The Adventures of MDawg
Quote: WizardPost redacted for bringing/quoting drama from other forums. Seven day suspension. Merry Christmas to you too.
-------------------
IGTG, I'll see you guys whenever since no doubt I'm getting a suspension. I wish everybody a Merry Christmas including MD and Coach.
Congrats to both sides. Considered a tie?
Quote: darkozIt seems the MDawg Axelwolf challenge was to see who could succeed in getting suspended.
Congrats to both sides. Considered a tie?
That’s really funny.
Having slept on it, I think it’s good they get a break from how this thread was going. Maybe the challenge dies for good. Or maybe those two will figure it out elsewhere, away from the peanut gallery.
Quote: WizardIt's a Festivus miracle -- a week of peace.
And a shout out to those who posted and said it would never take place. You know who you are, take a bow!
Quote: DeMangoAnd a shout out to those who posted and said it would never take place. You know who you are, take a bow!
Yep...too many rules, too much drama, too difficult to determine who is right. Wasn’t going to happen.
Ego feeding was my guess...from the very beginning.
Quote: TDVegasYep...too many rules, too much drama, too difficult to determine who is right. Wasn’t going to happen.
Ego feeding was my guess...from the very beginning.
I'm pretty certain Axel knew it wasn't going to happen.
He was most likely trying to make MDawg look bad by showing him not agreeing to put up money and for us all to watch as MDawg threw more cogs into the wheel with his demands
I wonder if it was all worth it for Axel
Or for MDawg?
Can two guys who make huge AP plays like Axel or $1000 per hand (and always winning) like MDawg have found that whole exercise profitable?
Quote: darkozmake MDawg look bad by showing him not agreeing to put up money
I agree, the entire exercise was an attempt to get MDawg to willingly hand his money to a third party.
The issue of who held the prize money did not prevent Axel from doing what he said he could do.
That was all a smokescreen from the get-go.
Quote: AxelWolfI might very well do some examples and send them to various members and see how they would have judged that evidence. I was considering doing that from the get-go
Quote: coachbellyI agree, the entire exercise was an attempt to get MDawg to willingly hand his money to a third party.
The issue of who held the prize money did not prevent Axel from doing what he said he could do.
That was all a smokescreen from the get-go.
Maybe. On the other hand, it’s a lot of work and Axel’s theory was that MDawg was fake through and through. So from Axel’s point of view, he’s going to do a lot of work and then no way a fake persona coughs up $5k. Not sure why you only see one side of it. I find it pretty easy to view it from Axel’s and MDawg’s perspective.
Quote: unJonMaybe. On the other hand, it’s a lot of work and Axel’s theory was that MDawg was fake through and through. So from Axel’s point of view, he’s going to do a lot of work and then no way a fake persona coughs up $5k. Not sure why you only see one side of it. I find it pretty easy to view it from Axel’s and MDawg’s perspective.
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Axel never had to do a lot of work.
Axel claimed that all elements of MDawg's trip reports were fake.
Axel had plenty of opportunity to show how any elements could be faked.
He's been willing to do that from the get-go, before any offer of prize money.
But he never did produce anything, his entire effort was to separate MDawg from his money without producing anything.
He wanted the money held for 45 days without any requirement to produce anything.
I’m not assuming anything. I’m viewing the coin from both sides.Quote: coachbellyYou are assuming facts not in evidence.
Axel never had to do a lot of work.
Axel claimed that all elements of MDawg's trip reports were fake.
Axel had plenty of opportunity to show how any elements could be faked.
He's been willing to do that from the get-go, before any offer of prize money.
But he never did produce anything, his entire effort was to separate MDawg from his money without producing anything.
Your last sentence is assuming facts not in evidence at best. At worst it’s accusing the Wiz (Axel’s proposed bagman) of low moral character.
I explain all this in detail up thread. Happy hunting.
Quote: unJonYour last sentence is assuming facts not in evidence at best. At worst it’s accusing the Wiz (Axel’s proposed bagman) of low moral character.
I made no mention of a bagman, nor made any accusations about anyone's moral character.
What I wrote above is entirely factual, there are 7 sentences...which sentence can be disputed?
Quote: coachbellyI made no mention of a bagman, nor made any accusations about anyone's moral character.
What I wrote above is entirely factual, there are 7 sentences...which sentence can be disputed?
The post itself answers your question.
Quote: WizardI am enjoying the relative peace and quiet with Axel and MD both on suspension. I think it's a Festivus miracle.
