need to carry a heavy backpack. There is someone in Catalina who does exactly that for the less adventurous hikers like us. Then the forty miles turns into more of three separate day hikes.

Great job on a winning trip . Sometimes player fatigue can be a negative factor. It's good to recognize it and just step back and regroup.
Were you able to take pictures of the monster losing shoes. I would be interesting to see what they look like. Congratulations on a successful and remarkable trip. A very interesting and entertaining read.

Thanks cwwbjr.

What also lulled me into a false sense of confidence was that in prior trips, including the last one, the day before we left was the peak of the winnings. This trip there have been at least a few ups and downs the past two weeks.

As well, even the last trip was "only" about 5 or 6 weeks. This one is now pushing two months, and will be a solid two months by the time we leave, and at some point I must have crossed the line to playing harder than the circumstances called for. Certainly, being ahead +28K and not walking is not usual for me, but that's exactly what I did last time.

Another thing that happened that last session was two players showed up. One was polite and asked permission to play at my table, which I told the player it wasn't my table but still, was nice that asked. This one bet big and stupidly but I just free handed those hands and watched that player lose everything quickly and leave. Then another player came in, drunken (at least he claimed to be drunken, although all he kept ordering was soda), betting just black chips, and somehow, on the hands where I needed to really lay it out there, this one was betting the wrong side time and again. Again, I didn't bite, I didn't bet with that player, but, those bets influenced me to free hand those bets where I really needed to lay it out there. I have high roller friends who would claim that both of these players were shills sent to get me. I don't buy that kind of conspiracy nonsense, but I can understand why larger players prefer reserved tables. What I should have done is as soon as the first player left, or after the second player briefly moved away from my table to a different one, had the minimum raised, to keep that one away. I kept mentioning to the second player why was betting against the runs, but kept saying, "I'm sorry, I'm drunk" and losing. Which the total sums that player was putting out there were nothing, shouldn't have even been at that table this one's bankroll was much too small.

Pictures of shoes - interesting request. It hasn't occurred to me to take pictures of shoes on which I lost. I have a number of pictures of shoes on which I won. I might post some of those at some point in the future.

Anyway, yes, it's a victory even though I ended up giving back a good chunk.

I've spent years and years in Vegas without playing a dime, so another week or so without playing is nothing new. Of course during that period all my credit lines were dormant, at this moment all open and clear.

Here's how that worked. At first, for the first year or so, I'd just book trips via hosts as usual, show up, and not play. Then by the second year, it was just offers that I received, I'd take those up and show up with a girlfriend, and not play. For between the third and fourth years, the offers were rare, but amazingly, they would still come in, and we'd just come in and, again, not play. The fifth year after no action, I had hosts who were friends who would just stick me in rooms occasionally and even sometimes small suites and somehow comp it off. One time I looked at the television screen in the room and there was some name on the room I didn't even recognize, lol.

After that, I still had host friends who would give me casino rate and knew by then that I wasn't going to play.

And the sort of action that happened recently is exactly what turned me off to gaming back then - the big swings. I still walked ahead from that period of play a decade or so ago, same as I'm walking ahead from this current trip, but I don't consider losing then winning back large sums to be fun. It's stressful. Yes, I am here to win but I'm also here to enjoy myself at the tables. Slipping back into lots of table limit and near table limit bets galore is not the way I want to be. A big bet here and there - okay. But piles of constant yellow chip bets is not the way to be, at least not for me. Win or lose, that's not what I consider fun.

Quote: MDawg

Ace2, I have owned the platinum Day Date 40mm for some time now (with the blue face). I have posted some pics of it in the past, including this one


recently.

The watch I was thinking of buying next is the Platina (Daytona platinum), which is what you and I were talking about I believe. I have not acquired that yet, but I recently acquired a Cartier tourbillon, actually I'm wearing it in that picture with the 12 cents in my palm, and a number of other watches, including a Breguet with an alarm feature in it, and a different watch with a perpetual calendar, and a few others. I actually went a little overboard recently with the watch buying. However, the only Rolex I have acquired recently was another one for my wife. She doesn't really care much about stuff like that, I am the watch hound, but I couldn't just keep buying only men's.

Ace2, as I unwind and do not head downstairs for play, I was looking into picking up that Platona (platinum Daytona) we talked about, with some of my winnings. Well, surprise! it would appear to take all of my winnings and more to buy one today, based on some of the asking prices anyway. The prices of some of the platinum and white gold Daytonas have gone up astronomically in the past, what is it, six to nine months?

Anyway when you and I talked this watch

could be had for sixty to seventy five K.

