The Adventures of MDawg
Quote: MDawgInteresting comment. Just shy of coherence, but I suppose it means something to you. [/q
What t Eliot missed is how much more unlikely this all becomes when you factor in the amount of tipping you say you do. On top of the fact that every casino you play at supposedly has unlimited tolerance for you winning and continues to welcome you and comp you
They won’t necessarily accuse cheating or anything else. They might just say they are uncomfortable with the play.
My guess continues to be he wins and he loses, he’s not playing advantage baccarat and the chances that he’s even net positive over decades of play is near nil.
Thanks for the link, I was surprised at the quality of the questions people asked. I'll probably do it again this coming weekend. I especially loved the person in chat who said he knew more about baccarat than I do. I thought I had the corner on arrogance.Quote: ChumpChangeAsk a Gambling and Casino Expert Anything! 12.05.2020 - Advanced Advantage Play
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfs5rQgJsv4&t=1665s
Yep. Lesson learned.Quote: ChumpChangeYou shouldn't stream & zoom at the same time (unless you spring for a (higher) 25-30 mbps upload speed).
You must do this while home they won't allow a perm line increase while on property.
I'm a believer.
I couldn’t leave her if I tried.Quote: MDawgMDawg just doubled all of his credit lines at every casino I play at. I started off with just three of them, then decided to go all the way.
I'm a believer.
Quote: MDawgMDawg just doubled all of his credit lines at every casino I play at.
I'm a believer.
Big deal
I tripled all my lines of credit
I love I'm a believer
Unfortunately the Monkees not a real band so not in the rock hall of fame
What the Wizard is saying, unless I am mistaken, is that he believes everything I have stated as far as past events. If I am mistaken, he may step in and correct me. In other words, the Wizard is not calling me a liar.
He has asked me to prove that I may continue to win, is the essence of his challenge. He and I have discussed that challenge and he has made clear that it is not a demand. As far as anything more on that future subject, he and I have discussed it.
Quote: terapined
I love I'm a believer
I'm a believer is a Neil Diamond song.
My late Partner was a big Neil Diamond fan and turned me on to him even though his prime was way before my time. I got to see a few concerts and he put on a good show even as he was older. Unfortunately Neil is now in failing health battling Parkinson's.
The story goes he was very shy when younger, so he wrote songs for the Monkees and other artist but at some point decided he didn't like the way others were singing his songs.
Quote: terapinedthe Monkees not a real band
The Monkees were a real band, what kind of thing is that to say?
I've seen them in concert several times...they wrote, recorded, and performed music as the Monkees.
What other qualifications are there?
Quote: MDawgHowever, you tripled nothing because you have no credit......
Are you kidding me
I have triple gold credit
Institutions beg me borrow money
Zero debt and every loan in my life paid off
Quote: coachbellyThe Monkees were a real band, what kind of thing is that to say?
I've seen them in concert several times...they wrote, recorded, and performed music as the Monkees.
What other qualifications are there?
Ask the rock and roll hall of fame?
Ted Nugent can't believe he's not in either
Why you felt the need to tell me all that, I don't know.
And you seem to miss the point on a lot of things. What does being in the hall of fame or not have to do with being a real rock band.
Quote: MDawgWe're talking about casino credit lines here.
Why you felt the need to tell me all that, I don't know.
Why triple
Go for the gusto.
Why not ask the casino for the gazillion line like the gazillionaire. Get real respect here lol
Why did you feel the need to start this thread :-)
Quote: terapinedAsk the rock and roll hall of fame?
Ted Nugent can't believe he's not in either
That HOF is not the arbiter of whether a band was real or not, just whether they were great.
I saw Ted Nugent a few times too...definitely not a hall of famer.
Two irrelevant erroneous comments? Good night. You may carry on your irrelevant conversation with yourself.
Quote: MDawgI'm just commenting on two things you mentioned. You said you tripled your lines of casino credit after I mentioned that I tripled mine. And yet you have no credit at any casino apparently, nor did you triple it.
And how do you know that exactly???????????
Have you met me?
Everything I have posted here about myself could be a total lie
Think about it. Maybe others are lying about their lives :-)
Quote: coachbellyThat HOF is not the arbiter of whether a band was real or not, just whether they were great.
I saw Ted Nugent a few times too...definitely not a hall of famer.
I just though the I'm a Believer irony from a band that in some ways were not a band (studio musicians on the hits)just as some winners are really not winners simply because they believe they won
I saw Peter live with his band, Blue Suede Blues
I think the Monkees and Three Dog Night should both be in the rock hall
We are so sad to announce that we have no choice other than to cancel Shambala Festival 2020. ...Jun 15, 2020
Quote: ChumpChangeIf all the druggy bands who broke the law on a daily basis were allowed a hall of fame, not sure it would be located in Shambala.
