The Adventures of MDawg
Quote: kewljWhy not direct your question to Mike who can actually answer it.
There are 2 questions...the first question only Once Dear can answer.
Anyone can answer the second question should they choose to do so.
Quote: coachbellyHow did you come by that understanding?
Was Jerry Logan confirmed by the admins to be a Singer sock puppet or not?
I came to that understanding by reading historical posts for myself, just out of curiosity.
Rob Singer and Jerry Logan and another bunch of related identities were nuked from this forum in 2011, three years or so before I even became a member here and many more years before I became a moderator.
At that time, many of those identities were nuked for 'personal insult' offences as logged in the suspension list from that time.
That said, I have done my own research as I would with many current suspensions. I can still see some of Rob's sock ID;s with conclusive evidence. I can also see conclusive evidence that links the Rob Singer ID to the Jerry Logan ID.
I neither know, nor care who would dispute that they are the same member. I sure as hell don't want to prove it or provide confidential evidence to you or to anyone.
Quote: ExpectedvalueWhen you color out your chips are recorded. Do you think they keep a running tally of who tipped at the table.
They keep a running tally to constantly reconcile the buy-ins vs the table stacks and what's in the rack.
The difference went to the players, whether it's been hidden or was given away.
Quote: OnceDearI came to that understanding by reading historical posts for myself
I just did some of that by entering Jerry Logan in the search tab...I would categorize everything I read as gossip.
Quote: OnceDearI can also see conclusive evidence that links the Rob Singer ID to the Jerry Logan ID.
That evidence may link the IDs to a location, but not to the same body.
So we have an admitted sock-puppet creator accusing another member of creating socks,
and presenting the accusation as fact.
The accuser justifies his own reason for rule breaking, while casting aspersions upon another,
based on accusations and threads from 10 years ago, that the accuser was not even party to.
Accusations presented as facts, as though an accusation is actual proof.
Isn't that problematic?
Quote: kewljAnyway let's get back on topic here. This thread was started over a year ago and covers I don't know how many trips, all winning trips, with nearly every session being a winning session. And Mdawg referenced even more of the same before the start of this thread. THAT is the problem many of us have. Not that it is possible to win overall at -EV, even for a somewhat unusual period of time. At some point that becomes problematic, but lets let that go for now. But every session, every trip a winner. That is problematic right now. It defies math.
The documented results of consistent wins do not defy math. It only defies the assumption that he is playing -EV games. Given the results, it is a virtual impossibility he is playing -EV games. Math has already shown that it is possible to play +EV at table games. Consistently winning with an advantage is not unusual, many people do it every day.
Quote: coachbellyThey keep a running tally to constantly reconcile the buy-ins vs the table stacks and what's in the rack.
The difference went to the players, whether it's been hidden or was given away.
Running tab yes, Who is tipping NO!!! Just NO!!!! You really are incinerating that they note who tipped what. This is so absurd to even make that claim. If I buy in for 10k Make bets for dealers of 100 each hand and play ten hands winning all ten and then color up. My color out is 20k. There is no chance it 22k
Quote: TomGThe documented results of consistent wins do not defy math. It only defies the assumption that he is playing -EV games. Given the results, it is a virtual impossibility he is playing -EV games. Math has already shown that it is possible to play +EV at table games. Consistently winning with an advantage is not unusual, many people do it every day.
Except, I asked MDawg months ago if there was something he was doing, something that he wasn't telling us that allowed him to play with an advantage and he said "NO".
Had he said yes, I would have pursued it no further.
Quote: coachbellyI just did some of that by entering Jerry Logan in the search tab...I would categorize everything I read as gossip.
That evidence may link the IDs to a location, but not to the same body.
How ridiculous! The person you are speaking of has been identified as creating sock puppets by every forum owner/administrator at every forum he has been at and you want to say something as ridiculous as this.
Why do you ask the question, if you aren't willing to accept the answer? Makes it impossible to take anything you say seriously.
Not problematic as applied to the posts at issue.Quote: coachbellyI just did some of that by entering Jerry Logan in the search tab...I would categorize everything I read as gossip.
