The Adventures of MDawg

Quote: Wellbush

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.

Unless you've reached technical posting limits, it's not for me to restrict or unrestrict how often you post. Just post within the rules. (word and spirit)

Quote: MrV

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

i'll reply at some point. right now i'm exhausted.

Quote: Wellbush

i'll reply at some point. right now i'm exhausted.

Yes, chasing chimeras can be tiresome.

At one time or another gamblers may dream of finding a truly winning system, but then along comes "that pesky math" to disabuse them of the notion.

I and I suspect many others are looking forward to your mathematical explanation as to how MD "wins" as much as he claims.

Should be interesting.

Quote: Wellbush

and all the naysayers who post about this forum being fact free, have a serious problem! MD has been all about facts

In a general sense, just about everything discussed or “claimed” on this forum is a story. It may or may not be true. Determining it as fact is left up to the reader…not the writer.

This isn’t a slight. It isn’t a critique. It’s simply an acknowledgement of how forums like this work. Someone can go out of his way to try and prove fact…but it’s basically left up to the reader to verify it or simply believe it to be fact. Or…not believe it.

Quote: TDVegas

In a general sense, just about everything discussed or “claimed” on this forum is a story. It may or may not be true. Determining it as fact is left up to the reader…not the writer.

This isn’t a slight. It isn’t a critique. It’s simply an acknowledgement of how forums like this work. Someone can go out of his way to try and prove fact…but it’s basically left up to the reader to verify it or simply believe it to be fact. Or…not believe it.

Excellent comments!

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
Baccarat Winning Session Record: 1 out of 1

Quote: coachbelly

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.

I wouldn't know what he has or hasn't been reporting.

Quote: coachbelly

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.

I believe that ship has sailed a long time ago.

Quote: AxelWolf

I wouldn't know what he has or hasn't been reporting.

You started posting in this thread on Day 1 and haven't stopped since,
your post count in the Adventures thread must be nearly 1000...
and that's just on this forum.

So you know what he has been reporting. Why deny it?

Quote: AxelWolf

I believe that ship has sailed a long time ago.

Then it sailed without you knowing when that will be.

Quote: coachbelly

You started posting in this thread on Day 1 and haven't stopped since,
your post count in this thread must be nearly 1000...and that's just on this forum.

So you know what he has been reporting. Why deny it?

I assumed you were talking about what he is currently reporting.

I don't read most of his posts and reports, I only skimmed to find key elements and much of that can be weeded out by reading others' posts and referring back if needed. I haven't even skimmed his posts for some time now.

Quote: coachbelly

You started posting in this thread on Day 1 and haven't stopped since,
your post count in this thread must be nearly 1000...and that's just on this forum.

So you know what he has been reporting. Why deny it?

I post in this thread and have read almost none of Dawgs posts
Sometimes I try to skim them but can't even make it to the
end ultimately its like watching a crappy movie where
you know whats going to happen, tough to sit through the
whole thing.

Quote: rainman

ultimately its like watching a crappy movie where
you know whats going to happen, tough to sit through the
whole thing.

Sort of like watching "Ishtar" while badly constipated.

Quote: rainman

I post in this thread and have read almost none of Dawgs posts

LOL...why would you even say something like that?

Check your history in this thread...
you have repeatedly quoted and replied to MDawg's posts.

1 877 Sup Dawg

Quote: MrV

Yes, chasing chimeras can be tiresome.

At one time or another gamblers may dream of finding a truly winning system, but then along comes "that pesky math" to disabuse them of the notion.

I and I suspect many others are looking forward to your mathematical explanation as to how MD "wins" as much as he claims.

Should be interesting.

there's not much point replying to your post if you're already deriding whatever the answer is going to be. I thought your q was genuine! Shame..

Quote: coachbelly

LOL...why would you even say something like that?

Check your history in this thread...
you have repeatedly quoted and replied to MDawg's posts.

just return pathetic 2% interest in what's going on, with pathetic 2% interest in them, CB. That's all they deserve

Quote: coachbelly

LOL...why would you even say something like that?

Check your history in this thread...
you have repeatedly quoted and replied to MDawg's posts.

LOL, nice try, If you take a look at my history you will see
very few responses directly to Dawgs posts. almost all
of my posts in the thread are interacting with other members
not your Dawg. You ever get tired of losing?