We are so sad to announce that we have no choice other than to cancel Shambala Festival 2020. ...Jun 15, 2020
I had to Google that one.
Quote: terapinedstudio musicians on the hits
That's all of Motown, and even the Beatles recorded many hits with them singing, but only studio musicians accompanying.
Yesterday, the highest-grossing song of all time, featured Paul only singing and backed by studio musicians.
No other Beatles are on the recording.
Quote: coachbellyThat's all of Motown, and even the Beatles recorded many hits with them singing, but only studio musicians accompanying.
Yesterday, the highest-grossing song of all time, featured Paul only singing and backed by studio musicians.
No other Beatles are on the recording.
I believe in many instances. the wrong people are getting all the credit when it's often a team effort
Take the Monkees. Don Kirshner, studio musicians and songwriters have a lot more to do with the hit then who's vocals are on the song.
Take Carol Kaye. She should be in the hall of fame
So you really believe deviating from optimal strategy and giving the house a higher edge is a formula for winning?
Quote: terapinedSo you really believe deviating from optimal strategy and giving the house a higher edge is a formula for winning?
My focus is on whether or not MDawg's claims of having won are possible, and whether or not those who accuse him of lying can prove that he is lying.
I don't believe that they are able to prove that he is lying, but I encourage them to try harder.
The accusations are stale, ample opportunity to prove lying have been presented.
Having accused him, they are now obligated to prove him guilty as charged.
Put up or shut up.
Quote: coachbellyMy focus is on whether or not MDawg's claims of having won are possible, and whether or not those who accuse him of lying can prove that he is lying.
I don't believe that they are able to prove that he is lying, but I encourage them to try harder.
The accusations are stale, ample opportunity to prove lying have been presented.
Having accused him, they are now obligated to prove him guilty as charged.
Put up or shut up.
?????????
"Put up or shut up" WTF
Nobody is obligated to do jack and you can't shut anybody up.
What's impossible remains impossible
It's becoming very weird in that you are under the impression there is some type of obligation here.
Where does that come from?
How do you shut up a member?
Bizarro
Quote: terapinedHow do you shut up a member?
Relax...it's just a suggestion.
Quote: coachbellyMy focus is on whether or not MDawg's claims of having won are possible, and whether or not those who accuse him of lying can prove that he is lying.
I don't believe that they are able to prove that he is lying, but I encourage them to try harder.
The accusations are stale, ample opportunity to prove lying have been presented.
Having accused him, they are now obligated to prove him guilty as charged.
Put up or shut up.
I don’t know if anyone has actually accused him of lying. I do believe many are stating he has not provided the evidence they want to see (in person) in order TO believe him. There IS a difference.
Throwing the word lying around in this manner is not good. Saying “I don’t believe you because you have not provided evidence I need to believe you”....is NOT calling someone a liar. Now, what entails “satisfaction” is a judgement call and is likely something that must be done jury like where one person is not judge, jury and executioner....although I think most are in agreement that the Wizard would be granted such authority.
If baccarat cannot be played to an advantage mathematically....that is the proof.
It is incumbent upon the person making the claim to PROVE the claim to the satisfaction of the disbeliever....not the other way around. Oh, and just for reference..you saying “he has” or him saying “I have” does not qualify. I think majority are in agreement that the Wizard’s word would be considered most credible.
Quote: TDVegasSaying “I don’t believe you because you have not provided evidence I need to believe you”....is NOT calling someone a liar.
In this case it is, MDawg has been called a liar by those who claim lack of evidence.
Quote: TDVegasIf baccarat cannot be played to an advantage mathematically....that is the proof.
The proof of what? Proof that MDawg has not won as he as claimed?
Quote: TDVegasIt is incumbent upon the person making the claim to PROVE the claim to the satisfaction of the disbeliever....not the other way around.
No that's not how it works in the USA.
If you accuse someone, then you must prove the accusation, or the accusation is dismissed.
Quote: coachbelly
No that's not how it works in the USA.
If you accuse someone, then you must prove the accusation, or the accusation is dismissed.
And here is where you are either confused or playing ignorant. First this is not a courtroom and no one is on trial. Second this forum is NOT the USA. It is Wizards forum and he makes the rules and decisions. He has said that many times. I was off the forum for 4 years and I know that. How do you NOT know that?