It’s beyond lovely! Mostly cause Axel is gone, that guy is annoying as sh*t 😅
Quote: PokerGrinderIt’s beyond lovely! Mostly cause Axel is gone, that guy is annoying as sh*t 😅
Yet, you still have your man love for him.
Quote: WizardI am enjoying the relative peace and quiet with Axel and MD both on suspension. I think it's a Festivus miracle.
Just way until they come back and start the Airing Of Grievances.
Quote: DRichYet, you still have your man love for him.
Of course, honestly Axel is one of the best people I know. That will definitely go to his head lol.
Obviously!Quote: PokerGrinderOf course, honestly Axel is one of the best people I know.
There was a situation at one of our casinos the other day where a player was in the process of being banned and the same pit manager that called security and had him removed to the side actually backed down. The general manager came over and before anything was said it was obvious it was just over emotions and he really didn't want to ban him. The pit manager walked over to the player, they shook hands and gave each other a hug, everything went back to normal.
I do miss MDawg too. If being objective, I’d have to say he is more interesting than I am...
I think the casinos are starting to ease up - our staying almost two months last trip, fully comp'ed, is a testament to that. Not like I have a million dollar line, and, I was winning not losing.
2 months in a dump, or in a nice casino?Quote: MDawgI've set up friends with weekend comp'ed stays in Vegas at top resorts twice in the past couple months. Just regular rooms, but I do think it is an indication that things have loosened up that they're back to allowing comps for friends and family while the player himself is not on property playing. I used to be able to get favors like that easily during my heavy play a decade or more ago, but past few years I generally got the impression that they wanted the caboose to be attached to the locomotive.
I think the casinos are starting to ease up - our staying almost two months last trip, fully comp'ed, is a testament to that. Not like I have a million dollar line, and, I was winning not losing.
Definitely any suite on the Strip, let alone the top ones we alway stay in, are nicer than...North Vegas.
Win Wynn/Encore 2020 $77,180.
Win Palms/Green Valley Ranch 2020 $5195.
Win Venetian 2020 $31,270.
Win Cosmopolitan 2020 $20,600.
Win Treasure Island 2020 $700.
There were just two trips to Vegas in 2020, one pre-pandemic, one post, and the tail end of a trip that started right after Christmas 2019.
Live Video of MDawg's 2020 WIN statements from his player accounts. This represents every casino I played at in 2020, in Vegas. All Wins, and the wins corroborate the sums I've posted in my trip reports for 2020.
I'm confused with this answer. I was asking if you got 2 months of RFB in a dump or a nice casino.Quote: MDawgLast time we were in Vegas, actually more like, the time before, a friend was trying to convince me to become a slum lord. North Vegas. I don't know anything much about North Vegas though. From what I hear the North East side is the worst.
Definitely any suite on the Strip, let alone the top ones we alway stay in, are nicer than...North Vegas.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/273985f9-1e33-4696-8002-dc532f1fccad
I thought you was layin’Quote: MDawgYou're a little confused?
Quote: SOOPOOI stayed away as I said I would. EXACTLY as I predicted, there will be no challenge. There NEVER was going to be a challenge.
Of course there was going to be no challenge. On the subject of Mdawg's play, conditions were set that wouldn't allow for a fair challenge. And then talk of a challenge morphed into some weird thing about someone else creating a thread that could match Mdawgs? How would that prove or disprove anything?
I am more concerned about claims that are unrealistic or highly unlikely. I have used terms like "impossible" or "defying math". And maybe that is just a hair too strong. (t)Eliot has put it at 3 standard deviation, I believe, 600-1 possibility. I think those odds are a little short because it doesn't take into account that Mdawg announced ahead of time, early last year what his results would be going forward.
Anyway, when I say "impossible and (t)Eliot says not quite impossible, I of course defer to him. But I can't help being reminded of the line from Dumb and Dumber, where she puts the odds of them being together at a million to 1 and the response it "so your telling me there is a chance". LOL
Look bottom line: what Mdawg is claiming is highly unlikely. So much so that it is not unreasonable to say, "Can you show me". Wizard did just that and was rebuked. I personally don't get how that was the end of that?
For example, I was suspended for simply mentioning that my cousin, E.R. Dietz had come back from the dead. I didn't mention it in any self-promoting way; I just mentioned it, as an interesting aside. Now we all know that Jesus of Nazareth came back from the dead, and then there's Osiris, and I'm sure some religious scholars could chime in with a few more. And then we have the folks from Highlander, and we have Count Dracula, and the list goes on and on. I mean, certainly there's as much corroborating evidence for these folks coming back from the dead as for MDawg's stories.
