The Adventures of MDawg

Quote: AxelWolf

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.

do you understand EV? Can you explain it in simple terms?

Quote: darkoz

Marcus 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!

I shouldn't answer, but out of courtesy to OnceDear and The Board itself, I will.

Here is my answer, borrowed from Axelwolf:

"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."

I am also quoting OnceDear as well because it is informative and well thought out!

"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."

And just for you, I am once again posting my answer so please couple The Mr.WIZARD's with mine and you have a complete, well thought out and super duper comprehensive answer to your fine question. Okay?

Quote: "
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."

Throwing Out A Huge Friendly Hug (or 2 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: Marcusclark66

I shouldn't answer, but out of courtesy to OnceDear and The Board itself, I will.

Here is my answer, borrowed from Axelwolf:

"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."

I am also quoting OnceDear as well because it is informative and well thought out!

"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."

And just for you, I am once again posting my answer so please couple The Mr.WIZARD's with mine and you have a complete, well thought out and super duper comprehensive answer to your fine question. Okay?

Quote: "
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

Okay, so you do agree that Wizard doesn't believe MDawg wins without an advantage even if the advantage was handed to him through my offer.

We are in agreement that MDawg isn't winning per the Wizard's observation with luck, intuition or any progressive system methods.

EDIT:. That means either MDawg isn't winning enough to overcome the house edge (notice I didn't say he always doesn't win) or MDawg is overcoming the house edge through advantage play

Quote: OnceDear

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]

I would say 'theoretically' challenged, for those that cannot accept that 'some' gamblers CAN beat the house! You don't wanna 'two-sided' scientific/mathematical argument OD, don't post here.

BTW, those on your side of the fence can be mathematically challenged as well. You need to correctly label this subforum. I've curtailed my insults.

Quote: Wellbush

do you understand EV? Can you explain it in simple terms?

Can you explain your amazing parodox in simple terms?

Quote: darkoz

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

it's not trolling if one member has clearly proven he can beat the house, and another member has a clear mathematical argument why! Or are there mathematical blinkers being worn on one side of the theoretical fence?

And those that see only one side of an argument (which goes against scientific proof and research), don't understand that there are valuable members on both sides of the theoretical fence. And all members on both sides of the theoretical fence can get angry and be suspended for it.

What have we got going here..a protection racket? I can't answer coz it might get me suspended. That, in itself, should say something!

Finally, if people put their heads together (146 may be helpful here. Note: even though he's on the opposite side of the theoretical fence, I value his skills, AND, I don't think I'm the fountain of all knowledge. Hint: let scientific enquiry lead, rather than questionable theory) they may come up with a way I can play BJ online, in front of some WOV monitors. I can beat the WOOs software without increasing my bet-size by more than 5 times!!!!

If that last sentence doesn't ring alarm bells, I don't know what will!!

Quote: darkoz

Okay, so you do agree that Wizard doesn't believe MDawg wins without an advantage even if the advantage was handed to him through my offer.

We are in agreement that MDawg isn't winning per the Wizard's observation with luck, intuition or any progressive system methods.

EDIT:. That means either MDawg isn't winning enough to overcome the house edge (notice I didn't say he always doesn't win) or MDawg is overcoming the house edge through advantage play

No! I did not say those things and we are not in agreement.

You are putting words into my mouth and you are listening to what you want to hear and you are writing to confirm the fallacy that you believe.

It is the same as a drunk person being on one of my casino floors, reaching over grabbing some chips out of the rack and running away. We apprehend the person and as we review the security tape that shows exactly what happened, the person says he didn't do it therefore he should be released and we are guilty of holding him against his will. Then of course we charge him with a crime and off to jail he goes.

But what happened in reality is completely different than what the perpetrator says.

Same Same, Thank you have a great day and a couple of large hugs out to you sir!

I'll make you a deal, you show me factual and visual proof with an admission and a certification by The Great MDawg that he won by luck with no skill involved and everything else that you're saying and I will agree with you at that point. But until you do that, I agree with and believe The Great MDawg and Mr. Wizard himself. :)

Same Same, Thank you have a great day and a couple of large hugs out to you sir!

