The Adventures of MDawg
Quote: coachbellyIf playing without a mathematical advantage, how many consecutive winning sessions can a person have?
Quote: coachbellyI wasn't asking about how many consecutive winning sessions a person can report.
How many can he have
How many can he report
That's splitting hairs, unless you acknowledge that 'a person' would have a losing session and not report it.
I don’t find that answer very credible. But I also don’t really see the angle unless it’s somehow to argue that the middleman didn’t satisfy some criteria so you don’t have to cover.Quote: coachbellyI took a risk in anticipation of rainman backing out of the challenge...which he immediately did.
I wouldn't bet against MD, but I'll cover rainman's action...or yours for that matter.
I have no interest in that challenge. I think MDawg wins that challenge, which I’ve already said in this thread. And I don’t see the upside in acting a middleman for you just to get into some ex-post negotiation over it.
I offered to post whatever money at the cage or show a credit line of whatever to show up and play with him. But he said he changed his mind about that challenge.
Quote: OnceDearThat's splitting hairs, unless you acknowledge that 'a person' would have a losing session and not report it.
I acknowledge that a person could have a losing session and not report it, that's why I asked about Mission's report.
But I'll stipulate that I should know a person to assume that they would.
Quote: unJonYou don’t know Mission if you had to ask that question.
For my next experiment, I am going to play through some five entire shoes on the WoO game, but I am not listing my individual results, just the final results. The rules are that I want to finish ahead for each shoe and must bet at least $25 on every hand.
Here we Go:
Shoe 1
Notable Events:
14 Hands in a Row went Banker/Player and I was flat betting into the chop. I did have to make a $200 bet at one point prior, but I might be able to grind out the rest of this shoe without having to deviate from $25 bets now.
Shoe Result: +$388.75
Nothing else notable. Tried the whole, "Finding trends," thing just for fun and to break the monotony, but then just ended up flat betting Banker when it became highly likely (remaining cards) that I'd finish the shoe with a profit no matter what I did as long as I kept flat betting.
Shoe 2
Four streaks of three Players halfway through the shoe, I've been mostly staying with Player, even though Banker has a lower house edge.
Shoe +$361.25
Shoe 3
I think maybe five Bankers in a row, at one point, if you don't count ties. It went back and forth a lot, but I mainly stayed Player just to try to grind out the profit.
Shoe + $181.25
Shoe 4
This one starts seven Bankers in nine hands.
Now 20 Bankers, 7 Players, One tie.
Shoe: +$269.25. I guess a true believer would have bet into the streak, but I was content to get far enough ahead on flat betting that I could just do that the better part of the rest of the shoe and finish ahead.
Shoe 5
I completely abandoned looking for streaks because it's pointless, doesn't impact the House Edge and I got bored. I mostly just flat betted on Banker the whole time and finished $201.25 ahead for that shoe.
SUMMARY:
Whether it be a winning session or a winning shoe, if you have a sufficient bankroll and are not worried about varying your bet sizes, the point is that having a winning session or shoe is not at all difficult to accomplish. I managed it even with the handicap that I had to make at least a $25 wager every hand.
Am I saying MDawg's claims are true? No, how would I know? I'm just saying that math cannot demonstrably prove them false...math could only prove whether or not any such system causes him to be expected to win in the long run, which he isn't.
Quote: unJonI don’t find that answer very credible. But I also don’t really see the angle unless it’s somehow to argue that the middleman didn’t satisfy some criteria so you don’t have to cover.
You've lost me again. Who is the middleman in your scenario above?
Quote: coachbellyIs predictive capability required to bet into the steak?
No, but I would think that those who actually believe in it must think so. Otherwise, why is betting into the streak, 'Better,' than betting for the streak to end?
I guess EvenBob says, "Always bet into the streak, you can only lose once."
But, there's no mathematical difference. I mean, there is in the sense that you should just pick the lowest HE bet or not play at all, but we're pretty far divorced from mathematically optimal play already in this conversation.
Quote: Mission146I'm just saying that math cannot demonstrably prove them false...
This has been my contention all along.
And of the members' assertions that MDawg's claims are math-defying, has the math demonstrably proven those assertions to be false ?
I find it hard to believe you are lost. There are three relevant people. MDawg, you and the person whose losses you cover for accepting the challenge. That third person is in the “middle” of the economic participants, you and MDawg.Quote: coachbellyYou've lost me again. Who is the middleman in your scenario above?
Quote: Mission146If you have a sufficient bankroll and are not worried about varying your bet sizes, the point is that having a winning session or shoe is not at all difficult to accomplish.
17 winning sessions
45 winning sessions
34 winning sessions
Simple enough
Quote: Mission146No, but I would think that those who actually believe in it must think so.
Does what they think about their predictive capability have any impact on whether or not steaks happen?
I think they just go along for the ride when the streak shows up.
Quote: Mission146Otherwise, why is betting into the streak, 'Better,' than betting for the streak to end?