Anyway, it would be helpful if we had a threshold number, you know, this number of standard-deviation-from-chance tall tales is okay; this number is not. I would, of course, defer to those more mathematical than me to determine those numbers, and I would rigidly and respectfully abide by them.
Because without those numbers, it's hard to tell what's real or not. For example, back in the 80's, I went "undercover" so to speak to meetings of the Vampire Access Line. Some of their members believed they were vampires, and had some evidence that supported them. And they drank blood, and had vintage costumes, and all that. So hard to tell. That's why I defer what is or isn't impossible to the math experts. I just need some guidance.
. Sorry. You got to figure it out for yourself. It is so multi factorial. I like to think I have earned some trust on this forum over the last decade. If I make a 1 in a thousand claim I would expect most to believe me. If a brand new poster who started cocky and nonsensical made the same claim you wouldn’t believe him.Quote: redietzI have the same problem with this forum, kewlJ. I'm not sure what the threshold is for "has a chance" versus "impossible by Shackleford's estimation."
For example, I was suspended for simply mentioning that my cousin, E.R. Dietz had come back from the dead. I didn't mention it in any self-promoting way; I just mentioned it, as an interesting aside. Now we all know that Jesus of Nazareth came back from the dead, and then there's Osiris, and I'm sure some religious scholars could chime in with a few more. And then we have the folks from Highlander, and we have Count Dracula, and the list goes on and on. I mean, certainly there's as much corroborating evidence for these folks coming back from the dead as for MDawg's stories.
Anyway, it would be helpful if we had a threshold number, you know, this number of standard-deviation-from-chance tall tales is okay; this number is not. I would, of course, defer to those more mathematical than me to determine those numbers, and I would rigidly and respectfully abide by them.
Because without those numbers, it's hard to tell what's real or not. For example, back in the 80's, I went "undercover" so to speak to meetings of the Vampire Access Line. Some of their members believed they were vampires, and had some evidence that supported them. And they drank blood, and had vintage costumes, and all that. So hard to tell. That's why I defer what is or isn't impossible to the math experts. I just need some guidance.
Others here have questioned the veracity of some of your claims. I tend to believe you. So much of this belief or not belief is based on motive. I perceive your motive as similar to mine... you enjoy interacting with members of the forum and enjoy sharing stuff.
Who, if anyone do you have in the SB?
Quote: SOOPOO
Who, if anyone do you have in the SB?
Not going to be a SB, have you forgotten? BTW, in case you missed it, in another thread, I am conceding I will lose that bet and asked about payment arrangements.
As for Redietz post, no offense to Wizard, but the inconsistencies in Moderation, and part of that coming down to just what mood he is in that day, I find problematic. I am a person who likes to know the rules before playing the game.
In Redietz case mention of his uncle coming back to life was clearly humor. Maybe a lot of people didn't see that humor because they aren't familiar with who redietz uncle is, but it was just a joke. The reason given was trolling. umm, can't you say that about almost anything posted. LOL.
A better example concerning me, occurred right in this discussion if not thread. Wizard said everyone was free to make up their own mind regarding MDawgs claims. So I voiced that I felt it was fiction. And was then suspended for calling MDawg a liar, with some lobbying by MDawg. I mean come on! I never uses the word liar, which would fall under insult. I voiced my opinion that it was fiction, just as Wizard said we all could.
It amounts to this. MDawg: I can levitate above the crowd. Wizard: Show me. MDawg: No I don't want to.
That is simply NOT good enough on a math based gambling forum, with a claim very dubious at best about gambling, especially a claim that has been going on for several years now.
Quote: redietzI have the same problem with this forum, kewlJ. I'm not sure what the threshold is for "has a chance" versus "impossible by Shackleford's estimation."
To have any idea if something falls on one side or the other, we need data and theory. With MDawg, we only have the data. We know that he consistently wins at casino games.
If someone has a certain strategy to overcome the house edge, like hi-lo count in blackjack, or optimal play on best video poker games, winning consistently is not only reasonable, but expected. If someone does not have a strategy to overcome the house advantage, it becomes virtually impossible to consistently win money at the casino. Based on the information we do have (MDawg's constant winning), and the information that is missing (the strategy being used to win consistently), it is wrong to say these results are stupidly outlandish, and that they are not normal results.
Quote: redietzI have the same problem with this forum, kewlJ. I'm not sure what the threshold is for "has a chance" versus "impossible by Shackleford's estimation."
Just use the word 'implausible' You can assign your own probabilities to that.