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: darkoz

Okay, so you do agree that Wizard doesn't believe MDawg wins without an advantage even if the advantage was handed to him through my offer.

We are in agreement that MDawg isn't winning per the Wizard's observation with luck, intuition or any progressive system methods.

EDIT:. That means either MDawg isn't winning enough to overcome the house edge (notice I didn't say he always doesn't win) or MDawg is overcoming the house edge through advantage play

if you're trying to get factual answers DOz, the Wizard doesn't believe gamblers can beat the house through a progressive betting strategy and/or a gamblers knowledge of the flow of a game.

But his beliefs fly in the face of what he witnessed! MC is only reiterating the Wiz's witnessing.

Moving on, the Wiz will say what he witnessed proved nothing because anyone can win over the short term. And that's true. The real conjecture lies in whether a gambler can beat the house over the long term, using progressive betting and/or knowledge of the flow of the game. That's when the Wiz's stance becomes untenable.

We have a serious argument about that, which so far OD thinks is nonsense. I can tell you it's not until he or others can prove otherwise.

Angry use of upper mathematical language by OD, won't cut it. It just shows the limits of acceptability here. Not proof either way.

Quote: Wellbush

believe what you want, Sober!

We don't deliberately mess with User Ids as that might be considered a deliberate insult.

Quote: Marcusclark66

No! I did not say those things and we are not in agreement.

You are putting words into my mouth and you are listening to what you want to hear and you are writing to confirm the fallacy that you believe.

It is the same as a drunk person being on one of my casino floors, reaching over grabbing some chips out of the rack and running away. We apprehend the person and as we review the security tape that shows exactly what happened, the person says he didn't do it therefore he should be released and we are guilty of holding him against his will. Then of course we charge him with a crime and off to jail he goes.

But what happened in reality is completely different than what the perpetrator says.

Same Same, Thank you have a great day and a couple of large hugs out to you sir!

I'll make you a deal, you show me factual and visual proof with an admission and a certification by The Great MDawg that he won by luck with no skill involved and everything else that you're saying and I will agree with you at that point. But until you do that, I agree with and believe The Great MDawg and Mr. Wizard himself. :)

Same Same, Thank you have a great day and a couple of large hugs out to you sir!

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

So you are saying the Wizard does state that MDawg is Winning by luck and intuition?

Quote: OnceDear

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]

I predict that rational folks bumping this thread will have little to no effect on whether the thread gets routinely bumped.

The problem with "Wrong subforum" is that the "Wrong subforum" is also "The Dominant subforum" or "Flagship subforum."

If the dominant subforum of a medical forum was about cantaloupes curing cancer, even though the cantaloupe subforum was labeled "unproven medical advice," I think people would probably start steering clear of the overall forum for medical advice. Can't say I blame them. So it comes down to whether certain people want to run a medical forum or a cantaloupe forum.

Quote: Wellbush

The real conjecture lies in whether a gambler can beat the house over the long term, using progressive betting and/or knowledge of the flow of the game. That's when the Wiz's stance becomes untenable.

The Wizard explains his stance here...

Quote: Wizard

If 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.

The player above hasn't reached the long term yet, and has been lucky thus far.

This is consistent with Wizard's assertion below...

Quote: Wizard

I have being saying for over 20 years that betting systems don't work. Not only can't they overcome the house edge, they can't even dent it. My experience with MDawg has not changed my position on that.

Quote: redietz

Quote: OnceDear

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]

I predict that rational folks bumping this thread will have little to no effect on whether the thread gets routinely bumped.

The problem with "Wrong subforum" is that the "Wrong subforum" is also "The Dominant subforum" or "Flagship subforum."

If the dominant subforum of a medical forum was about cantaloupes curing cancer, even though the cantaloupe subforum was labeled "unproven medical advice," I think people would probably start steering clear of the overall forum for medical advice. Can't say I blame them. So it comes down to whether certain people want to run a medical forum or a cantaloupe forum.

It appears that there is really a division of Wizard gambling sites here. Physically at one point these forums were part of the actual and original Wizardofodds.

Wizardofodds is where you go for intelligent learning.

