The Adventures of MDawg
Quote: darkozI'm bumping this for Marcus for the last time and will send him a PM with the Link since he seems unable to even address this.
It's probably enough for him to simply BELIEVE in Santa Claus; he need not strain his brain trying to figure out and explain how Santa stuffs all that crap down the chimneys.
It has been suggested multiple times that the thread or subforum be given a lower profile.Quote: redietzIt's the flagship thread. It's the face of the forum and has been for a year.
Which administrator? Not me. I'm not the owner or administrator that you speak of.Quote:The only Ockham's Razor explanation is that it's because it's what the owners and administrator want as the face of the forum.
The rules have been written, explained and backed up by precedents. My wishes and opinions have been made clear enough.Quote:It's not like the "Rules of the Forum" exist apart from the wishes of the owners and administrators.
Apology accepted. Would you have administrators and moderators each apply his own, disparate interpretation of the rules? We get challenged when inconsistent.Quote:That's what makes me chuckle. The rules get quoted (sorry, Oncedear, but you're part of this) as if they're laws of nature handed down from The Eternals. That's a convenient and false copout. The rules are whatever the owners and administrators want them to be.
Well, maybe. But AIUI, wizard would just say something like "don't read the threads you don't like"Quote:Just skip all the debate and rename the place "The Dawg Pound."
That would actually be a great name for a site devoted to debunking MDawg and MarcusClark and Wellbush. I bet I could find some folks who might be interested in providing content.
Quote: darkozAre you claiming Wizard has verified that MDawg wins without an advantage using just intuition and luck and some type of progessive betting system?
If Coachbelly or Marcus or even Wellbush believe the answer to the above is a yes, then please say so.
Here's an idea...ask Wizard if MDawg played with or without an advantage when he witnessed the session.
I don't believe that's ever been clearly established.
Stipulating that reports of watching MDawg win is equivalent to verifying that MDawg wins, then Wizard has certainly verified that MDawg wins.
I can't find a post where Wizard rules out that MDawg wins without playing with an advantage.
I also can't find Wizard's post asserting that MDawg plays with an advantage.
But if the player referenced in the quote below is MDawg, then yes the Wizard is conceding that MDawg could have won without an advantage using just intuition and luck and some type of progessive betting system.
Quote: WizardIf a player claims to consistently beat the game straight up, without some form of advantage play, then I would assume one of the following to be the case:
- The player has a very large bankroll compared to his winning goals and hasn't reached the "long term" yet.
- The player has been, what most people would call, "lucky." I would say his overall results have are well on the right side of the bell curve, thus far.
It's not clear to me what this passage means "I would say his overall results have are well on the right side of the bell curve, thus far."
I don't know if Wizard is commenting on MDawg specifically, or a generic player.
I’m working on an article that should be published tomorrow, or the next day, called, “Betting Systems and Alcoholism”.
The subtitle is, “The Madness Behind the Method”.
Anyway, I shall appear in this thread from time to time to say a few words on Betting Systems and drop a link to my article.
In advance, I will not be responding to posts, questions or commentary from either MarcusClark66 or Wellbush, so save yourself the typing.
Are you implying that MD or his supporters might be alcoholics?
Or maybe drug addicts?
Perhaps a coven of Wiccans?
Quote: MrVInteresting.
Are you implying that MD or his supporters might be alcoholics?
Or maybe drug addicts?
Perhaps a coven of Wiccans?
I'm implying nothing of the sort, thank you. It's just comparing the pursuit of betting systems (and gambling addiction, in general) to alcoholism.
I'm not going to spell too much out or it will ruin the article. On a scale of 0-10, I rate my article as, "Doesn't suck."
Quote: coachbellyQuote: darkozAre you claiming Wizard has verified that MDawg wins without an advantage using just intuition and luck and some type of progessive betting system?
If Coachbelly or Marcus or even Wellbush believe the answer to the above is a yes, then please say so.
Here's an idea...ask Wizard if MDawg played with or without an advantage when he witnessed the session.
I don't believe that's ever been clearly established.
Stipulating that reports of watching MDawg win is equivalent to verifying that MDawg wins, then Wizard has certainly verified that MDawg wins.
I can't find a post where Wizard rules out that MDawg wins without playing with an advantage.
I also can't find Wizard's post asserting that MDawg plays with an advantage.
