The Adventures of MDawg
Quote: Wellbushi didn't know you played BJ as well, MD.
from what you've mentioned, you seem to use positive progression with some card flow insights for baca. but i could be wrong. you don't have to elaborate.
i use negative progression, but i'll always be open to improvements and different styles
MDawg, you conveniently ignored this post along with others by Wellbush a fan of yours why? Do you not owe it, not only to him but to the entire board what you think of a negative progression style play?
Quote: sabreFrankly someone suggesting that flat betting blackjack or baccarat isn't the best option for many AP opportunities deserves absolute contumely for such an opinion.
It is my goal to quote and respond to every post that contains the word 'contumely'!
I think MDawg is really referring to non AP play. And in that case, varying your bets increases variance, which at the negative EV game of baccarat would increase your chance of a positive session. As a simple example, someone betting $1000 on player 50 times, and $1000 on banker 50 times probably wins that session 1/4 of the time? While someone betting $100 on player 40 times, and $4,600 on player 10 times, $100 on banker 40 times, and $4,600 on player 10 times wins that session 2/5 of the time? Non flat betting does increase your chance for a win.
Frankly, discussing MDawg's betting is a waste of time, as we do not know what AP move (if any) he is using. If he knows the next card is a 4, how much he should bet on banker is a conundrum, but if it is a 9 and MDawg knows it, its time for a big Player bet.
If you're saying that "sometimes" flat betting is the thing to do, then that already means that you vary your bet - which means, you are not flat betting.
And if nothing else, at least a few of us (including myself) now feel comfortable with using the word contumely.
Quote: MDawgOver all, what WellBush is getting at, isn't as simple as one would think.
On the one hand, yes, there has to be a REASON for betting more on one hand than the other. Mechanically varying the bet just to follow some kind of progression in a vacuum is not going to work over time.
On the other hand, in a game like Blackjack, there is no option to NOT bet, so obviously flat betting is not going to work either - and anyone who says that flat betting will work at Blackjack is not worthy of past, present or future consideration as to anything he or she might have to say. There are such lost souls.
The only conceivable way flat betting might work at Blackjack is if one player were at the table and then alerted another to pop in and jack the bet, but even then, effectively, that is not flat betting as the two players are working as a team and the introduction of the second player is just like increasing the over all bet.
Now in Baccarat, there is the option to not bet, so I suppose flat betting might work, if the same REASONing that were applied to when to bet more were applied to when to bet at all. And that's not to divulge what that reasoning might be. 😝
And then over all - in deference to Wellbush - even if there were no reason to increase the bet other than having won the hand before, still, if I win say 400 on one hand and then place 600 on the next, between the two I am risking 200 to win a thousand, and after I have won three hands in a row in a progression, there is no risk at all on pressing into the fourth hand. So even absent an edge which directs one to know whether one hand is higher probability than another in a table game, whether it be Blackjack or Baccarat, if you ever want even a chance of getting anywhere other than just grinding out a few bucks, or being eaten up by the house edge, you must vary your bet.
If you're too careful, your whole life can become a _____' grind.
You can't lose what you don't put in the middle.
But you can't win much either.
Quote: MDawgI'll answer with an illustration. During one of my recent sessions, this player plopped down at my table that I realized quite quickly was playing a Martingale, doubling on one side or the other. Didn't even have much a bankroll, just 1000. I had had them raise the minimum to 300 to keep others away, but this player actually started with a 300 bet, which was astonishing to me, given that the player had a mere 1000 bankroll.
I had cut the shoe, and for some time, bank or player never went past two. The player's stacks were rising steadily, and I commented that "if this shoe never goes past two, this one is going to make a fortune." I have had such shoes - where it almost never goes past 2 on either side, and in such shoes, I have made a ton of money, but not through any kind of Martingale, but by jacking the bet on the opposite side, every time one side or the other has gone exactly two. On such shoes I've actually just sat there not betting except after one side or the other has gone two. After I've won one such big hand, then two, then three, then what am I risking by trying it again? Nothing, as I am already far ahead, and it's uncanny how many shoes maintain such a pattern. But, most, do not maintain such a pattern for long, which is why my other techniques are called for in those situations.