Apparently everyone else comes here for nonsense.

It wasn't always like that.

Might as well call this the CantaloupesofVegas.com

Quote: coachbelly

The Wizard explains his stance here...

Quote: Wizard

If 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.

The player above hasn't reached the long term yet, and has been lucky thus far.

This is consistent with Wizard's assertion below...

Quoted for posterity as this post actually makes sense.

I don't know if coachbelly realizes he just said MDawg is losing even while being ahead in the short term.

Quote: coachbelly

The Wizard explains his stance here...

Quote: Wizard

If 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.

The player above hasn't reached the long term yet, and has been lucky thus far.

This is consistent with Wizard's assertion below...

Agree 100% with this post.

If you can win to a million dollars before you play to 10,000 hands, do you really need to play to $10 million?

Quote: darkoz

MDawg is losing even while being ahead in the short term.

I didn't say that, I quoted another member, who also did not say that.

But what you are saying sounds like a reverse of the old "accumulating EV" story,
where losing is actually winning, because playing +EV is actually winning, even if you lose.

You are saying winning is actually losing, because playing -EV is losing, even if you win.

Take comfort in that you can believe whatever you want.

Expected results are expectations before play begins...actual results may vary.

Lucky for MDawg that they do.

Quote: unJon

Can you explain your amazing parodox in simple terms?

you've already asked me this q UJ. doing it again is, arguably, trolling!

Most everybody's short-term vs. long-term is going to be different. If my short term is three years playing two hours a week versus someone else's short-term playing three years 20 hours a week it's entirely different.

Likewise if my long term is 10 years playing every 3 weeks vs somebody's 10 years playing every single day again it's going to be entirely different outcome with the same type of bets even if it was on a mechanical and scheduled type of betting procedure. Meaning that there is no luck involved, we're both betting at and for the same start and finish.

So my point again, is if The Great MDawg is winning hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars in a certain period of time, its great! Supposedly he hasn't lost money which is superb. I have no reason to doubt the honesty of his posts as well as the honesty of Mr. WIZARDS verifications. Mr. Wizard has so graciously and unselfishly afforded us SEVERAL certified verifications of what The Great MDawg has posted.

Hugs out to whoever needs them :)
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: OnceDear

We don't deliberately mess with User Ids as that might be considered a deliberate insult.

ok. i reserve the right to rebuff Sabre in some other way though, if he deserves it! some naysayers can be exceedingly ungentlemanly

Quote: coachbelly

I didn't say that, I quoted another member, who also did not say that.

But what you are saying sounds like a reverse of the old "accumulating EV" story,
where losing is actually winning, because playing +EV is actually winning, even if you lose.

You are saying winning is actually losing, because playing -EV is losing, even if you win.

Take comfort in that you can believe whatever you want.

Expected results are expectations before play begins...actual results may vary.

Lucky for MDawg that they do.

I said you didn't realize that you said it.

Apparently you still don't

AFAIK MDawg was seen at the high roller table by The Wizard, one time, and he won; but The Wizard is hiding a secret we can't guess. So that proves that MDawg was certainly capable of furnishing all the photographs he furnished on this site. It also proves that MDawg is an accomplished high limit player who knows how to cash out winnings in check form in a way others unfamiliar with the process would find bogus because they just don't know and they are legion on this forum & others. MDawg showed us unbelievable amounts of LOC receipts, which most posters here took total exception to. We live in a fact-free world, and MDawg should just keep on winning because the comps are comin'.

Quote: coachbelly

The Wizard explains his stance here...

Quote: Wizard

If 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.

The player above hasn't reached the long term yet, and has been lucky thus far.

This is consistent with Wizard's assertion below...

i agree that that's been the Wizard's stance......until now! he seems like a reasonable gentleman to me. although he's had a lifetime commitment to one side of the theoretical fence, he MAY q this if presented with 'enough' evidence. so far, he may not have had 'enough' contrary evidence to his theoretical stance.

Quote: coachbelly

The Wizard explains his stance here...

Quote: Wizard

If 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.

The player above hasn't reached the long term yet, and has been lucky thus far.