Quote: rainman

I post in this thread and have read almost none of Dawgs posts

Quote: rainman

I'm just following along this guy could be one of the
greatest creative writers of our time he's got me captivated.

Quote: rainman

almost all of my posts in the thread are interacting with other members
not your Dawg

In almost all of your posts in the thread you either reply to MDawg,
or reply to other members about MDawg.

Quote: rainman

If you take a look at my history you will see
very few responses directly to Dawgs posts

Yeah we know, almost none.

Wow...you should really check your math.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/494/#post804475

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/467/#post803432

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/467/#post803430

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/59/#post797815

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/290/#post797595

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/269/#post789713

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/268/#post789710

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/268/#post789708

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/268/#post789706

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/268/#post789704

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/249/#post789256

Quote: Wellbush

there's not much point replying to your post if you're already deriding whatever the answer is going to be. I thought your q was genuine! Shame..

Nice dodge and tap dance there.

My question WAS legit, as is my incredulity.

Answer the damned question.

Quote: coachbelly

Quote: rainman

I'm just following along this guy could be one of the
greatest creative writers of our time he's got me captivated.

In almost all of your posts in the thread you either reply to MDawg,
or reply to other members about MDawg.

Yeah we know, almost none.

Wow...you should really check your math.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/494/#post804475

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/467/#post803432

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/467/#post803430

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/59/#post797815

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/290/#post797595

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/269/#post789713

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/268/#post789710

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/268/#post789708

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/268/#post789706

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/268/#post789704

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/249/#post789256

Perspective my friend, 11 times in 587 pages and how many years of this thread.
How come you didn't tally up the posts not to Dawg directly..oh yah because that
wouldn't help your case

Quote: rainman

Perspective my friend, 11 times in 587 pages and how many years of this thread.
How come you didn't tally up the posts not to Dawg directly..oh yah because that
wouldn't help your case

I didn't even go back through all 587 pages, but the number of pages is irrelevant.

Perspective in this case doesn't involve all posts in the thread,
just all of your posts in the thread, and the nature of your participation.

Almost all of your posts are either direct replies to MDawg, or about MDawg.

Quote: rainman

I'm just following along this guy could be one of the
greatest creative writers of our time he's got me captivated.

Obviously, and your history proves my case that your claims below are bogus.

Quote: rainman

I post in this thread and have read almost none of Dawgs posts

Quote: rainman

If you take a look at my history you will see
very few responses directly to Dawgs posts.

Who are you trying to fool, and why, and how could you expect
to get away with something that so easily provable to be deceptive?

Quote: coachbelly

I didn't even go back through all 587 pages, but the number of pages is irrelevant.

Perspective in this case doesn't involve all posts in the thread,
just all of your posts in the thread, and the nature of your participation.

Almost all of your posts are either direct replies to MDawg, or about MDawg.

Quote: rainman

I'm just following along this guy could be one of the
greatest creative writers of our time he's got me captivated.

Obviously, and your history proves my case that your claims below are bogus.



Who are you trying to fool, and why, and how could you expect
to get away with something that so easily provable to be deceptive?

Look try and concentrate and follow along.

My claim was I read very few of MDawgs posts and actually skim
the ones I do stop trying to twist crap around.

Count my posts where I directly engage with Your Dawg then
Count up Mdawgs post And eureka the numbers will confirm
my claim. Keep coming with the twisted reality.

Quote: rainman

My claim was I read very few of MDawgs posts

That wasn't your claim, your claim is quoted below...

Quote: rainman

I post in this thread and have read almost none of Dawgs posts

You're not comparing the number MDawg posts you've read
with how many MDawg posts exist, you're comparing the number of
posts you've read with none...you claimed to have read almost none.

I found 11 posts where you directly replied to MDawg, so you definitely read
those MDawg posts, and those 11 right there is not "almost none".

I have fewer replies to MDawg than you do.

Then you have dozens more posts where you reference MDawg posts,
while replying to other members about MDawg.

You read those Dawg posts too, so your "almost none" claim is totally bogus.

Plus there are likely hundreds or thousands of MDawg posts that you read,
and didn't bother to reference or reply to.