But if the player referenced in the quote below is MDawg, then yes the Wizard is conceding that MDawg could have won without an advantage using just intuition and luck and some type of progessive betting system.Quote: WizardIf a player claims to consistently beat the game straight up, without some form of advantage play, then I would assume one of the following to be the case:
- The player has a very large bankroll compared to his winning goals and hasn't reached the "long term" yet.
- The player has been, what most people would call, "lucky." I would say his overall results have are well on the right side of the bell curve, thus far.
It's not clear to me what this passage means "I would say his overall results have are well on the right side of the bell curve, thus far."
I don't know if Wizard is commenting on MDawg specifically, or a generic player.
This post for joke of the year.
Here's an idea.
Why don't you read the post where I directly asked Wizard if watching MDawg made him believe winning without an advantage was possible and read Wizard post where he said no.
BTW, Wizard said no twice in two separate posts
Marcus Clark
Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66
Professional Casino Security Expert
Certified Company Firearms Instructor
Tic-Tac-Toe Expert & Mastering Chess
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club
Quote: darkozI'm bumping this for Marcus for the last time and will send him a PM with the Link since he seems unable to even address this.
This is the simplest yes or no question
I already know the answer is a resounding no.
If Coachbelly or Marcus or even Wellbush believe the answer to the above is a yes, then please say so.
EDIT: Marcus has been PM'd with a link to this direct post
I am claiming that The Wizard has graciously and very time consuming verified what he chose to verify and I do not doubt anything Mr. WIzard has said. I take everything that The Wizard said to be the absolute truth and nothing but the truth. I also take everything that the Great MDawg has said to be accurate and factual possibly a little bit exaggerated a tad bit when he is hyped up on a good sized win, but then again I think the majority of us would be.
I do not challenge and I do not interpret what Mr. Wizard has said but again I'm taking it for the absolute truth in the verification of several types that The Wizard has posted regarding MDawgs play and wins.
Marcus Clark
Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66
Professional Casino Security Expert
Certified Company Firearms Instructor
Tic-Tac-Toe Expert & Mastering Chess
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club
Quote: Marcusclark66To me a win is a win and doesn't matter if it's with an advantage or not. Subconsciously I'm playing with an advantage and if that is better than I will have an advantage, however if I cannot define if it's an advantage or not it really doesn't matter as long as I win. Do you know why? The money spends exactly the same that's why!
Marcus Clark
Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66
Professional Casino Security Expert
Certified Company Firearms Instructor
Tic-Tac-Toe Expert & Mastering Chess
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club
(Bold Added to Quote for Emphasis)
Funny thing about that, the casinos feel the same way.
Mission146
Real Person; AKA Brandon James
Compensated to Write About Gambling
Widely Considered as Having Knowledge About Gambling Math
Former University, 'Quarters,' Champion (Please Ignore that I was Only Playing Myself)
Honorary and Official #1 Fan of Tamarillos-U.S. East Chapter-Post #1255
Great Respect for The Wizard & MDawg
Marcus Clark
Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66
Professional Casino Security Expert
Certified Company Firearms Instructor
Tic-Tac-Toe Expert & Mastering Chess
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club
Quote: Marcusclark66Why do you doubt what The Wizard has said and written, and what The Wizard has previously verified Mr Mission 146??????
Great Respect for The Wizard & MDawg
Marcus Clark
Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66
Professional Casino Security Expert
Certified Company Firearms Instructor
Tic-Tac-Toe Expert & Mastering Chess
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club
Don't call me mister, mister. At what point did I express any doubt in what Wizard said, wrote and verified?
Great Respect for Wizard and Gambling Math
Mission146
Real Person; AKA Brandon James
Professional Copenhagen Pouches Chewer
Certified Long-Distance Tobacco Spitter (Not really, I use a cup or bottle almost always)
Likely to Become an Expert on Mouth Cancer by the Age of 70
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of Copenhagen Mint Pouches
Favorite Color is Either Orange or Forest Green
Has a List of 25 Criminally Underrated Bands (Deep Blue Something is #1)
Quote: darkozWhy don't you read the post where I directly asked Wizard if watching MDawg made him believe winning without an advantage was possible and read Wizard post where he said no.
Is this the question that you reference above?
Quote: darkozWithout giving any details away, was the method of play used by MDawg a long-term winning system from your opinion as a math expert?
I.E. does it appear MDawg can consistently overcome the -EV of Baccarat?