That evidence may link the IDs to a location, but not to the same body.
So we have an admitted sock-puppet creator accusing another member of creating socks,
and presenting the accusation as fact.
The accuser justifies his own reason for rule breaking, while casting aspersions upon another,
based on accusations and threads from 10 years ago, that the accuser was not even party to.
Accusations presented as facts, as though an accusation is actual proof.
Isn't that problematic?
Very true, but irrelevant. If we needed dna, fingerprint or photographic evidence of sockery, we would seldom suspend any trouble maker. Good news though that no member actually gets put to death on the evidence we collect.Quote: coachbellyI just did some of that by entering Jerry Logan in the search tab...I would categorize everything I read as gossip.
That evidence may link the IDs to a location, but not to the same body.
Neither of the user Ids in question was nuked for being a sock of the other. Whether you or I or others believe they are the same person is moot.
Quote:
So we have an admitted sock-puppet creator accusing another member of creating socks,
and presenting the accusation as fact.
If you mean kj's 'accusation'? that doesn't figure in my understanding.
Fact. The members RobSinger and JerryLogan ARE ex-members. Nothing about that is open to debate with me. If you want to troll anyone on that topic, take it up with Wizard directly.
And you? Were you a party to those events? (rhetorical)Quote:
The accuser justifies his own reason for rule breaking, while casting aspersions upon another,
based on accusations and threads from 10 years ago, that the accuser was not even party to.
Accusations presented as facts, as though an accusation is actual proof.
No.Quote:Isn't that problematic?
Quote: ExpectedvalueMy color out is 20k. There is no chance it 22k
If there's $2K in the dealer's toke box, it had to come from a player.
When you leave they will count the rack and determine what your total win was and adjust the entry on the tablet,
because the dealer dropped $2K in his toke box that you won, and that will be reconciled as your win.
These are accounting principles, the sum of all columns must zero out within a permissible tolerance.
Quote: kewljThe person you are speaking of has been identified as creating sock puppets by every forum owner/administrator at every forum he has been at
I haven't visited every forum he has been at, and neither have you.
Right here, I found Jerry Logan on the suspension list...the reason given was "Nuclear option invoked"
Singer's name is on the list too...the reason given was "Nuclear option/resignation"
There are other suspensions due to "Multiple identities" but Singer is not among them.
So when was Singer identified as creating sock puppets here? And by whom?
I don't live alone, is everyone who shares my household wifi a sock puppet ?
Are you an attorney by training by chance?Quote: coachbellyI haven't visited every forum he has been at, and neither have you.
Right here, I found Jerry Logan on the suspension list...the reason given was "Nuclear option invoked"
Singer's name is on the list too...the reason given was "Nuclear option/resignation"
There are other suspensions due to "Multiple identities" but Singer is not among them.
So when was Singer identified as creating sock puppets here? And by whom?
I don't live alone, is everyone who shares my household wifi a sock puppet ?
Moot! Lovely word so many definitions.Quote: coachbellyI haven't visited every forum he has been at, and neither have you.
Right here, I found Jerry Logan on the suspension list...the reason given was "Nuclear option invoked"
Singer's name is on the list too...the reason given was "Nuclear option/resignation"
There are other suspensions due to "Multiple identities" but Singer is not among them.
So when was Singer identified as creating sock puppets here? And by whom?
I don't live alone, is everyone who shares my household wifi a sock puppet ?
Quote: coachbelly
I don't live alone, is everyone who shares my household wifi a sock puppet ?
Oh for God sakes.
Quote: OnceDearFact. The members RobSinger and JerryLogan ARE ex-members. Nothing about that is open to debate with me.
Are you implying that current members are immune from scrutiny
if making false accusations about ex-members?
That may be a rule, but Singer and Logan are both listed as "Restricted User",
the same status as the most recently suspended member.
This is what I meant by a problematic misrepresentation of fact.
Quote: unJonAre you an attorney by training by chance?
PM me and we can discuss it
Quote: kewljOh for God sakes.