For a while there - this player was doing better than I was! I was winning, but this player was winning more! I was still more observing the shoe than betting, but this player was cleaning up.
And then of course, the inevitable runs came, and I started cleaning up, and the Martingale player was wiped out.
Mechanically varying the bet without a reason just doesn't work, sometimes not even in the short term.
I mean, as you saw in the Wizard witnessed session, I am just as likely to LOWER my bet after a loss, as increase it. Just depends on a variety of factors.
Quote: MDawgI have a pretty big bankroll, and I don't Martingale. The idea of risking vast sums just to win a little seems absurd.
I suppose my play has demonstrated that l am not opposed to risking a lot to win a lot, but then, I haven't said anything too specific about what I am doing or why.
I actually got down twice, but came back both times. Once again, ended with a Player run, and lol once again didn't press as hard as I should have into it, but I cleared +6700 total, free handed some, bet lightly some hands to see if the shoe would resume its runs, didn't, so I stopped.
Played less than two shoes.
+6700
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.
People who don't tip, or who tip say - "five bucks" at the end of high dollar handle sessions, should be cautioned about the concept of horse whipping.
While I am not saying that anyone needs to tip to the extent I tip - I probably via dealer side bets that they win tip out about ten to fifteen grand every month I am in Vegas, still, just sitting there and not at least putting some red chips out there for the dealer to pick up on your own winning hands is behavior that should exact banishment, not just from casinos, but from the entire United States. Assuming you are playing as a known player, if you haven't gotten to the point where the entire dealer staff and all pit bosses are rooting for you, then something's wrong with you.
You want to be a George, there is nothing wrong with being known as a George.
And for those who think, wow, MDawg would be ahead an extra ten or fifteen grand a month if he didn't tip, not at all! I walk when I achieve a certain goal at each session. If I'm looking to walk with five grand, I wouldn't walk with 5250 if I did not tip out 250 during that session. The way I play, tipping does not affect my bottom line much, if at all, other than - I might achieve my goals a bit faster on each given session if I did not tip. But if I'm looking for a certain amount ahead, I walk when I reach that goal, and that's about it. I also don't tip on the way out - I tip pretty much only via dealer side bets that they receive only on hands that I win.
Casinos are fun. It's about having fun, while winning.
Sidenote:
Why does anyone respond to a certain poster from down under ?
OK, gotta take a break and go get the limo washed. It's so hard to find good help these days.
Quote: MDawgWhat I am saying and continue to say is that flat betting is NEVER optimum strategy, and anyone who espouses it should be discounted. (If not horse whipped.) What is flat betting? Always always always betting the same thing. What kind of table game player would advocate that?
If you're saying that "sometimes" flat betting is the thing to do, then that already means that you vary your bet - which means, you are not flat betting.
And if nothing else, at least a few of us (including myself) now feel comfortable with using the word contumely.
What about Don't Pass at Craps flat betting Table Minimum? The only better strategy than that is to never play Craps as no other strategy yields a lower $$$ amount expected loss.
Does it increase the probability of a profitable, "Session?" No. Does it minimize your expected loss? Kind of. It depends on the total amount in action, of course. 1,000 $5 bets will have an expected loss greater than 20 $200 bets.
Actually, what chance do you have of winning over time on a coin toss if all you do is flat bet?
Flat betting at a table game where you're able to determine up front that certain hands have more probability than others, is just plain stupid.
I actually don't think you'd disagree with the above? You're saying something different which I don't necessarily disagree with either.
Quote: MDawg
Flat betting at a table game where you're able to determine up front that certain hands have more probability than others, is just plain stupid.
I think you have just explained card counting in BJ.
What you HAVE NOT explained is betting in baccarat. Until you tell us what allows you to ascertain what makes the next hand more likely to be Player than Banker, or Vice-versa, your comments are of no value.
I am not even saying you should expose your advantage, if you actually have one, but until you do, no one will take you seriously here. Why should they?