Frankly, the entire thread is built off a claim, a claim that IMO cannot be verified as true.
Enjoy your play. Other than an ego boost…I doubt this thread exists or is ever started. The relevance is it trip reports, pictures, Vegas hotels, anecdotes. Beyond that…the claims are the equivalent of who has the best looking spouse.
Quote: TDVegasThe ONLY thing that is going to be proven if Wizard watches MDawg play baccarat….is that he either wins or loses the session.
The current dispute is whether or not MDawg is "Wizard verified", and what that means.
Stipulating that reports of watching MDawg win is equivalent to verifying that MDawg wins, then has Wizard verified that MDawg wins?
If naysayers are doubting he wins, then I'd say the naysayers are the ones being impossible!
If naysayers are q how he wins, then I don't think MD should have to be exacting. Why would anyone want to give away their winning secret? Because they're a fraud? No. Because they've got a winning strategy that they've earned off their own bat, and don't want to put it on a platter just to 'shut up' eternal naysayers.
I don't think it's realistic that eternal naysayers will ever concede that anyone can beat the house. This website has proven that!
Quote: WellbushMDawg's done everything possible to prove he can beat the casinos over the long term. I don't think he's stated exactly how, although he's alluded to progression strategy and knowing the flow of the game of baccarat.
If naysayers are doubting he wins, then I'd say the naysayers are the ones being impossible!
If naysayers are q how he wins, then I don't think MD should have to be exacting. Why would anyone want to give away their winning secret? Because they're a fraud? No. Because they've got a winning strategy that they've earned off their own bat, and don't want to put it on a platter just to 'shut up' eternal naysayers.
It’s a negative expectation game and he’s outlined nothing but gambler fallacy and what I would term “voodoo” rationalizations for beating the game.
Believe whatever you want.
Quote: coachbellyThe current dispute is whether or not MDawg is "Wizard verified", and what that means.
Stipulating that reports of watching MDawg win is equivalent to verifying that MDawg wins, then has Wizard verified that MDawg wins?
If that's all it takes I stipulate that all slot machine players are winners.
I see everyone at slots winning. Usually they wager $5 on a spin and then get all types of hyperactive bells and whistles when they win $4!
Quote: WellbushMDawg's done everything possible to prove he can beat the casinos over the long term. I don't think he's stated exactly how, although he's alluded to progression strategy and knowing the flow of the game of baccarat.
If naysayers are doubting he wins, then I'd say the naysayers are the ones being impossible!
If naysayers are q how he wins, then I don't think MD should have to be exacting. Why would anyone want to give away their winning secret? Because they're a fraud? No. Because they've got a winning strategy that they've earned off their own bat, and don't want to put it on a platter just to 'shut up' eternal naysayers.
Inconsistent and self-contradictory. If he has not stated exactly how, then he has not done everything possible.
People demand a certain level of proof, as is their right (and as is a person's right not to provide said proof) when extraordinary claims are made. That MDawg is tanning the casinos for the type of money he claims, and is still more than welcome to continue to tan them for even more money, as well as some of the more specific comments made in his reporting rise to the level of, "Extraordinary." Please note that, "Extraordinary," is not meant to mean automatically false.
Anyway, certain claims require certain proof if you want everyone to take them seriously. If MDawg does not want everyone to believe his claims, or doesn't care, then that's perfectly fine. What is also fine is for those people not to believe them.
Even though the amounts won are generally small, I have stated that I have access to games in which I literally can not lose...but I wrote articles about those and explained why it is impossible for me to lose. I could make a video that demonstrates why. In my case, the reason why is ridiculously simple.
Quote: darkozIf that's all it takes I stipulate that all slot machine players are winners.
I see everyone at slots winning.
You don't have to stipulate that the Wizard's report means that MDawg wins.
But then we are left to answer your question without knowing what "MDawg wins" means.
Quote: darkozAre you claiming Wizard has verified that MDawg wins without an advantage using just intuition and luck and some type of progessive betting system?
It's clear to me that the Wizard has verified that MDawg wins.
But as another member wrote above...believe whatever you want.
Quote: Mission146People demand a certain level of proof, as is their right
What type of proof do they have have the right to demand?
Yes, and I'm saying the level of demands here are excessive.Quote: Mission146People demand a certain level of proof, as is their right (and as is a person's right not to provide said proof) when extraordinary claims are made.