$:o)
Quote: TomGT We know that he consistently wins at casino games.
Do we KNOW this???? He has said so, but do we know it? If I "say" the sky is orange, do we KNOW it?
Quote: TomG
If someone has a certain strategy to overcome the house edge, like hi-lo count in blackjack, or optimal play on best video poker games, winning consistently is not only reasonable, but expected. If someone does not have a strategy to overcome the house advantage, it becomes virtually impossible to consistently win money at the casino. Based on the information we do have (MDawg's constant winning), and the information that is missing (the strategy being used to win consistently), it is wrong to say these results are stupidly outlandish, and that they are not normal results.
Point well taken, TomG. I and others have asked, begged Mdawg to explain. That is exactly why Wizard proposed witnessing some play. Mike said he would be able to tell fairly quickly what is going on. Without that explanation, the claims as they stand....Oncedear want me to use "Implausible". lol
Now with progression wagering, as you know TomG, and most of us know, results will show many wins, kind of like Mdawg claims, But eventually there HAS to be a much larger loss that wipes out all those smaller win and then some. THAT is the way progressions betting works. These guys ALWAYS want to leave out the part about the losses.
Quote: kewljNow lets get back to talk about MDawgs, long running claims. Whether you use "math defying" or "impossible", now amended to near impossible,
It amounts to this. MDawg: I can levitate above the crowd. Wizard: Show me. MDawg: No I don't want to.
That is simply NOT good enough on a math based gambling forum, with a claim very dubious at best about gambling, especially a claim that has been going on for several years now.
I disagree 100%. It IS good enough. MDawg does not have to post any evidence that is acceptable to you. You, and the rest of the forum, can thus decide not to believe any of his claims. And has been shown ad nauseum, can show the math why. Other than CoachBelly, I don’t think there is a single regular poster who believes his gambling related claims. As long as I can challenge him I am happy to let him continue posting. He is clearly a more interesting poster than I am.
Quote: kewljDo we KNOW this???? He has said so, but do we know it? If I "say" the sky is orange, do we KNOW it?
His wins have been well documented. Perhaps the documentation is fraudulent. But if it is, that would violate the spirit of posting his stories at wizardofvegas.
Quote: kewljPoint well taken, TomG. I and others have asked, begged Mdawg to explain. That is exactly why Wizard proposed witnessing some play. Mike said he would be able to tell fairly quickly what is going on. Without that explanation, the claims as they stand....Oncedear want me to use "Implausible". lol
If I had a method to win like MDawg does at any table game, I would be even more elusive than he is being.
Nathan doesQuote: SOOPOOOther than CoachBelly, I don’t think there is a single regular poster who believes his gambling related claims.
Quote: SOOPOOI disagree 100%. It IS good enough. MDawg does not have to post any evidence that is acceptable to you. You, and the rest of the forum, can thus decide not to believe any of his claims. And has been shown ad nauseum, can show the math why. Other than CoachBelly, I don’t think there is a single regular poster who believes his gambling related claims. As long as I can challenge him I am happy to let him continue posting. He is clearly a more interesting poster than I am.
Please, Sir, stop saying he is more interesting than you. Many of us have a different opinion. You are plenty interesting and the best part, believable.
I haven't called for Mdawg to not be allowed to continue posting. I don't know, have others? But here is the thing. When someone claims something that is "implausible" <. :/ , AP's, math guys, believer in math, HAVE to be allowed to challenge that and say the math doesn't support or bear that out.
And while no one is required to prove anything, it is one things when someone makes a claim that is "implausible" or improbable once, or on occasion, but when someone does so in an ongoing basis, for years, repeatedly in the longest running thread, over and over and over, the same implausible claim, is it unreasonable to ask "show me?" Show us?"
Quote: AxelWolfNathan doesQuote: SOOPOOOther than CoachBelly, I don’t think there is a single regular poster who believes his gambling related claims.
Well then, that is 10 people right there. LOL
TomG is the closest to describing what I have said as to exactly what I do as far as specifics of betting strategies or methods...which is not much. I discuss results, these are trip reports. Just because I mention a progression in passing doesn't mean that I am doing a progressive betting all the time, or even most of the time, or that this is my "system." Yes I have mentioned following the shoe in Baccarat, but who is to say that this is all I do. I've also discussed Blackjack play. Don't put words in my mouth puhlease.
I also think it is equally not right to ascribe your beliefs to others. There are many people who PM me here at the forum all the time stating that they know what I post is the truth, but...so what? Am I going to say that I am believable because so and so believes me? Stand on your own two feet, and tell us what you think, but don't assume that others believe the same as you, and even if they do, you have no right or even basis to claim anything on their behalf. If your own opinions are so weak that they require you to say that so and so agrees with me, that might mean that you aren't sure of yourself or anything you say.