Quote: MDawgActually, as someone else already pointed out, I think MDawg has been taken more seriously than anyone in the history of WOV.
Good point! But until you reveal your magic potion (which if you do have one you likely won’t!) it’s all ‘I have a secret and I’m not telling you! Na na na na na na!
You know I like you. Keep on posting the trip reports!
Masks are pretty much optional. I choose to retain mine for now. I just don't know if every person who is not wearing one is vaccinated and covid negative. One would hope, but, I don't know if that is absolutely the case.
My wife wears hers sometimes not always.
But anyway, now at least when you see a beautiful girl, you know she's beautiful, and not just hiding behind a...mask. Now some girls probably actually looked better as in more exotic behind a mask, but in any case, no more...masking.
Please explainQuote: MDawgFlat betting at a house advantage table game gives you no chance of winning. Varying your bet gives you some chance.
If you bet the same thing every time, that's resigning yourself to the highest probability outcome of neither winning nor losing. What is the point of that? If you vary your bet, you may lose or you may win depending on how often and how much you vary your bet, and how the higher wager coin tosses work out for you, but the probability of whatever outcome might result shifts away from no result at all. And I am talking about a series of bets that vary sufficiently such that they don't just cancel each other out.
The extreme example I gave was betting ten dollars on eight coin tosses and then one coin toss for a million.
In other words, flat bet and you'll probably win nothing. Vary your bet, and you might win something. What's the point of gaming anyway, if not to try to win something.
But the question then becomes: why even bother with the tiny bets? Instead just walk up to the table once per hour and make a huge bet....like 50x the bet you’d make if you were playing continuously. Same EV but about 7x the standard deviation (assuming a nearly even money game like BJ or Baccarat), giving you the chance to finish far above or far below EV. Even high house edge games can be beaten with high variance
Betting less to lose less is something I understand !Quote: TomGWhat other possible explanation could there be for someone to bet less as a way to win more?
Quote: MDawgFlat betting at a table game where you're able to determine up front that certain hands have more probability than others, is just plain stupid.
It depends on why one is playing in the first place. For a conservative player, who wants time on the game and minimize the damage in a bad session, flat betting is the way to go.
For the player who wants to increase his chances of walking away with a session profit, then mixing up the bet amount will accomplish that. The cost of that is losing more in a bad session.
Let's look at an example.
Player A: Flat bets 101 hands of $60.
Player B: Bets a random amount, uniformly distributed, from $10 to $110. The bet amount is randomized each of 101 hands.
Player C: Same as player B, except never repeats the same bet.
All three players will have the same expected loss. Player A will have the least chance of a session win. Player B will have the highest chance of a session win.
The flip side of that coin is the greater the chance of a session win, the greater the chance of losing more than twice the expected loss.
Quote: MDawgI used to play A LOT of Blackjack and I won at it very consistently, but did get flack from at least one of the major casino chains as a result of too many consistent relatively high dollar Blackjack winning trips. I switched to Baccarat primarily because I was banned from Blackjack at that chain, but then by the time the ban was lifted I was winning so much at Baccarat that I didn't have a lot of interest in returning to Blackjack, although I still do play some.
this is good to know. if, in the future, i experience the same rebuff from a casino, i know i can go elsewhere.
Quote: Mission146It's a fairly simple concept:
(Bet Amount * House Edge-Expressed as Decimal) = Expected Loss
The amount to the right of = will continue to grow and grow as more bets are made.
A game can have a house edge (of itself) and there might be circumstances/situations outside of the game on the felt that result in an advantage on the overall proposition, but no system or decisions when to play or, "Take a break," are in any way relevant to that.
The reason it is not possible is because any simulation that, "Allows for it," would be a flawed simulation. The reason that there would have to be a flaw in the simulation is because you can not sum up a bunch of losses (which would now be expressed as negative numbers) and end up with a positive number.
So, betting systems advocates have only three possibilities to believe:
1.) This system will change the House Edge into a player advantage. (You have denied that you believe this, I think)
2.) Math does not exist.