Quote: coachbellyWhat type of proof do they have have the right to demand?
To satisfy their doubts? They have the right to demand whatever they want to demand; the person that the proof is being demanded of has the right not to provide said proof.
Quote: WellbushYes, and I'm saying the level of demands here are excessive.
That's a subjective determination. I wouldn't have demanded anything from MDawg, but that's because I don't really care either way. It's not a worthy cause for me to try to disprove the claims of one person; I am satisfied to know what the math says is expected to happen. If you wish to succeed at gambling, then you must understand expectation and have it on your side. Any other gambling successes are what some people might call, 'Luck.'
Quote: coachbellyYou don't have to stipulate that the Wizard's report means that MDawg wins.
But then we are left to answer your question without knowing what "MDawg wins" means.Quote: darkozAre you claiming Wizard has verified that MDawg wins without an advantage using just intuition and luck and some type of progessive betting system?
It's clear to me that the Wizard has verified that MDawg wins.
But as another member wrote above...believe whatever you want.
I am actually one of the posters on here who somewhat believe MDawg wins.
Just not through sheer luck or using a progressive system. I believe he is using an advantage play.
My questions to Marcus have been if the Wizard has verified that MDawg wins through sheer luck or intuition or a progressive system.
Stating that MDawg simply wins is meaningless. It's about HOW he wins. And no, I don't need an explanation of how. Just that it's using an advantage.
The fact you want to make it about such a low threshold of simply winning says you don't have a real belief in your own cause.
Trust me when I tell you I WIN at Casinos every week. See, absolutely nothing special. And yes, I win profit not just the amount I wager.
How I do it is not a secret (using multi-carding) although it's clear to me most people don't understand how that truly works. Including the MDawg who accused me of sending in thousands of homeless people to profit off the new membership offers (pretty hilarious idea really)
I could have a healthy 'discussion' with you on this topic 146, but then sadly, due to what's deemed acceptable on this website, it would approach the level of suspension for those in the 'believers' camp.Quote: Mission146That's a subjective determination. I wouldn't have demanded anything from MDawg, but that's because I don't really care either way. It's not a worthy cause for me to try to disprove the claims of one person; I am satisfied to know what the math says is expected to happen. If you wish to succeed at gambling, then you must understand expectation and have it on your side. Any other gambling successes are what some people might call, 'Luck.'
Quote: coachbellyThe current dispute is whether or not MDawg is "Wizard verified", and what that means.
Stipulating that reports of watching MDawg win is equivalent to verifying that MDawg wins, then has Wizard verified that MDawg wins?
Wizard verified that MDawg won the session he watched. Is that what you mean when you say Wiz verified “MDawg wins”? Those two don’t necessarily read the same.
I don't think so!Quote: darkoz
The fact you want to make it about such a low threshold of simply winning says you don't have a real belief in your own cause.
Quote: darkoz
I am actually one of the posters on here who somewhat believe MDawg wins.
Just not through sheer luck or using a progressive system. I believe he is using an advantage play.
That's great that you think he's some Don Johnson level character constructing an elaborate story to increase his longevity at the tables while he's crushing with some AP move(s).
Occam's Razor. His results aren't what he claims, and MDawg still posts in this thread daily.
Quote: sabreThat's great that you think he's some Don Johnson level character constructing an elaborate story to increase his longevity at the tables while he's crushing with some AP move(s).
Occam's Razor. His results aren't what he claims.
His thread is definitely what he claims. 😂
believe what you want, Sober!Quote: sabreThat's great that you think he's some Don Johnson level character constructing an elaborate story to increase his longevity at the tables while he's crushing with some AP move(s).
Occam's Razor. His results aren't what he claims, and MDawg still posts in this thread daily.
Quote: darkozQuote: coachbellyYou don't have to stipulate that the Wizard's report means that MDawg wins.
But then we are left to answer your question without knowing what "MDawg wins" means.Quote: darkozAre you claiming Wizard has verified that MDawg wins without an advantage using just intuition and luck and some type of progessive betting system?
It's clear to me that the Wizard has verified that MDawg wins.
But as another member wrote above...believe whatever you want.
I am actually one of the posters on here who somewhat believe MDawg wins.
Just not through sheer luck or using a progressive system. I believe he is using an advantage play.
My questions to Marcus have been if the Wizard has verified that MDawg wins through sheer luck or intuition or a progressive system.