And Wizard has said it is time for MDawg to put up. I mean Mike seems to have gone quiet now, but that is what he said. So who knows where we stand now? I guess a continuation of a now year long troll of misinformation.
Quote: kewljthis forum is NOT the USA.
The same principles apply, and if they don't apply then they should apply.
In any case, Mike and MDawg seem comfortable with whatever negotiations they have going on.
You'll have to deal with that for however long it takes to resolve.
LOL...Mike and the Mad Dog...legendary radio partners in the NYC market.
This forum is actually a global forum. One of our own Mods resides in England.
Some posters are in Asia.
This whole USA centric idea for the forum doesn't add up.
Secondly, it's obvious Coach Belly has never dealt with any child protective services. Do some research. In the USA, an anonymous tip will have CPS assuming you are guilty from the get go.
So his innocent until proven guilty idea is a nice fancy but in practice not a US of A guarantee
Quote: coachbellyIn this case it is, MDawg has been called a liar by those who claim lack of evidence.
The proof of what? Proof that MDawg has not won as he as claimed?
No that's not how it works in the USA.
If you accuse someone, then you must prove the accusation, or the accusation is dismissed.
I believe the Wizard gave him a final offer a week ago or so. Show him in person how he’s beating baccarat. This solves 250 pages of back and forth, no? I don’t see where there is a problem. No “put up money first” stipulations.
Quote: ChumpChangePeople make their own luck with or without the Wizard. MDawg owes nobody anything, but he should stop with the stupid bets on forum members.
Correct...but his posting seems to want validation. At least on some level.
My suggestion from the very start was his own words....he wasn’t looking for commentary. He simply wanted to post his adventure. Wonderful. My first question was if there is a way to start a thread that doesn’t allow responses. Problem solved. 275 pages gets reduced to 25 and everyone is happy.
There's a blog section and he apparently has his own forum.Quote: TDVegasCorrect...but his posting seems to want validation. At least on some level.
My suggestion from the very start was his own words....he wasn’t looking for commentary. He simply wanted to post his adventure. Wonderful. My first question was if there is a way to start a thread that doesn’t allow responses. Problem solved. 275 pages gets reduced to 25 and everyone is happy.
Quote: AxelWolfYes, I do trust that he would hold the money and do the right thing. Now let's just see if MD is willing to put that money up.
Wouldn't MDawg also need to agree to use Mike as the bag man?
Is Mike also acceptable to you as a judge that shall determine if your faked evidence is passable as authentic, or of equal authenticity to MDawg's evidence?
I would advise that the judges should look at both sets of evidence, without either set presented as faked.
If they can't determine that one set seems more authentic than the other, then you will have won the prize.
Quote: coachbellyWouldn't MDawg also need to agree to use Mike as the bag man?
Is Mike also acceptable to you as a judge that shall determine if your faked evidence is passable as authentic, or of equal authenticity to MDawg's evidence?
I'm willing to be a bag man, but being a judge of faked pictures is not my area of expertise. I highly doubt we will actually see a challenge anyway on the nature of digital images. I'd prefer to see one based on a demonstration playing baccarat. That, I can be a judge on.
The first is that it be an event that is witnessed! This is what most people are trying to come up with as a challenge.
However, it also needs to be a repeatable event! That is other people of similar caliber can take the method used to win and defy mathematics.
I am certain MDawg is claiming not only is he the only person to figure out how to beat Baccarat BUT ALSO THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD USE HIS SYSTEM!
The catch-22 for MDawg is if his methods can't be used by anyone else because they aren't really a method then his method is simply dumb luck. Which could turn at a hairpin.
Otoh, if he demonstrates some actual, outside the box thinking, then it should be repeatable. That would prove his claims but at the risk of giving his methods away
Quote: WizardI highly doubt we will actually see a challenge anyway on the nature of digital images.
It seems like Axel is prepared to move forward compiling his set of faked evidence as soon as both parties consent to the bagman.
But the bagman need not be one of the judges.
I'm assuming there are experts that can verify the authenticity of images, for collectibles and such.
But MDawg intends to include in-person interviews with casino personnel as part of his evidence.
I'm not sure if Axel will be able to convince any Wynn executives to consent to dispensing false information on his behalf, although Axel seems certain that MDawg can convince them to do that on his behalf.
These are among the issues for the judges to consider.
Axel hasn't answered whether or not he would accept you as a judge, but its doesn't seem that Axel is willing to accept the legitimacy of any judges....and that's a dealbreaker for sure.
Quote: darkozSpeaking from a scientific and mathematical perspective, if someone says they can do something that defies science and math there are TWO CRITERIA to proving their claims.