3.) Math does exist, but you CAN add up a bunch of negative numbers to create a positive one.
Whereas, non-advocates (or people who play systems for fun whilst understanding that no advantage is conveyed to the player) believe:
1.) Math exists. Because of math/systems, the distribution of results can be changed, but the math will always say that I am expected to lose.
thanks for your thorough, and simple, explanation 146. Again, i wish there was more of this at WOV, but i guess many are too proud to stoop down to simple explanations.
Re my reply to this post, it is coming. Sometimes it's better to spread things out a bit, lest too much heat be generated 😉.
Suffice to say at this stage that i think the following:
1. it seems the formula, from the way you described it for -ve expectation, is designed to produce a negative result. if that's true, i certainly agree that the result will always be -ve.
2. i don't think the formula, as you describe it, encompasses BJ appropriately. So my problem would not be with the results of the formula, but with the formula itself.
as mentioned, if you or anyone else wish to take me to task on this, i suggest it be held off, for now. it would be better served, i think, to wait for more of my posts coming down the pike 👍
Wizard's post is exactly in line with what I have been saying both lately, and for years, at WOV, which is that at typical 50-50 table games flat betting pretty much resigns you to no outcome, while varying the bet might result in a win.
Certainly if you re-examine the MDwawg Wizard verified session you will note that I won mid four figures and varied my bet from 200 - 3500. This is the sort of thing I do pretty much every session.
I also like the fact that the Wizard referred to the concept of "a bad session," which is as much to suggest that for whatever reason, variance, whatever, there are differences in sessions. Seriously, I mean if you give me a Baccarat shoe like the one I recently won eighty grand on, I don't even need an edge.
So. Options:-Quote: Wellbushas mentioned, if you or anyone else wish to take me to task on this, i suggest it be held off, for now. it would be better served, i think, to wait for more of my posts coming down the pike 👍
Waste our time replying now.
Waste our time waiting for and reading your follow up response and then... Waste even more time telling you how wrong you are.
Methinks we would be better served ignoring you. Just as you ignore every explanation of your continuing wrongness.
The formula is not designed to produce a negative expectation any more than the formula 1+1=2 is designed to give 2. It just does.
The formula is the explanation, the result and the conclusion all neatly wrapped up. You can play with it and transpose it if you wish, but you won't be able to redesign it in any way as to produce a positive expectation.
When you do design such a formula, really, don't bother to show it here. Just go take it to the casino and get rich. I won't hold my breath.
Quote: OnceDearSo. Options:-
Waste our time replying now.
Waste our time waiting for and reading your follow up response and then... Waste even more time telling you how wrong you are.
Methinks we would be better served ignoring you. Just as you ignore every explanation of your continuing wrongness.
The formula is not designed to produce a negative expectation any more than the formula 1+1=2 is designed to give 2. It just does.
The formula is the explanation, the result and the conclusion all neatly wrapped up. You can play with it and transpose it if you wish, but you won't be able to redesign it in any way as to produce a positive expectation.
When you do design such a formula, really, don't bother to show it here. Just go take it to the casino and get rich. I won't hold my breath.
Are you just showing that you're prone to frustration, with this post, OD?
Quote: OnceDear
When you do design such a formula, really, don't bother to show it here. Just go take it to the casino and get rich. I won't hold my breath.
Reading comprehension problem, OnceDear? Wellbush would have done that except he can't come up with the $2k needed to start smoking the casinos. If he only had that $2k stake he'd be on easy street already! I still propose that MDawg give the $2k from darkoz to Wellbush so that next year at this time Wellbush could be at the tables with MDawg!
I know I don't have what it takes to ever bet the stakes MDawg does, but I can't wait to read 'The adventures of Wellbush' detailing the continuing run of wins. Come on MDawg, help out the poor fellow. The $2k is nothing more than a rounding error on your tips this trip....!
That’s one shoe. However, over a long enough period, you will lose EXACTLY the house edge times the total amount you bet. Varying your bets will have no effect on that factQuote: MDawgSeriously, I mean if you give me a Baccarat shoe like the one I recently won eighty grand on, I don't even need an edge.