Or are you claiming that you didn't read any of the thousands of MDawg posts,
other than the hundred or so that you did post about?

My question is...why even bother telling a fib like that?

What point were you trying to make that blew up in your face?

Quote: coachbelly

That wasn't your claim, your claim is quoted below...

Quote: rainman

I post in this thread and have read almost none of Dawgs posts

You're not comparing the number MDawg posts you've read
with how many MDawg posts exist, you're comparing the
number of posts you've read with none...you claimed to have read almost none.

I found 11 posts where you directly replied to MDawg, so you definitely read
those MDawg posts, and those 11 right there is not "almost none".

I have fewer replies to MDawg than you do.

Then you have dozens more posts where you reference MDawg posts,
while replying to other members about MDawg.

You read those Dawg posts too, so your "almost none" claim is totally bogus.

My question is...why even bother telling a fib like that?

What point were you trying to make that blew up in your face?

You don't get to define almost none you don't get to say
posts I responded to not made by MDawg equate to having read
his post (keep twistin) You provided 11 instances of me responding to his posts
I would guess to define almost none we would need too look at the
relationship between my 11 and his However many to see if that 11
in relation to Dawgs many many many would qualify as almost none

Lookie here, If I have 1 million dollars it could be said I have a
lot of dollars However if Jeff Bezos shows up and we compare
our stacks of dollars it would be quickly agreed I have
very few dollars.

Quote: rainman

if Jeff Bezos shows up and we compare
our stacks of dollars it would be quickly agreed I have
very few dollars.

I don't know about that, but who would say
that your millions dollars is almost none?

Almost none quantifies the relationship between what
you have to none, not to what somebody else has.

Anyway, it's clear that you've read plenty of MDawg's posts,
not one million but not even close to none.

So why did you say almost none?

Quote: coachbelly

I don't know about that, but who would say
that your millions dollars is almost none?

Well, here's a short list its a start:

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

You cant define almost none unless
it has a relationship in this instance
it can only be defined by the ratio of
mine to his which is almost none.

Why do you keep thinking we have
to use your non defined definition
of almost none.

Quote: MrV

Nice dodge and tap dance there.

My question WAS legit, as is my incredulity.

Answer the damned question.

yeah, you certainly sound like you're interested in a different perspective than your own!! ding dong!

P.s. some people end up in the block hole. Whether you end up there, is not yet known

Quote: MrV

Nice dodge and tap dance there.

My question WAS legit, as is my incredulity.

Answer the damned question.

Wellbush doesn’t have a paradox. If he did he would have posted it by now.

I found an 18 or 19 step Marty this morning. Didn't know it existed. But in this video, he should have been pressing his winning streak, and he was totally overbetting on his strategy by at least a factor of 10.
Winning Roulette Strategy! (Kitchen Martingale by Harryj) - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN-yKHV-prs

Quote: Wellbush

yeah, you certainly sound like you're interested in a different perspective than your own!! ding dong!

This isn't about me, it's about what YOU said YOU would do.

You wrote: "i'll reply at some point. right now i'm exhausted."

But yes, I am indeed very interested in having you answer the question as you PROMISED you would.

Of course I'll question it: you already know that; but if your proof holds up you'll be vindicated.

Objective vs. Subjective; math vs. BS.

Man up and tell us: explain "the math" that supports MD's brag that he wins fifty or more sessions in a row.

You promised you would, but for being too "exhausted" at the time.

Quote: Marcusclark66

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

I really don’t believe anyone is “beating” any negative expectation game. Caveat…if somehow they are, I don’t believe they are dumb enough to “advertise” this and seek validation on message forums. Then again, maybe I’m offering too much credit.

People win sessions. People lose sessions. For some reason, those 2 facts aren’t enough for them….on a message forum.

Quote: unJon

Wellbush doesn’t have a paradox. If he did he would have posted it by now.

burp!! Scooze me. The reflux is bad today 😃

Quote: MrV

This isn't about me, it's about what YOU said YOU would do.

You wrote: "i'll reply at some point. right now i'm exhausted."

But yes, I am indeed very interested in having you answer the question as you PROMISED you would.

Of course I'll question it: you already know that; but if your proof holds up you'll be vindicated.

Objective vs. Subjective; math vs. BS.