This is consistent with Wizard's assertion below...

you conveniently left out these two things

"The player is exaggerating.
The player is not keeping accurate records"

and all the naysayers who post about this forum being fact free, have a serious problem! MD has been all about facts, if they haven't noticed? and i've been all about mathematical fact, if they haven't noticed?

what side of the theoretical argument has had more fact than the other side? arguably, not the naysayer side! people can think and sprout otherwise all they like, but it's becoming more and more obvious who really is on the questionable side of the argument!

and get this, i'm happy to suck up mathematical and scientific proof that the naysayers are right! i'm quite capable of switching sides! i'll follow mathematical and scientific proof! shouldn't these last three sentences also ring alarm bells?

again, if people put their heads together (146 may be helpful here. Note: even though he's on the opposite side of the theoretical fence, I value his skills, AND, I don't think I'm the fountain of all knowledge. Hint: let scientific inquiry lead, rather than questionable theory) they may come up with a way I can play BJ online, in front of some WOV monitors. I can beat the WOOs software without increasing my bet-size by more than 5 times!!!!

I just lost the very first 8 hands in a row I played of BJ on the Wizard's site. DONE!

Quote: AxelWolf

you conveniently left out these two things

"The player is exaggerating.
The player is not keeping accurate records"

The Wizard has verified that MDawg wins.

So the assumptions above are eliminated from the exercise,
as those are assumptions that the player has not won as claimed.

Quote: Wellbush

and all the naysayers who post about this forum being fact free, have a serious problem! MD has been all about facts, if they haven't noticed? and i've been all about mathematical fact, if they haven't noticed?

what side of the theoretical argument has had more fact than the other side? arguably, not the naysayer side!

again, if people put there heads together (146 may be helpful here. Note: even though he's on the opposite side of the theoretical fence, I value his skills, AND, I don't think I'm the fountain of all knowledge. Hint: let scientific inquiry lead, rather than questionable theory) they may come up with a way I can play BJ online, in front of some WOV monitors. I can beat the WOOs software without increasing my bet-size by more than 5 times!!!!

I don't have much of an opinion on any of this, at this point.

I mostly just look at this as an entertainment thread and the time has come for folks to accept that MDawg (as far as I can tell) does not actually violate any Forum Rules in this thread. He was decided to have violated a Forum Rule, and Suspended accordingly, but it wasn't in this thread.

As far as this, "Adventures Thread," I would suggest that those who think they are going to get MDawg gone by way of saying something that gets a rise out of him that MDawg has repeatedly been very careful about his postings in this thread.

More than that, I think some people would do well to consider the purpose of this thread Entertainment and MDawg is reporting these adventures to entertain us. If someone considers that there is exaggeration or outright falsehood, then just think of it as a, "Gambling Fiction," thread...though I'm not calling it that, to be clear.

If people want to believe that Betting Systems work, then that's fine. I've never heard a sheep, 'Baa,' after the slaughter, so good luck to any such person...he/she will need it.

What astounds me is all of the information about mathematically proven advantage plays on this website and people want to cling to Blackjack and Baccarat Betting Systems. REALLY!? DarkOz has basically dished on the overall playbook for the single most profitable play there is, at least on the machine side of things, all one need do is have the bankroll and find the right spot(s). If you don't have the bankroll and that's something that you want to do on that level, then save up the bankroll.

I can't even count the Advantage Play subjects that have been discussed here, often with accompanying math. We've talked about card counting, card counting side bets, hole carding, edge sorting...one of the greatest analysts of bona fide Table Games Advantage Play to ever live, Teliot, literally posts here and freely shared all such information on his site when he had it.

We have Wizard who has analyzed a few different, "Vulture," machine plays. Granted, those are kind of old news now (though you'll still find plays on those games from time to time) and the more modern games are a bit tougher to analyze, but that will get one started on the sort of things to look for. I have explained how reel data can be gathered and what can be done with that in the past---unfortunately, it's tougher for other machines and more rough estimates of playable variable states need to be made. I start conservative and work my way to being more aggressive, personally.

There are even other sites on which these things are discussed. I'm obviously not going to list them all here.