Stating that MDawg simply wins is meaningless. It's about HOW he wins. And no, I don't need an explanation of how. Just that it's using an advantage.
The fact you want to make it about such a low threshold of simply winning says you don't have a real belief in your own cause.
Trust me when I tell you I WIN at Casinos every week. See, absolutely nothing special. And yes, I win profit not just the amount I wager.
How I do it is not a secret (using multi-carding) although it's clear to me most people don't understand how that truly works. Including the MDawg who accused me of sending in thousands of homeless people to profit off the new membership offers (pretty hilarious idea really)
Quote: AxelWolfAs to Mdawg having an advantage, I have no clue how people came to that conclusion from Mikes's brief and cryptic message regarding that. We have no idea what meant, it could be something as simple as shaving a bit off the -EV via some free tournaments, rebate on airfare, finding a way to write it off as a business trip, or they occasionally, toss in some free play chips. There is almost zero chance he makes enough +EV to account for his claims of always winning and to have an advantage.
Quote: unJonWizard verified that MDawg won the session he watched. Is that what you mean when you say Wiz verified “MDawg wins”?
It's part of the question that's being discussed...
Quote: darkozAre you claiming Wizard has verified that MDawg wins without an advantage using just intuition and luck and some type of progessive betting system?
Has the Wizard verified that MDawg wins?
If no, then the second part of the question (the strategy) is moot.
My answer is yes, the Wizard has verified that MDawg wins.
For you...has the Wizard verified that MDawg wins?
Quote: coachbellyIt's part of the question that's being discussed...
Has the Wizard verified that MDawg wins?
If no, then the second part of the question (the strategy) is moot.
My answer is yes, the Wizard has verified that MDawg wins.
For you...has the Wizard verified that MDawg wins?
For me, the Wizard has verified that MDawg won a session. For me, the Wizard did not verify that “MDawg wins”.
ETA: Wizard also verified that MDawg had several checks, two of which (If I recall correctly) said Pit Winnings.
Quote: AxelWolfAs to Mdawg having an advantage, I have no clue how people came to that conclusion from Mikes's brief and cryptic message regarding that. We have no idea what meant.
I agree with Axel, Mike did not assert that MDawg is playing with an advantage.
Quote: unJonFor me, the Wizard has verified that MDawg won a session. For me, the Wizard did not verify that “MDawg wins”.
Marcus posted 4 links where Wizard offered evidentiary testimony that MDawg wins.
Believe whatever you want....semantics aside, it's clear to me that Wizard witnessed MDawg win, he verified that MDawg wins.
Quote: coachbellyMarcus posted 4 links where Wizard offered evidentiary testimony that MDawg wins.
Believe whatever you want....semantics aside, it's clear to me that Wizard witnessed MDawg win, he verified that MDawg wins.
Even MDawg doesn’t claim that “MDawg wins.”
MDawg just claims he has won and posts accurate trip reports.
Quote: unJonEven MDawg doesn’t claim that “MDawg wins.”
OK
Quote: Mission146
I’m working on an article that should be published tomorrow, or the next day, called, “Betting Systems and Alcoholism”.
Quote: Mission146
I’m working on an article that should be published tomorrow, or the next day, called, “Betting Systems and Alcoholism”.
Is this just something you dreamed up or is it a real thing. Will I be able to get past the third paragraph without falling asleep?
Quote: Doesn't suck
Let me be the judge of that.
Quote: EvenBobIs this just something you dreamed up or is it a real thing. Will I be able to get past the third paragraph without falling asleep?
Quote: Doesn't suck
Let me be the judge of that.
I move for a change of venue for this trial.
You seem not to like reading more than three paragraphs of anything I write, which is perfectly fine. I’ll appreciate the click all the same.
I think he does!Quote: unJonEven MDawg doesn’t claim that “MDawg wins.”
Quote: Marcusclark66Why do you doubt what The Wizard has said and written, and what The Wizard has previously verified Mr Mission 146??????
Great Respect for The Wizard & MDawg
Marcus Clark
Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66
Professional Casino Security Expert
Certified Company Firearms Instructor
Tic-Tac-Toe Expert & Mastering Chess
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club
Mission146 you still did not answer my question to you!