As a side note, flat betting isn’t boring as long as the amount is sufficient. For most people, $100 flat betting on BJ or baccarat will be exciting since your bankroll will vary by several thousand dollars over the course of a weekend.
Anyway, so here's what goes through my mind every morning. Given that I have a stack of chips in reserve, plus my line(s) plus winnings deposited, i.e. a fair chunk of the House's money - should I go for a big swing home run and risk more than usual today? But, most every time I go down there I end up being patient and figuring that slow and steady will win the race, especially given that the comps are flowing and no one has even hinted at the need to depart. Even a few grand a day over a month adds up. I'd like to make it minimum five grand a session though....
But then see there's the risk that the "bad session" to which the Wizard refers may pop up and eat up a few five grand winnings (or more!) in one swoop. The edge I have isn't there on every hand by any means, and even an edge doesn't guarantee a win, it's just an edge.
Ace2 in all the tens of thousands (if not more, I'm just tossing that estimate out there), of Baccarat sessions I have participated in / observed, I have observed only two flat bet bettors. It's just not done. Blackjack, yes, I'd say that many recreational players do something like a 1-3 spread, but even there I rarely see flat betting.
I think if you watch the average blackjack player, he'll bet a unit, if he wins, he presses, if he wins again, he presses again, once he loses he typically goes back to one unit. Every now and then he goes on tilt and chunks it out there. That's your typical blackjack player.
But your typical Baccarat player varies his bet wildly, sometimes from the getgo, which is why you see so many big wins or losses at Baccarat, that happen so quickly that they cannot be explained by the house edge alone.
Anyway, I don't want to talk anymore today about the house edge. The MDawg edge is what matters. Which will also not be discussed.
Quote: Ace2That’s one shoe. However, over a long enough period, you will lose EXACTLY the house edge times the total amount you bet. Varying your bets will have no effect on that fact
As a side note, flat betting isn’t boring as long as the amount is sufficient. For most people, $100 flat betting on BJ or baccarat will be exciting since your bankroll will vary by several thousand dollars over the course of a weekend.
Yes, true!.....according to the formula for -ve expected value. Unfortunately, i don't think that formula comes close to describing the variance happening for ALL gamblers! MDawg's gambling is but one example where -ve EV does not apply appropriately.
-EV does seem to apply for flat betting! pretty ridiculous kind of formula, isn't it?
Quote: JohnnyQBetting less to lose less is something I understand !
Just remember: The less you bet, the more you lose when you win!
Quote: WellbushMDawg's gambling is but one example where -ve EV does not apply appropriately.
I don't know what -ve EV is but I assure you the concept of expected value applies appropriately to MDawg's "play".
Furthermore, how on earth the math community use -EV to prove gambling is a loser's game, is beyond belief! i would say it's unconscionable that mathematicians have done such a thing. it is just so pathetic that they use such a simple and flawed formula, to describe losses in gambling! to me, it almost doesn't make sense that they've done this, because it's just so ridiculous!
i think history will show that there is but no other way to describe how pathetic -EV has been to formulate gambling losses, than how i've described it above! and let no-one be under any illusion, i will be making my case on this topic. the masses also need to be informed at how misinformed the math field have been! they, the masses, have a right to eventually cast absolute scorn on the field of math!
more to come!
Masks mandatory (thankfully), seats spaced out (red and gold unoccupied) (View from the Jack Daniels lounge.)
8000 in attendance.
We weren't in the casino's suite this time. Aren't actually staying at this particular casino at this particular moment, just...I got the phone call and one of my hosts gave us the tickets.
Front Row! right behind the team. And I got a hockey stick signed by one of the players.
Every Knights player apparently drinks the same flavor Gatorade.
Goal!
San Manuel is comin' to town, via da Palms.
ROTFLMAO!Quote: Wellbushi reckon it's only a matter of time before -EV gets thrown in the bin, where it belongs. it appears from my initial learnings into this subject, MDawg's (and many others) been right all along!