Shared wifi is common in multi-unit dwellings...a casino-hotel for example.
It doesn't mean those who share IPNs are the same person.
I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't do 'implying'Quote: coachbellyAre you implying that current members are immune from scrutiny
if making false accusations about ex-members?
They are listed as 'Restricted User' A catch-all description applied for a one day suspension or a permanent ban. We know it to be a permanent ban in the cases of those two members. That's where the story ends.Quote:That may be a rule, but Singer and Logan are both listed as "Restricted User",
the same status as the most recently suspended member.
This is what I meant by a problematic misrepresentation of fact.
Debating a few nine year old suspensions with a view to getting a current member suspended is pretty lame trolling.
No-one made that assertion.Quote: coachbellyShared wifi is common in multi-unit dwellings...a casino-hotel for example.
It doesn't mean those who share IPNs are the same person.
Quote: OnceDearI'm saying what I'm saying.
Debating a few nine year old suspensions with a view to getting a current member suspended is pretty lame trolling.
Fact. OnceDear is a moderator
Fact. OnceDear has pointed out trolling by CoachBelly
Fact. OnceDear as a moderator is supposed to suspend those he identifies as trolling
Question. Why is CoachBelly not suspended?
Less is more. Moderation in ModerationQuote: SOOPOOFact. OnceDear is a moderator
Fact. OnceDear has pointed out trolling by CoachBelly
Fact. OnceDear as a moderator is supposed to suspend those he identifies as trolling
Question. Why is CoachBelly not suspended?
Quote: OnceDearI'm saying what I'm saying. I don't do 'implying'
You weren't clear about what you were saying, you implied something.
Are you saying that current members are immune from scrutiny when making false accusations about ex-members?
Quote: OnceDearThey are listed as 'Restricted User' A catch-all description applied for a one day suspension or a permanent ban. We know it to be a permanent ban in the cases of those two members. That's where the story ends.
No I don't think that's where the story ends, because it didn't end that way with kewlj.
They may be currently banned from posting on this forum, but they are still members.
But why even argue about it, unless you are protecting members from bearing false witness?
Quote: OnceDearNo-one made that assertion.
I didn't accuse anyone of making the assertion.
I'm explaining that different forum names cannot be established as bing the same individual for an IPN.
Do you disagree?
Quote: OnceDearDebating a few nine year old suspensions with a view to getting a current member suspended is pretty lame trolling.
Why are you accusing me of trolling you?
I wasn't addressing you in this thread...you engaged me, and kept it going,
you continued to reply to my posts that were directed at other members...not you.
Go back to page 215 and read through the thread if you need to refresh your memory.
Quote: coachbellyYou weren't clear about what you were saying, you implied something.
Are you saying that current members are immune from scrutiny when making false accusations about ex-members?
No I don't think that's where the story ends, because it didn't end that way with kewlj.
They may be currently banned from posting on this forum, but they are still members.
But why even argue about it, unless you are protecting members from bearing false witness?
I didn't accuse anyone of making the assertion.
I'm explaining that different forum names cannot be established as bing the same individual for an IPN.
Do you disagree?
Why are you accusing me of trolling you?
I wasn't addressing you in this thread...you engaged me, and kept it going,
then you continued to reply to my posts that were directed at other members...not you.
Go back to page 215 and read through the thread if you need to refresh your memory.
Thank you for double spacing the lines of your post so that I can take each line in turn and debate it. I choose not to.
Maybe we will continue our chat in 7 3 days. Goodnight.
Secondly, I fail to see the worth of even discussing or expounding on the nuances of AP play in what is essentially an anonymous forum. Ego? What else can it be?
If I’m any good, I don’t need anyone to discuss anything. In fact, that discussion on an open forum with strangers could prove detrimental. Now, If the discussion might prove fruitful...I can guarantee it will be taken offline, IF they were smart.
My thinking is any AP player worth his salt isn’t on chat or gambling forums to help his bottom line. In my view, there’s only one logical conclusion to “advertise” as such. Ego.
Quote: TDVegasI fail to see how depositing $50,000 at the cage is some relevant “rule” for watching an AP player in action.