Marcus Clark
Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66
Professional Casino Security Expert
Certified Company Firearms Instructor
Tic-Tac-Toe Expert & Mastering Chess
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club
Quote: Marcusclark66I am claiming that The Wizard has graciously and very time consuming verified what he chose to verify and I do not doubt anything Mr. WIzard has said. I take everything that The Wizard said to be the absolute truth and nothing but the truth. I also take everything that the Great MDawg has said to be accurate and factual possibly a little bit exaggerated a tad bit when he is hyped up on a good sized win, but then again I think the majority of us would be.
I do not challenge and I do not interpret what Mr. Wizard has said but again I'm taking it for the absolute truth in the verification of several types that The Wizard has posted regarding MDawgs play and wins.
Marcus Clark
Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66
Professional Casino Security Expert
Certified Company Firearms Instructor
Tic-Tac-Toe Expert & Mastering Chess
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club
Quote:
"June 16th, 2021 at 11:27:23 AMpermalink
Quote: darkoz
Marcus,
Are you claiming Wizard has verified that MDawg wins without an advantage using just intuition and luck and some type of progessive betting system?
I'm bumping this for Marcus for the last time and will send him a PM with the Link since he seems unable to even address this.
This is the simplest yes or no question
I already know the answer is a resounding no.
If Coachbelly or Marcus or even Wellbush believe the answer to the above is a yes, then please say so.
EDIT: Marcus has been PM'd with a link to this direct post"
Darkoz, so where is your answers? You PM'ed to me, stated in a public forum the nature of a PM which IMO should be private, and you fail to answer? Why?????
Marcus Clark
Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66
Professional Casino Security Expert
Certified Company Firearms Instructor
Tic-Tac-Toe Expert & Mastering Chess
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club
Quote: Mission146We’re going to have some fun here pretty soon, boys.
I’m working on an article that should be published tomorrow, or the next day, called, “Betting Systems and Alcoholism”.
The subtitle is, “The Madness Behind the Method”.
Anyway, I shall appear in this thread from time to time to say a few words on Betting Systems and drop a link to my article.
In advance, I will not be responding to posts, questions or commentary from either MarcusClark66 or Wellbush, so save yourself the typing.
I'd call it workaholism, but I only used the Paste Special function in Excel for the first time yesterday when I should have been using it for the past 3 years.
Since you appear unwilling to speak about this I will have to ask again and make it clear to the mods as well.
I ask you a question. I do not need to provide an answer because I am asking you a question. If you ask me to answer the question I pose to you then you are trolling me. Don't do it. I will complain to a mod!
The question is simple. It requires a yes or a no. Not an explanation. Just a yes or a no.
THE QUESTION!!!!!
Do you assert the Wizard has stated that MDawg (based on his watching MDawg play) is winning using NOTHING BUT LUCK, INTUITION OR A PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM?
ANSWER THE QUESTION WITH A YES OR A NO!
DO NOT ASK ME A QUESTION OR QUESTIONS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOVE.
DO NOT SAY I DISCLOSED THE NATURE OF A PM IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES BECAUSE I WILL SEND THE EVIDENCE THAT I SENT YOU THE PM (NEVER RECEIVED ONE FROM YOU) AND THE PM ONLY CONTAINED A LINK TO A PRIOR POST ASKING FOR THIS SAME QUESTION ANSWERED.
FAILURE TO ANSWER WITH A YES OR NO AND LYING ABOUT ME DISCLOSING A PM YOU NEVER SENT WILL RESULT IN A COMPLAINT TO THE MODS.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
The Wizard would almost certainly have to answer what he witnessed that day as far as winning on the baccarat itself was LUCK/VARIANCE. We all know he had an advantage due to your offer. If he has some kind of back-end extras going on, he is still giving up EV on the game.Quote: darkozMarcus Clark
Since you appear unwilling to speak about this I will have to ask again and make it clear to the mods as well.
I ask you a question. I do not need to provide an answer because I am asking you a question. If you ask me to answer the question I pose to you then you are trolling me. Don't do it. I will complain to a mod!
The question is simple. It requires a yes or a no. Not an explanation. Just a yes or a no.
THE QUESTION!!!!!
Do you assert the Wizard has stated that MDawg (based on his watching MDawg play) is winning using NOTHING BUT LUCK, INTUITION OR A PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM?
ANSWER THE QUESTION WITH A YES OR A NO!
DO NOT ASK ME A QUESTION OR QUESTIONS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOVE.