The point is, one has free access on this site (and others) on information about how to gamble well. I'd say the cumulative information just on these Forums, at an absolute minimum, is a very good start.

So, if people want to pursue foolish betting systems in the hopes that they too will find themselves on the right side of the bell curve, all I can say is, "I don't care anymore."

Mission146: "I don't have much of an opinion on this."

Also Mission146: Writes an additional ten paragraphs.

Quote: coachbelly

The Wizard has verified that MDawg wins.

NO, they are not. I would be willing to bet he doesn't believe Mdawg wins as often and as much as Mdawg has been claiming. It's obvious, The Wizard hasn't paid enough attention to the details and what's been reported.

Of course, he wins, AND he loses. The Wizard has only reported what was presented to him or he witnessed.

Quote: Wellbush

you've already asked me this q UJ. doing it again is, arguably, trolling!

You asked if someone could provide a clear rebuttal. I assumed that was a question asked in good faith. But if you can’t even be bothered to state your paradox, then I have to conclude that you weren’t asking to engage in good faith.

Good day to you, mate.

Quote: AxelWolf

NO, they are not. I would be willing to bet he doesn't believe Mdawg wins as often and as much as Mdawg has been claiming. It's obvious, The Wizard hasn't paid enough attention to the details and what's been reported.

Of course, he wins, AND he loses. The Wizard has only reported what was presented to him or he witnessed.

what the Wiz or anyone believes, is irrelevant. what matters is factual information, seen and known mathematically.

Quote: coachbelly

The Wizard has verified that MDawg wins.

So the assumptions above are eliminated from the exercise,
as those are assumptions that the player has not won as claimed.

This is incorrect. Disagree with this post 100%. That’s the difference between Wizard verifying that “MDawg wins” vs “MDawg won the one session observed.”

Where did Wizard verify that MDawg has perfect records without exaggeration?

Quote: Wellbush

what the Wiz or anyone believes, is irrelevant. what matters is factual information, seen and known mathematically.

Wonderfull, mathematically we know he will be a net loser on the game.

Quote: unJon

You asked if someone could provide a clear rebuttal. I assumed that was a question asked in good faith. But if you can’t even be bothered to state your paradox, then I have to conclude that you weren’t asking to engage in good faith.

Good day to you, mate.

and i already replied to you that you need to read back through this thread for the paradox. if you can't be bothered, then i can't be bothered, too.

if you can be bothered finding it, then the paradox itself is simple enough. if you need it explained then it's not worth me explaining it. you would first need to learn basic arithmetic.

Quote: Wellbush

and i already replied yo you that you need to read back through this thread for the paradox. if you can't be bothered, then i can't be bothered, too.

if you can be bothered finding it, then the paradox itself is simple enough. if you need it explained then it's not worth me explaining it. you would first need to learn basic arithmetic.

Right. Your question not asked in good faith. Thanks for confirming. If you change your mind and want to engage on the substance of what your paradox is, let me know.

Quote: Wellbush

what the Wiz or anyone believes, is irrelevant. what matters is factual information, seen and known mathematically.

Fair enough.

Please explain "mathematically" the factual basis for MD's claim of having an epic winning streak (what was it, fifty or so winning sessions in a row, IIRC?).

*bonus if documented with equations / mathematical formulas*

Quote: unJon

Right. Your question not asked in good faith. Thanks for confirming. If you change your mind and want to engage on the substance of what your paradox is, let me know.

The substance of his paradox is not fit for human consumption.

Quote: MrV

Please explain "mathematically"

He hasn't used math in any of his posts up to this point. He isn't going to start now.

Quote: AxelWolf

Of course, he wins, AND he loses.
The Wizard has only reported what was presented to him or he witnessed.

Of course MDawg wins and he loses, that's exactly what he has been reporting within his daily recaps.

So you are also only reporting what has been presented to you.

Anything else would be pure conjecture on your part.

Quote: ChumpChange

I just lost the very first 8 hands in a row I played of BJ on the Wizard's site. DONE!

and i've calculated losing 47 hands in a row using my (evolving) progression strategy. i started with $15 and ended down about $2,200.

try and work that out? for the mathematically challenged, $2,200 is a seriously small amount when starting with $15 and experiencing 47 losses in a row, using a progressive strategy.