The Wizard has made it clear that it is a forum rule violation to call someone a liar or fiction or story telling, that things are to be believed until disproved. As well, he came on here and posted after speaking to me that he does believe all of my chronicles.
Whatever the results are along the way, and at the end of each year, I have posted. I have posted much more than anyone else in the history of these forums, in terms of backup. Come to think of it, no one else I can think of has posted anything, in the way of backup.
If you don't want to accept that,
I don't know what else I can do for you.
I really am mostly just interested in making trip reports, and if someone doesn't believe the back up I have posted, then there is absolutely nothing further to discuss with such a person. Just...enjoy. Relaaax.
Quote: MDawg
The Wizard has made it clear that it is a forum rule violation to call someone a liar or fiction or story telling, that things are to be believed until disproved. As well, he came on here and posted after speaking to me that he does believe all of my chronicles.
Wait what? We HAVE to believe you until proven otherwise?
First that is not what I read and second YOU refuse to participate in proving anything.
As for your last line, I will ask Mike to confirm. Wizard, is MDawg is speaking for you? Do you believe all of his "chronicles"?
Quote: Wizard
In fact, I retract my previous claim of "I don't believe MDawg's claims." That was based on my own misunderstanding of what he was claiming. I think all the drama is much ado about nothing.
Perhaps you will now step in the explain why the Wizard is wrong or got it wrong and you are right. Why do you care so much what someone else thinks? anyway.
I think you'd rest easier at night and do better at the casinos, if you concentrated as much on your own current blackjack play as you do on my past casino play.
Quote: Wizard
I personally follow the Uri Geller standard that one must say something they know to be false to be a liar.
Which, in any case, I have posted proof to back up my trip reports.
Quote: kewljWait what? We HAVE to believe you until proven otherwise?
First that is not what I read and second YOU refuse to participate in proving anything.
As for your last line, I will ask Mike to confirm. Wizard, is MDawg is speaking for you? Do you believe all of his "chronicles"?
Other than getting yourself suspended, what purpose do you have in continued participation in this thread. Everyone knows how you feel about MDawg and his claims. There really is nothing new to post.
You as a real AP are truly valuable to this forum and I hate to see you gone because you just can’t control yourself. We get it. His claims are not reasonable. There is nothing more for you to say that adds anything.
And thank you for saying my posts are interesting!
it took me a second, I was thinking about 20 other socks related to another poll taken, other than hers............. but suddenly, I spit up my Coke.Quote: kewljQuote: AxelWolfNathan doesQuote: SOOPOOOther than CoachBelly, I don’t think there is a single regular poster who believes his gambling related claims.
Well then, that is 10 people right there. LOL
Quote: SOOPOOOther than getting yourself suspended, what purpose do you have in continued participation in this thread. Everyone knows how you feel about MDawg and his claims. There really is nothing new to post.
You as a real AP are truly valuable to this forum and I hate to see you gone because you just can’t control yourself. We get it. His claims are not reasonable. There is nothing more for you to say that adds anything.
Thank you for the kind words SOOPOO.
Why should I be suspended for saying that the math does not support the claims. Has this become THAT kind of forum? If so, please provide me with info to pay off my SB bet because I will not last long here. I can not and will no stay silent on claims that I believe defy math. AND I never agreed to do so.
And the fact is that MDawg is somewhat correct. Wizard did flip flop a bit, reversing himself. Initially reading the information that was provided publicly, Wizard came to the same conclusion as most of us. And then after some behind the scenes lobbying and changing of facts like BR available, Wizard changed a bit. Wizard clearly said his new opinion was based on this larger BR that was not part of the original story and MDawgs many descriptions of paying back markers does not bare out.
All I want to do is keep thing out in the open. A little transparency as to what we are talking about. No back-room lawyering.
It comes down to this. Mike proposed the perfect solution. That he witness some play. He thought he would know almost immediately what the story was and I am confident he would. That is precisely why we value his expertise. That is the ultimate and fair way for this to go. And if I am wrong and MDawg has some new, unknown way to win, to overcome -EV and math, that no one else knows about as TomG suggested (I don't think TomG believes that, but he suggested it), I will gladly bow down and apologize to Mdawg. But until then, I believe in the math and will not back off that.
He's an obvious suck up. 😂Quote: kewljThank you for the kind words SOOPOO.