DO NOT SAY I DISCLOSED THE NATURE OF A PM IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES BECAUSE I WILL SEND THE EVIDENCE THAT I SENT YOU THE PM (NEVER RECEIVED ONE FROM YOU) AND THE PM ONLY CONTAINED A LINK TO A PRIOR POST ASKING FOR THIS SAME QUESTION ANSWERED.
FAILURE TO ANSWER WITH A YES OR NO AND LYING ABOUT ME DISCLOSING A PM YOU NEVER SENT WILL RESULT IN A COMPLAINT TO THE MODS.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Quote: darkozMarcus Clark
Since you appear unwilling to speak about this I will have to ask again and make it clear to the mods as well.
I ask you a question. I do not need to provide an answer because I am asking you a question. If you ask me to answer the question I pose to you then you are trolling me. Don't do it. I will complain to a mod!
The question is simple. It requires a yes or a no. Not an explanation. Just a yes or a no.
THE QUESTION!!!!!
Do you assert the Wizard has stated that MDawg (based on his watching MDawg play) is winning using NOTHING BUT LUCK, INTUITION OR A PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM?
ANSWER THE QUESTION WITH A YES OR A NO!
DO NOT ASK ME A QUESTION OR QUESTIONS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOVE.
DO NOT SAY I DISCLOSED THE NATURE OF A PM IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES BECAUSE I WILL SEND THE EVIDENCE THAT I SENT YOU THE PM (NEVER RECEIVED ONE FROM YOU) AND THE PM ONLY CONTAINED A LINK TO A PRIOR POST ASKING FOR THIS SAME QUESTION ANSWERED.
FAILURE TO ANSWER WITH A YES OR NO AND LYING ABOUT ME DISCLOSING A PM YOU NEVER SENT WILL RESULT IN A COMPLAINT TO THE MODS.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Hi DarkOz. I see the anger in your shouty post. That's surely going to make someone very happy at his success..
Don't dismiss my response, but... None of us gets to demand that another poster must make a yes or no reply. To ignore your demand or to give a non-committal reply or worse to throw your own question back, is not of itself trolling you. But I see your point.
C'est la vie. If Marcus ignores your question and then asks you one, even your own.... Just ignore him or tell him you are not answering. Don't get mad, get even. Some members make sport of being evasive. Don't give them a game. You think he's a troll, so read the sign 'don't feed the trolls'
Oh how we breathe new life into this thread with every bump.
There have been some deeply unsatisfactory answers in this thread. But what should we expect for a thread in a subforum dedicated to the mathematically challenged... There are some real fools in this thread and some who would challenge them eventually start looking foolish themselves. Been there, got the t-shirt. You want sensible straight answers and logic? Wrong sub-forum. Just stand back and laugh at the circus. Don't join the act.
[I nearly threw out some insults in this thread and had to measure my words carefully. You guys should know my thoughts on this thread by now]
Quote: OnceDearHi DarkOz. I see the anger in your shouty post. That's surely going to make someone very happy at his success..
Don't dismiss my response, but... None of us gets to demand that another poster must make a yes or no reply. To ignore your demand or to give a non-committal reply or worse to throw your own question back, is not of itself trolling you. But I see your point.
C'est la vie. If Marcus ignores your question and then asks you one, even your own.... Just ignore him or tell him you are not answering. Don't get mad, get even. Some members make sport of being evasive. Don't give them a game. You think he's a troll, so read the sign 'don't feed the trolls'
Oh how we breathe new life into this thread with every bump.
There have been some deeply unsatisfactory answers in this thread. But what should we expect for a thread in a subforum dedicated to the mathematically challenged... There are some real fools in this thread and some who would challenge them eventually start looking foolish themselves. Been there, got the t-shirt. You want sensible straight answers and logic? Wrong sub-forum. Just stand back and laugh at the circus. Don't join the act.
[I nearly threw out some insults in this thread and had to measure my words carefully. You guys should know my thoughts on this thread by now]
Don't feed the trolls is another way of saying certain members are trolling and will be given no reprimand. I cannot "not feed trolls" that aren't there.
Meanwhile valuable members that get angry and can't control their reaction get suspended. That's precisely the goal of trolls and it's being openly allowed now.
And BTW, lying about PM's? Accusation that I divulged something he sent in a PM when he never sent me a PM?
If someone can't even be misquoted if it changes their meaning, being accused of rules violation seems even more egregious