Man up and tell us: explain "the math" that supports MD's brag that he wins fifty or more sessions in a row.

You promised you would, but for being too "exhausted" at the time.

yeh, i did say I would reply, but then I changed my mind. So you got the first part of the last sentence right, but you've ignored the second part. Just like how I've described you in that last sentence, I changed my mind because it's become obvious that your take on any discussion is gonna be one-eyed! Ding dong!

Man up? You got no idea! Just read through any series of posts of mine anywhere and show me how I haven't manned up! That's another two wrong assumptions you've made about me before I even reply! Your behaviour may not be obvious to you, but not to me

Quote: TDVegas

I really don’t believe anyone is “beating” any negative expectation game. Caveat…if somehow they are, I don’t believe they are dumb enough to “advertise” this and seek validation on message forums.

And they're probably far less dumb than someone responding to their posts!

They post to point out 'rude' facts...that 'some' gamblers can beat the house 'over the long term!' Many can't, but 'some' can!

Quote: Wellbush

And they're probably far less dumb than someone responding to their posts!

They post to point out 'rude' facts...that 'some' gamblers can beat the house 'over the long term!' Many can't, but 'some' can!

Do you have what it takes?

Quote: unJon

Do you have what it takes?

burp!! Geez, apologies. After meal effects 😀. No I don't, I'm as lame as a duck!

Quote: Wellbush

burp!! Geez, apologies. After meal effects 😀

You should get that checked out. Does your country have free healthcare? I know you said you don’t even have $2,000 to your name so I hope it’s nothing serious.

Quote: unJon

You should get that checked out. Does your country have free healthcare? I know you said you don’t even have $2,000 to your name so I hope it’s nothing serious.

thanks for your concern. I'm more worried about my hearing aids . They just don't seem to work when Sabre posts. I'll get my aids checked out sometime in the next 10 years. He's just gonna have to be patient

Quote: Wellbush

thanks for your concern. I'm more worried about my hearing aids . They just don't seem to work when Sabre posts. I'll get my aids checked out sometime in the next 10 years. He's just gonna have to be patient

By then you’ll be filthy rich rolling in winnings. Should be able to afford to get them checked out.

Quote: unJon

By then you’ll be filthy rich rolling in winnings. Should be able to afford to get them checked out.

true

Quote: Wellbush

yeh, i did say I would reply, but then I changed my mind. So you got the first part of the last sentence right, but you've ignored the second part. Just like how I've described you in that last sentence, I changed my mind because it's become obvious that your take on any discussion is gonna be one-eyed! Ding dong!

Aw, did the big, bad, nasty Mr. V scare poor little wellbush?

Yeah, I'd be aftraid too if I were you.

LOL

I knew you had nothing.

So did / do you.

Your posts take up space but add nothing, because you've nothing to add.

Quote: MrV

Aw, did the big, bad, nasty Mr. V scare poor little wellbush?

Yeah, I'd be aftraid too if I were you.

LOL

I knew you had nothing.

So did / do you.

You take up space but add nothing, because you've nothing to add.

dribble dribble. I got nothing to do but reply to you. Hey, that rhymes, pay me some dimes. MrV, he's a naughty bee. I told him "no," but he wouldn't go. UnJon chimed in, not a big sin. Sabre just posted. He better be careful or he might get roasted. For now, I'll give him the benefit of doubt, one step outta line and I'll bend his snout. MDawg's away, the boys at play. Don't think he doesn't know? He'll be back to show, he's been keeping tabs on all the stabs. No-one will be spared, he'll have them snared, made accountable. Their punishment? Insurmountable. "How so?" they say, but they will pay, the Dawg they offended, only punishment will amend it. I'll end it here but let it be clear, pick a fight with believers, you'll end up receivers, egg on your face and in second place.

Maybe the Wellbush paradox is the friends we've made along the way.

No, the wellbush paradox was succinctly stated by that beloved comedy troupe, Firesign Theatre, back in the day:

"How Can You Be in Two Places at Once When You're Not Anywhere at All?"

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*

for the benefit of others, I'll reply. If it's true he's won approx 50 winning sessions in a row, then I'd say it's entirely possible. It would seem impossible to some who don't understand how, though. MD's play has got the hallmarks of a very real and profitable type of strategy that I've developed myself: progressive bet-sizing coupled with knowing the ebb and flow of a game.