Furthermore, how on earth the math community use -EV to prove gambling is a losers game, is beyond belief! i would say it's unconscionable that mathematicians have done such a thing. it is just so pathetic that they use such a simple and flawed formula, to describe losses in gambling! to me, it almost doesn't make sense that they've done this, because it's just so ridiculous!
i think history will show that there is but no other way to describe how pathetic -EV has been to formulate gambling losses, than how i've described it above! and let no-one be under any illusion, i will be making my case on this topic. the masses also need to be informed at how misinformed the math field have been! they, the masses, have a right to eventually cast absolute scorn on the field of math!
more to come!
So, Wellbush, who's done some 'initial learning on the subject' is going to use this math orientated forum to make his expert case to expose to the masses the wrongness of mathematicians and their pathetic formulae and analyses.
History will show, with his great revelation, that all those math based casinos haven't actually made money every year, or rather that they shouldn't have, if only the gamblers hadn't been so misguided by those pathetic naysayer mathematicians. Those stupid casino customers should instead have followed the guiding star to MDawg and his disciples and they would collectively prove once and for all that casinos are their to hand out free money.
Maybe this revelation will destroy the industry. Maybe the uprising against math will proceed to disprove gravity and we will all float away. Let us all quake with fear. Maybe WellBush will p155 off some powerful mathematicians who'll retaliate by putting out a hit on him, or maybe they'll see the light ( or have they been deliberately misguiding us all these centuries ).
And it all started here. In the subforum where "All betting systems are worthless. However, for the mathematically challenged, here is a forum of your own."
Wellbush. By Wizard's definition of this subforum, and by your outpourings here, you seem to exemplify 'mathematically challenged' and you are IMHO, in exactly the right place.
Quote: OnceDearROTFLMAO!
So, Wellbush, who's done some 'initial learning on the subject' is going to use this math orientated forum to make his expert case to expose to the masses the wrongness of mathematicians and their pathetic formulae and analyses.
History will show, with his great revelation, that all those math based casinos haven't actually made money every year, or rather that they shouldn't have, if only the gamblers hadn't been so misguided by those pathetic naysayer mathematicians. Those stupid casino customers should instead have followed the guiding star to MDawg and his disciples and they would collectively prove once and for all that casinos are their to hand out free money.
Maybe this revelation will destroy the industry. Maybe the uprising against math will proceed to disprove gravity and we will all float away. Let us all quake with fear. Maybe WellBush will p155 off some powerful mathematicians who'll retaliate by putting out a hit on him, or maybe they'll see the light ( or have they been deliberately misguiding us all these centuries ).
And it all started here. In the subforum where "All betting systems are worthless. However, for the mathematically challenged, here is a forum of your own."
Wellbush. By Wizard's definition of this subforum, and by your outpourings here, you seem to exemplify 'mathematically challenged' and you are IMHO, in exactly the right place.
my reply will come. i just had another revelation!...what were you saying about word soup?
Quote: OnceDearROTFLMAO!
So, Wellbush, who's done some 'initial learning on the subject' is going to use this math orientated forum to make his expert case to expose to the masses the wrongness of mathematicians and their pathetic formulae and analyses.
History will show, with his great revelation, that all those math based casinos haven't actually made money every year, or rather that they shouldn't have, if only the gamblers hadn't been so misguided by those pathetic naysayer mathematicians. Those stupid casino customers should instead have followed the guiding star to MDawg and his disciples and they would collectively prove once and for all that casinos are their to hand out free money.
Maybe this revelation will destroy the industry. Maybe the uprising against math will proceed to disprove gravity and we will all float away. Let us all quake with fear. Maybe WellBush will p155 off some powerful mathematicians who'll retaliate by putting out a hit on him, or maybe they'll see the light ( or have they been deliberately misguiding us all these centuries ).
And it all started here. In the subforum where "All betting systems are worthless. However, for the mathematically challenged, here is a forum of your own."
Wellbush. By Wizard's definition of this subforum, and by your outpourings here, you seem to exemplify 'mathematically challenged' and you are IMHO, in exactly the right place.