Quote: darkozI am certain MDawg is claiming not only is he the only person to figure out how to beat Baccarat BUT ALSO THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD USE HIS SYSTEM!
What you have written above, especially your certainty about MDawg's claims, are simply not part of any of the challenges that have been proposed.
This is red herring territory, a distraction from what is actually being contemplated and negotiated.
The current challenges are intended to prove whether MDawg's claims of past results are false, whether anyone can fake evidence similar to what MDawg has provided to the same level of authenticity, and whether or not MDawg has played at the betting levels as he claims.
None of these challenges can be resolved by future play, that doesn't apply.
If you are requesting to witness MDawg's play, then he has outlined the circumstances by which he may accommodate your request...at no financial risk to you.
If you want to bet that MDawg can't win in the future like he claims he has in the past, then go for it...propose a bet that could produce the outcome you seek.
Quote: coachbellyWhat you have written above, especially your certainty about MDawg's claims, are simply not part of any of the challenges that have been proposed.
This is red herring territory, a distraction from what is actually being contemplated and negotiated.
The current challenges are intended to prove whether MDawg's claims of past results are false, whether anyone can fake evidence similar to what MDawg has provided to the same level of authenticity, and whether or not MDawg has played at the betting levels as he claims.
None of these challenges can be resolved by future play, that doesn't apply.
If you are requesting to witness MDawg's play, then he has outlined the circumstances by which he may accommodate your request...at no financial risk to you.
If you want to bet that MDawg can't win in the future like he claims he has in the past, then go for it...propose a bet that could produce the outcome you seek.
The Wizard just said he wants to witness play. Future play therefore is in question.
Future play is always in question.
MDawg is claiming he cannot guarantee winning in the future then he is claiming to simply be lucky.
Lots of people are lucky. That proves nothing!
Quote: coachbellyNone of these challenges can be resolved by future play, that doesn't apply.
That is the only thing that matters. Previous play is meaningless as it relates to this discussion.
Instead, why doesn't he just, this time, think things through carefully and come back with a proposed wager that he DOESN'T have to later revise. That makes a lot more sense than his making a proposed wager and then later asking for revisions.
Quote: MDawgAxelWolf made a few offers, claims and proposed wagers, but backed off from them by later adding qualifiers. The last post I saw from him, he wanted me to come back with some kind of qualifiers that could be added to the wager that was being discussed, namely the one where he believes that I do not play as I claim in day to day session reports as posted in this thread?
Instead, why doesn't he just, this time, think things through carefully and come back with a proposed wager that he DOESN'T have to later revise.
Just let the Wiz observe you trying to win while at the same time giving the house a bigger edge against you
ROTFL
No way you let the Wiz observe you giving the house a bigger edge
I frankly would be embarrassed to do that
Bottom line, claiming to win consistently while at the same time giving the house a bigger edge is impossible
No way Mdawg allows anybody to see the impossible
Because
Its impossible
I read the wizard strategy on baccarat
Play banker
Any other strategy would be flushing down more money down the toilet
No way Mdwag allows us to see him flushing lol
Quote: TDVegasThat is the only thing that matters. Previous play is meaningless as it relates to this discussion.
I find your statement above contradictory as it stands.
What is the only thing that matters?
What discussion you mean, that previous play is meaningless?
Quote: WizardI'm willing to be a bag man, but being a judge of faked pictures is not my area of expertise. I highly doubt we will actually see a challenge anyway on the nature of digital images. I'd prefer to see one based on a demonstration playing baccarat. That, I can be a judge on.
Thank you for one shutdown. Maybe a limit of postings by critics on this thread. How many times must we put up with posters, pro and con. These people have nothing better to do but non stop bloviating. Please let the thread continue without them!
Quote: darkozLots of people are lucky. That proves nothing!
The current $ challenges all revolve around MDawg's claims of past results.
Doubters are insisting that MDawg's claims of high-level play are false, and his claims of past winnings are false.
If you're conceding that he could have gotten lucky and won as he claims, then yes that doesn't prove anything, and therefore that doesn't prove his claims to be false.
Quote: darkozThe Wizard just said he wants to witness play.
I'm not aware of any $ bet proposed that MDawg can win while being observed, or will win in the future.
You should offer one, and see if MDawg accepts.
What MDawg has provided is a no-risk opportunity for anybody to witness his play, including the Wizard as far as I can tell.
My understanding is that they are privately discussing it.
I wouldn't expect either party to divulge the details of their private discussions, I've read that's bad form.
So we'll have to wait for both to announce whatever agreement they come to.