Quote: Mission146

I don't have much of an opinion on any of this, at this point.

my reference to you 146, was to possibly get your take on how i can play BJ online before some WOV monitors, and put my theory and strategy to the test? we may have to PM on this but if you think an open discussion on this thread is warranted, i'm happy to oblige.

Quote: Wellbush

and i already replied yo you that you need to read back through this thread for the paradox. if you can't be bothered, then i can't be bothered, too.

if you can be bothered finding it, then the paradox itself is simple enough. if you need it explained then it's not worth me explaining it. you would first need to learn basic arithmetic.

(Bold Added to Quote, Relevance)

Essentially, you are suggesting that you have come up with a paradox that you now say you are unwilling to teach.

With all due respect, Wellbush: Right or wrong, a mathematical conclusion unaccompanied by repeatable process (especially such process having been requested) is nothing more than an opinion.

When someone asks a mathematical question that's within my abilities, do you assume that I type out my entire process---often including hundreds of numbers---for my health or benefit? Do you think that I format sections and subsections and explain what I am doing both with formulas and in words because I have nothing better I could be doing? I promise that I do not. I do it for three reasons:

1.) If my solution is incorrect (and someone else posts/proves the correct one), then I can go back and look through my process to determine what I did wrong. I am often wrong, especially when I get out of my wheelhouse, but mistakes should be looked at as an opportunity to learn something new---for those who will admit them.

2.) If my solution is correct, then the reader will be able to use the process that I have demonstrated for similar problems and will no longer need to ask for help.

3.) Because the expression of the process validates my results.

If you have something to teach, then teach it. Many of us are here because we like learning.

Quote: unJon

Where did Wizard verify that MDawg has perfect records without exaggeration?

The Wizard's first 2 assumptions stipulate winning, the next two assumptions don't,
those are assumptions that winning has not occurred.

It's been stipulated by the questioner that MDawg wins.

So assumptions that winning has not occurred are eliminated.

And the question that remains is..."how does he win"?

Quote: Wellbush

and i've calculated losing 47 hands in a row using my (evolving) progression strategy. i started with $15 and ended down about $2,200.

try and work that out? for the mathematically challenged, $2,200 is a seriously small amount when starting with $15 and experiencing 47 losses in a row, using a progressive strategy..

Nope, never heard about your 47 losses in a row progression. I heard about some 8 in a row losses before you hit the table limit. And I am done with you moving goal posts around and not making sense.

Quote: AxelWolf

mathematically we know he will be a net loser on the game.

Be sure to let everyone else know when that will be, when and if you ever know when that will be.

Quote: coachbelly

The Wizard's first 2 assumptions stipulate winning, the next two assumptions don't,
those are assumptions that winning has not occurred.

It's been stipulated by the questioner that MDawg wins.

So assumptions that winning has not occurred are eliminated.

And the question that remains is..."how does he win"?

False syllogism.

Quote: Wellbush

and i've calculated losing 47 hands in a row using my (evolving) progression strategy. i started with $15 and ended down about $2,200.

try and work that out? for the mathematically challenged, $2,200 is a seriously small amount when starting with $15 and experiencing 47 losses in a row, using a progressive strategy.my reference to you 146, was to possibly get your take on how i can play BJ online before some WOV monitors, and put my theory and strategy to the test? we may have to PM on this but if you think open discussion on this thread is warranted, i'm happy to oblige.

Zoom, I guess? You'd just have to find someone who wants to watch you play Blackjack on the WoO site.

Quote: unJon

False syllogism.

You are incorrect.

Quote: darkoz

I am actually one of the posters on here who somewhat believe MDawg wins.

Stating that MDawg simply wins is meaningless. It's about HOW he wins.

Quote: MrV

Fair enough.

Please explain "mathematically" the factual basis for MD's claim of having an epic winning streak (what was it, fifty or so winning sessions in a row, IIRC?).

*bonus if documented with equations / mathematical formulas*

i could reply, but i've already posted enough for now. it's up to OD to give me permission to reply to this post.

OD, please "give him permission" (LOL) to reply ...