It's not. What that $50,000 is, is a condition that the person believes won't be acceptable and met, to guarantee that no such meeting and viewing occurs. We see it all the time in these situations.
Quote: TDVegas
Secondly, I fail to see the worth of even discussing or expounding on the nuances of AP play in what is essentially an anonymous forum. Ego? What else can it be?
I am confused. Is your reference to AP play in reference to MDawg's play may be some sort of play at an advantage? Because I repeatedly asked him this early on. I asked if there was something he was doing or some conditions he was getting that would have him playing at an advantage? He repeatedly said no. Had he said that he has discovered something that no one else had, that allows him to play with an advantage, I would have still been skeptical and I am sure others would have still questioned, but at least for me, the "defying math" would have been off the table at least until a demonstration was arranged.
The bottom line for me is that Wizard's proposal wasn't a demand. He didn't say show me your play or you are off the forum or anything like that. Wizard's proposal was an opportunity for MDawg to end this. To prove everyone, including Wizard wrong. Instead of jumping at that opportunity, he immediately stated he was all of the sudden very busy and couldn't arrange such a demonstration. Funny thing though....for such a busy guy, he has been posting non-stop at half dozen forums. :/
Quote: kewljIt's not. What that $50,000 is, is a condition that the person believes won't be acceptable and met, to guarantee that no such meeting and viewing occurs. We see it all the time in these situations.
I am confused. Is your reference to AP play in reference to MDawg's play may be some sort of play at an advantage? Because I repeatedly asked him this early on. I asked if there was something he was doing or some conditions he was getting that would have him playing at an advantage? He repeatedly said no. Had he said that he has discovered something that no one else had, that allows him to play with an advantage, I would have still been skeptical and I am sure others would have still questioned, but at least for me, the "defying math" would have been off the table at least until a demonstration was arranged.
The bottom line for me is that Wizard's proposal wasn't a demand. He didn't say show me your play or you are off the forum or anything like that. Wizard's proposal was an opportunity for MDawg to end this. To prove everyone, including Wizard wrong. Instead of jumping at that opportunity, he immediately stated he was all of the sudden very busy and couldn't arrange such a demonstration. Funny thing though....for such a busy guy, he has been posting non-stop at half dozen forums. :/
Demonstrate what for a session or a few?? Baccarat is a very low house edge game (1%)....what the hell is going to be demonstrated over a few shoes? He might be up or down some. What’s the demonstration? That he looks up to the gods with hands open out front, wins that hand...and says “aha!!!”...?
This is akin to the same argument we heard about dice influence. This isn’t something that can be demonstrated before wizard topples over from hunger and dehydration.
Quote: TDVegasDemonstrate what for a session or a few?? Baccarat is a very low house edge game (1%)....what the hell is going to be demonstrated over a few shoes? He might be up or down some. What’s the demonstration? That he looks up to the gods with hands open out front, wins that hand...and says “aha!!!”...?
This is akin to the same argument we heard about dice influence. This isn’t something that can be demonstrated before wizard topples over from hunger and dehydration.
Mike will be fine. He can pack himself a snack. lol
Ordinarily, I would be in complete agreement, that nothing can be determined from a small sample size. But this case is a little different. Viewing just a handful of sessions could have some meaning in that suppose Mdawg was to lose 3 or 4 out of 5 or 6 sessions? I mean this is a guy who claims to win just about all sessions. That small sample size would already contradict his claims.
Quote: kewljMike will be fine. He can pack himself a snack. lol
Ordinarily, I would be in complete agreement, that nothing can be determined from a small sample size. But this case is a little different. Viewing just a handful of sessions could have some meaning in that suppose Mdawg was to lose 3 or 4 out of 5 or 6 sessions? I mean this is a guy who claims to win just about all sessions. That small sample size would already contradict his claims.
Without disclosing prior, some of the parameters of his “system” or whatever it’s called....anyone can devise a strategy that will NOT lose 3 or 4 out of 5 or 6 sessions.
signed,
Marty Martingale or Negative Progression Pete.