Every time you post a serious response to Wellbush, a bell unrings and somewhere an angel loses its wings.
Quote: WizardIt depends on why one is playing in the first place. For a conservative player, who wants time on the game and minimize the damage in a bad session, flat betting is the way to go.
For the player who wants to increase his chances of walking away with a session profit, then mixing up the bet amount will accomplish that. The cost of that is losing more in a bad session.
If the reason someone was playing was to maximize profits over time, while playing with an advantage, changing bet amounts would limit how much they could win. They should flat bet whatever the table limit is, provided they had enough money to handle losses and they were not backed off. Is that correct?
Well way to go ONCEDEAR (and M146) ! But conversely, does a non-serious response to Wellbush earn an angel its wings ?Quote: unJonEvery time you post a serious response to Wellbush, a bell unrings and somewhere an angel loses its wings.
Fun pix, thx for postin'.Quote: MDawgFront Row! right behind the team. And I got a hockey stick signed by the goalie. Go Fleury!
Quote: WellbushYes, true!.....according to the formula for -ve expected value. Unfortunately, i don't think that formula comes close to describing the variance happening for ALL gamblers! MDawg's gambling is but one example where -ve EV does not apply appropriately.
-EV does seem to apply for flat betting! pretty ridiculous kind of formula, isn't it?
Just when I thought I was having some success explaining things to you...
If you sum up the total results of all players and divide by the total made in bets; the result will be the house edge. That's the negative expected value. Individual players will fall somewhere along a bell curve, which includes all players. Simulations will more-or-less encompass everything that is reasonably possible, which is even more likely to be true the more simulations you run.
For example, if you do simulations of 1,000,000 players all doing the same thing, then the player who performs the worst (loses all of his money the fastest) in that simulation would seem borderline unbelievable to you if it was reported by an individual person---and the same is the case for the player who experiences the most (relatively short-term) gains playing a -EV game and keeps his/her head above water the longest.
In other words, even if we assumed that NOTHING was afoot that might change MDawg's overall expectation on the proposition, (and he has directly said that at least one thing does---loss rebates) then MDawg's results would still be mathematically possible, albeit very unlikely, as he would still be on the very far right side of the bell curve.
Going back to the simulation of 1,000,000 players, not only does the math (even with negative expected value) allow for an MDawg to exist somewhere in there; the math basically demands it.
That's when you get into what are called standard deviations. Standard deviations basically just say, "This percentage of players are expected to be somewhere between -(number) and +(number) in terms of their individual results." The further out you go in standard deviations, the greater the percentage of players encompassed. The Wikipedia page is probably sufficient for your purposes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
Particularly relevant is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule
So, go ahead and start there.
Quote: Wellbushi reckon it's only a matter of time before -EV gets thrown in the bin, where it belongs. it appears from my initial learnings into this subject, MDawg's (and many others) been right all along!
Furthermore, how on earth the math community use -EV to prove gambling is a loser's game, is beyond belief! i would say it's unconscionable that mathematicians have done such a thing. it is just so pathetic that they use such a simple and flawed formula, to describe losses in gambling! to me, it almost doesn't make sense that they've done this, because it's just so ridiculous!
i think history will show that there is but no other way to describe how pathetic -EV has been to formulate gambling losses, than how i've described it above! and let no-one be under any illusion, i will be making my case on this topic. the masses also need to be informed at how misinformed the math field have been! they, the masses, have a right to eventually cast absolute scorn on the field of math!
more to come!
Okay, I'm officially done with you.
Not only do I believe you are not posting to discuss this in a, "Good faith," way...now I do not even think your posts rise to the level of, "Good faith trolling," if there can even be said to be such a thing.
Quote: OnceDearROTFLMAO!
So, Wellbush, who's done some 'initial learning on the subject' is going to use this math orientated forum to make his expert case to expose to the masses the wrongness of mathematicians and their pathetic formulae and analyses.