I'm not really sure how you want this kind of scenario formulated, because you're asking about winning 'sessions' in a row. I can probably give some idea about how a gambler can beat the house consistently, but that wouldn't 'prove' a 'certain number of sessions' in a row. It will however, give people an understanding how it's entirely possible to win many sessions in a row. If I can show how someone can win many sessions in a row, then it's entirely possible that someone can win approx. 50 sessions in a row.

First, I have to state that I don't know what MD seems to know about baccarat. I've never played the game, but that's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because we're talking about what's possible for someone to do, not necessarily for me to do. I know the game of baccarat would be close to offering a gambler a 50/50 chance of winning most hands dealt. This, of itself, would mean the player has a very real chance of beating the house edge over the long term, using a progressive bet-size strategy.

Before I go on, let me be clear about another thing that's important. If anyone thinks from what they read about my posts, that they can just go to a casino and use a progressive bet-size strategy and beat the house, they could lose their money easily. That's because my strategy has taken hours and hours to develop, and it's not an exact replica of the progression strategies people will find in their searches. My strategy is a variation of the fibonacci sequence, not the exact sequence. If someone reads this post and thinks they can go to a casino and use the fibonacci sequence and win, they could very easily lose money. I will explain why throughout this post.

Now that that's said, I'll go on. I use a progression strategy in the game of blackjack on free online software (I mention that I play with free software online because I'm honest. It's solely due to lack of funds that I'm not using real money at this point in time, not because I'm afraid to use my strategy. And my winning strategy has only recently been developed, which is why I haven't profited from it, yet). The game of BJ would have similar odds to the game of baccarat. I use negative progression only. I may tinker with positive progression in the future. The fibonacci sequence allows the gambler to retrieve his losses by playing less hands then it took to lose his money. That is the entire basis upon which a 'negative' progression strategy can be profitable - winning less hands to retrieve back a gambler's losses.

I can't state that enough. The central reason (but not the only reason) a negative progression strategy can be profitable is because it allows a player to play sufficiently less hands to retrieve his losses, than the number of hands it took for him to have a loss.

The reason I use a variation of a progressive strategy is because the classic fibonacci sequence puts the gambler at risk of exceeding his bankroll when encountering a long losing streak (table limits probably aren't much of a problem because a player can just move up to a higher limit table, should he need to). My variation overcomes the problem of long losing streaks. Unless gamblers come up with a variation like mine, that can deal with long losing streaks, then they run the risk of ruin.

Getting back to your question, MD has immediately got one advantage over many gamblers - access to a sizeable bankroll, should he need it. I am not certain that he needs this access to a sizeable bankroll, but he may, and it could be why he's so successful. MD uses progressive bet-sizing in his play. He may also have a particular skill in knowing the ebb and flow of cards in the game of baccarat, and how to combine this with his progressive bet sizing. You will note he's no beginner and has years of baccarat play under his belt. This is important. I also have countless hours of BJ play under my belt.

For all the reasons in this post, it's entirely possible MD can win approx. 50 sessions in a row. If you have objections, that's fine. I'm happy to address each and every one of them. If I covered every objection in this post, it would undoubtedly be a much longer post than what it is already. If people reply with derision without any intention of a discourse, then that just shows a close-mindedness or they're trying to gain some sort of egotistical victory, not a proper understanding.

Delete

I think it's great that the first thing anyone searching for WoV at 10 PM on a Friday night will see is Wellbush's post above.

I guess WoV has finally made it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIf9Wz8Md6A

Quote: redietz

I think it's great that the first thing anyone searching for WoV at 10 PM on a Friday night will see is Wellbush's post above.

I guess WoV has finally made it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIf9Wz8Md6A

your depth of knowledge is profound!!

I'm an amazing auto mechanic. I've never worked on a car in my life, but I know more than anyone else about how to repair cars. A lack of funds is the only reason I don't run a dozen auto repair shops.

Have you mentioned to people that you're very good at hiding in cyber space and attacking people? A great calling. You seem to be relentless in this pursuit of yours. And it seems quite okay for OD to allow you to do it. Maybe that says something about OD, too. Where did this habit of yours start? Have a terrible day. You're back on my blocked list ****er.