Quote: TDVegasWithout disclosing prior, some of the parameters of his “system” or whatever it’s called....anyone can devise a strategy that will NOT lose 3 or 4 out of 5 or 6 sessions.
signed,
Marty Martingale or Negative Progression Pete.
Of course. But that is where Wizard comes in. Wizards proposal was not a wager. It was about observing MDawgs play to see if it could achieve the long-term claims that MDawg has stated. Mike would instantly recognize that it was a progressive system not capable of achieving the longterm claims, even if MDawg won over that much smaller sample size.
Quote: kewljOf course. But that is where Wizard comes in. Wizards proposal was not a wager. It was about observing MDawgs play to see if it could achieve the long-term claims that MDawg has stated. Mike would instantly recognize that it was a progressive system not capable of achieving the longterm claims, even if MDawg won over that much smaller sample size.
Ok...let the games begin. I doubt it ever happens. I don’t think anyone has any system to beat baccarat in the claimed manner. Short of calling the whole thing a hoax...my guess is “someone” simply has bankroll to wager big, and nothing more. Wins, loses. Gets comps.
On another BJ game, I was down over a hundred hands tonight, then I won about 50 hands back (like the machine was broken) and made my money back and then some, so I'm a hundred hands ahead now. I was on the last 10 hands of my 6th 25 hand $10K buy-in, and turned that $10K into $90K, or went from $120K to $63K then back to $160K. I was max bet at $5K so I could have gone on but decided to lock up a profit.
Teliot is saying that MDawg might well have won exactly the way he claims. Which, I am here to tell you, MDawg did! Teliot is conceding the difference between what might be improbable, versus what is impossible. I can respect that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfs5rQgJsv4&t=1665s
Quote: MDawg
Teliot is saying that MDawg might well have won exactly the way he claims. Which, I am here to tell you, MDawg did! Teliot is conceding the difference between what might be improbable, versus what is impossible. I can respect that.
See this is EXACTLY why I didn't want someone like Eliot, to mention that what MDawg is claiming is not impossible, but rather a number of S.D.'s "unlikely". I knew MDawg would jump on those comments and say "see it is possible".
But in my mind there is much more to the "story" than if it is possible. If you go back and read the 220 pages of this thread and I wouldn't wish that on anyone (maybe Eliot since he is retired ), you will see situation like one that I was recently directed too about 6 months ago where MDawg was just finishing up a trip.... a trip that he won big , won I think every session and here is here is the problem area, he stated that he would continue to win just like that on future trip! :0
So now we have had future trips and MDawg has won just like he hinted that he would. Tell me how many standard deviations of "unlikely" THAT is Eliot.
See it isn't just an unusual win that you can say "well, it's not likely, but not impossible". You have to put all this stuff together and it just becomes way unbelievable to me and others. And that is not calling anyone a liar. I just don't believe this story AS STATED and apparently most others don't either, including I would say Eliot himself. Eliot went to the trouble to make a power point video, explaining how trolls behave, and you can't tell me the timing of that was just a coincidence and not inspired by this very situation. lol
Lets see what else we can respect about Teliot..Quote: MDawg
Teliot is saying that MDawg might well have won exactly the way he claims. Which, I am here to tell you, MDawg did! Teliot is conceding the difference between what might be improbable, versus what is impossible. I can respect that.
here is a video he made and this is the title...
How to Identify a Baccarat Scammer, Fraudster, Liar, Troll or Delusional Bragger.
https://youtu.be/CUu-SbChCeY
ENJOY!!!
I actually haven't watched the video but tell me, is it about me? I'm that famous that out of all the world's Baccarat players he picked me about whom to create a video?
My only question is why is it so important to MDawg that everyone must know (accept) that he’s beating baccarat?
Quote: TDVegas
My only question is why is it so important to MDawg that everyone must know (accept) that he’s beating baccarat?
Because it is quite literally, and I do mean literally, the purpose of the existence of MDawg.
How can it be fake. I wrote an entire book
Go ahead and write an entirely fake book and get back to me