History will show, with his great revelation, that all those math based casinos haven't actually made money every year, or rather that they shouldn't have, if only the gamblers hadn't been so misguided by those pathetic naysayer mathematicians. Those stupid casino customers should instead have followed the guiding star to MDawg and his disciples and they would collectively prove once and for all that casinos are their to hand out free money.
Not even that, OnceDear. Don't blame mathematicians for the players being misguided. Many players (particularly those who believe that betting systems work) are losing despite our best efforts to help talk them out of doing so. If they had listened to us, then they would probably come to the conclusion that they shouldn't even be playing negative expectation games to begin with.
Quote:Maybe this revelation will destroy the industry. Maybe the uprising against math will proceed to disprove gravity and we will all float away. Let us all quake with fear. Maybe WellBush will p155 off some powerful mathematicians who'll retaliate by putting out a hit on him, or maybe they'll see the light ( or have they been deliberately misguiding us all these centuries ).
And it all started here. In the subforum where "All betting systems are worthless. However, for the mathematically challenged, here is a forum of your own."
Wellbush. By Wizard's definition of this subforum, and by your outpourings here, you seem to exemplify 'mathematically challenged' and you are IMHO, in exactly the right place.
Well, he can enjoy his time in this thread without my company. You're cool, MDawg, so don't take it as a slight against you---but I have officially opened this thread for the last time. I'm done.
Quote: Mission146Okay, I'm officially done with you.
Not only do I believe you are not posting to discuss this in a, "Good faith," way...now I do not even think your posts rise to the level of, "Good faith trolling," if there can even be said to be such a thing.
It is fascinating how management has allowed him to break the forum rules against trolling so frequently and so severely. I have my theories why.
Quote: TomGIt is fascinating how management has allowed him to break the forum rules against trolling so frequently and so severely. I have my theories why.
I mean if Wellbush isn't trolling then trolling doesn't exist.
Before going you had to register on this app called CLEAR and answer some coronavirus health related questions, and upload your ID and a picture of yourself, then show the clearance QR Code with your picture before entering the stadium. Of course, such "clearances" are only as good as the honesty of the person answering NO to all the pertinent questions. There is no question related to vaccination...several related to symptoms or contact with anyone who has come down with coronavirus.
I suppose the app could be used for contact tracing if something does spread from the event.
I believe the way they did it is to have a two seat minimum, and keep groups together.
Quote: Mission146
In other words, even if we assumed that NOTHING was afoot that might change MDawg's overall expectation on the proposition, (and he has directly said that at least one thing does---loss rebates) then MDawg's results would still be mathematically possible, albeit very unlikely, as he would still be on the very far right side of the bell curve.
Going back to the simulation of 1,000,000 players, not only does the math (even with negative expected value) allow for an MDawg to exist somewhere in there; the math basically demands it.
I have not had a losing trip since 2018. Before that I took a decade or so hiatus. Before the hiatus, I gambled more than three years, but the precise number of years is not important to your analysis because: back then, I didn't win every trip, although when I stopped, I was ahead over all. Back then, one trip where I won mid six figures, and several where I won low six figures helped a lot to push me me over the top.
I've gone over this more than once, and I appreciate the fact that at least one person is able to see that whatever I am doing is quite possible, which - it is not only possible, but the reality. It's been verified via casino win statements, and verified via an observed session that mirrors all the other sessions I have posted about. Multiple challenges have been posted to allow anyone who doubts MDawg to win vast sums by proving me to be liar, and yet no one has taken up any single challenge.
Let's face it, in the history of WOV, no one has been verified to any extent anywhere near the level to which I have been. As a matter of fact, no one has been verified at all. Except MDawg.
At this point anyone who doubts MDawg is doubting because of deep seated issues that have nothing to do with anything that may be cured easily. There are such unfortunates.
I'll just continue to do my thing, and post about it, and those who don't want to read it don't have to.
Quote: TomGIt is fascinating how management has allowed him to break the forum rules against trolling so frequently and so severely. I have my theories why.
yes, Tom, trolling's my game. Did i not spend a certain amount of time debunking you?
but you think i troll? doesn't make sense, does it?