Today, basically DOUBLE that. There are sellers trying to get $175K for that watch! It's hard to find one under $110K.

It will have to wait. I think prices will drop. I can't see paying that much for that watch. But, it does speak to the increasing collectible value of some timepieces.

Quote: MDawg

Quote: MDawg

Ace2, I have owned the platinum Day Date 40mm for some time now (with the blue face). I have posted some pics of it in the past, including this one


recently.

The watch I was thinking of buying next is the Platina (Daytona platinum), which is what you and I were talking about I believe. I have not acquired that yet, but I recently acquired a Cartier tourbillon, actually I'm wearing it in that picture with the 12 cents in my palm, and a number of other watches, including a Breguet with an alarm feature in it, and a different watch with a perpetual calendar, and a few others. I actually went a little overboard recently with the watch buying. However, the only Rolex I have acquired recently was another one for my wife. She doesn't really care much about stuff like that, I am the watch hound, but I couldn't just keep buying only men's.

Ace2, as I unwind and do not head downstairs for play, I was looking into picking up that Platona (platinum Daytona) we talked about, with some of my winnings. Well, surprise! it would appear to take all of my winnings and more to buy one today, based on some of the asking prices anyway. The prices of some of the platinum and white gold Daytonas have gone up astronomically in the past, what is it, six to nine months?

Anyway when you and I talked this watch

could be had for sixty to seventy five K.

Today, basically DOUBLE that. There are sellers trying to get $175K for that watch! It's hard to find one under $110K.

It will have to wait. I think prices will drop. I can't see paying that much for that watch. But, it does speak to the increasing collectible value of some timepieces.

Honestly I wouldn't pay more than $50 for that watch.

It looks incredibly unimpressive.

I got chewing gum wrappers that look more exciting

How exciting does a bitcoin look? What does a bitcoin even look like?

Granted a bitcoin was - what 9K a year ago, and 56K today, but that watch was 60K a year ago and double that today. To some, the watch would represent a more solid investment....

Quote: MDawg

How exciting does a bitcoin look? What does a bitcoin even look like?

Granted a bitcoin was - what 9K a year ago, and 56K today, but that watch was 60K a year ago and double that today. To some, the watch would represent a more solid investment....

Well if I had to choose turning 9k into 56k vs 60k into 120k I will take the 9k option.

But I guess I don't buy watches to sell, I buy watches to tell time

As far as the intrinsic beauty of that platinum Daytona, it's just clean looking and solid. If you don't like it, maybe you don't like the Rolex DAYTONA at all, which is like saying you don't like the Porsche 911. The Rolex Daytona and the Porsche 911 have existed only slightly modified (in many respects) since...guess what...the same year. 1963.

I prefer something like that platinum Daytona, or something like my unadorned solid platinum 40mm Day Date, to many of the iced out watches or Richard Mille multi colored complications I see on some high rollers.

Porsche 1963


Porsche 2021


Rolex Daytona from 1963


Rolex Daytona from 2021


I have both of those Daytonas. The older one is worth a heck of a lot more than when it was new, and many times more than what I paid for it about 14 years ago. I also have the newest Daytona model, it's probably worth a little more than what I paid for it.

I have an air cooled Porsche from the 1990s that is worth more than what I paid for it, or at least as much.

A lot of things go up in value that another person might not like. Comic books too, right?

But these collector's items are also things of beauty in the eyes of the beholders.

Quote: MDawg

Porsche 1963


Porsche 2021


Rolex Daytona from 1963


Rolex Daytona from 2021


I have both of those Daytonas. The older one is worth a heck of a lot more than when it was new, and many times more than what I paid for it about 14 years ago. I also have the newest Daytona model, it's probably worth a little more than what I paid for it.

I have an air cooled Porsche from the 1990s that is worth more than what I paid for it, or at least as much.

A lot of things go up in value that another person might not like. Comic books too, right?

But these collector's items are also things of beauty in the eyes of the beholders.

I also utilize transportation that hasn't changed much since 1963

Still no one may deny that when you arrive in that you're pulling up in a superior machine that costs north of a half million dollars.

As many of us know, post Mandalay Bay 2017 Tragedy, the casino checks up on any room occupant who hasn't allowed housekeeping to enter in 48 hours. It is interesting to observe the differences in the ways it is done in the various resorts.

Some resorts send two security guards. Another sends one security guard and the hotel manager or assistant manager - that seems the more classy way to do it. Some enter the suite and walk around a bit, others just greet whoever answers the door and calls it a day. I liken the latter approach to how airline captains were greeting all passengers personally post 9/11 - have a sort of eyeball with you to make sure you don't seem hinky.