Review that excellent shoe that you just posted up...would betting into the streak have been better?
Explain why or why not.
Quote: coachbellyThis has been my contention all along.
And of the members' assertions that MDawg's claims are math-defying, has the math demonstrably proven those assertions to be false ?
No, the only thing that the math demonstrably proves is that MDawg's accounts are mathematically possible. I want to make it clear that I am not taking a position on Mdawg's specific claims because I don't really care about them very much. I'm neither richer or poorer based on what MDawg does, but the constant suspensions, proposals for meetups and bet propositions that will probably never happen are getting annoying.
I guess the real point I'm making is:
If you enjoy MDawg's posts, read them.
If you do not enjoy them, then they are best ignored.
Outside of that, maybe someone can pop into the thread every so often and point out that no betting system or pattern/chop detection will change the House Edge of the game of Baccarat and everyone who plays it has a mathematical expectation of losing unless there is some factor external to the game itself (or internal, such as hole-carding or edge sorting opportunities) that results in the overall proposition being +EV.
In fact, perhaps this whole thing might be rectified if MDawg were to agree to change his signature to a disclaimer, of sorts. Or, maybe include one at the end of his results posts.
He's under no obligation, of course, but maybe that would be sufficient to appease his detractors that nobody is getting the idea that betting systems work from his posts or that profitable lifetime (or annual) playing of Baccarat is to be expected.
Quote: coachbellyDoes what they think about their predictive capability have any impact on whether or not steaks happen?
I think they just go along for the ride when the streak shows up.
Review that excellent shoe that you just posted up...would betting into the streak have been better?
Explain why or why not.
No, there was a house edge working against me for every single bet that I made...except perhaps there might have been a player advantage on one bet or another towards the very end of the shoes, but I didn't check to see if that was true.
Because there was a House Edge working against me on all of those bets, the best amount that I could have possibly bet is $0 and would never have known about the streak as I would not be playing Baccarat in the first place.
It's possible to flip a fair coin 1000 times and have it land heads 1000 times.
If you tell me you just did it last night and offer no proof I'm going to laugh in your face and call you a liar.
Quote: sabreI don't get the obsession with whether something is mathematically possible.
It's possible to flip a fair coin 1000 times and have it land heads 1000 times.
If you tell me you just did it last night and offer no proof I'm going to laugh in your face and call you a liar.
Well, I guess I'll just say MDawg's claims exist somewhere on the gambling tales spectrum between flipping a coin once and it being heads and what you said.
Quote: unJonThere are three relevant people. MDawg, you and the person whose losses you cover for accepting the challenge. That third person is in the “middle” of the economic participants, you and MDawg.
OK...got it.
Yes, the middleman would need to meet the criteria for the challenge to proceed as designed.
I recall explaining this to rainman and others during that discussion.
Quote: Mission146No, the only thing that the math demonstrably proves is that MDawg's accounts are mathematically possible. I want to make it clear that I am not taking a position on Mdawg's specific claims
LOL...to be clear, for the purposes of this thread, MDawg's accounts and claims are the same thing.
But OK, I'll re-phrase the question....
of the members' assertions that MDawg's accounts are math-defying, has the math demonstrably proven those assertions to be false ?
Quote: coachbellyLOL...to be clear, for the purposes of this thread, MDawg's accounts and claims are the same thing.
But OK, I'll re-phrase the question....
of the members' assertions that MDawg's accounts are math-defying, has the math demonstrably proven those assertions to be false ?
I can't answer that because I have not read every post MDawg has ever made. Perhaps, in aggregate, I would feel the same way if I had. Although, "Math-defying," is a pretty high bar to clear if we're talking about what is or is not reasonably possible.
Quote: Mission146No, there was a house edge working against me for every single bet that I made.
I was asking about a post-session analysis...
When considering the outcomes from that excellent shoe that you posted up, would the end result have been more favorable for the player if the player bet into the streaks vs betting that the streaks would end?
Why or why not?
Quote: coachbellyI was asking about a post-session analysis...
When considering the outcomes from that excellent shoe that you posted up, would the end result have been more favorable for the player if the player bet into the streaks vs betting that the streaks would end?
Why or why not?
If I had not been playing Baccarat, which is something that I would not ever do if I had to bet actual money (unless there was a +EV reason to do it), then there would be no session to analyze. The best way to play Baccarat is not to play Baccarat.
As long as we are talking about post-session analyses, what would have been best is if I had simply bet on the winning result every single hand.
There will be other shoes in which betting on streaks of three to come to an end would yield the best results...because some shoes will have no streaks of more than three...it just depends on how that particular shoe plays out. That's why I am saying that it makes no difference unless you think there is some sort of predictive ability associated with streaks.
1.) None.
However, if you must bet:
2.) (Probability Banker Win * (Bet Amount * .95)) - (Bet Amount * Probability Player Win) = x
(Probability Player Win * Bet Amount) - (Bet Amount * Probability Banker Win) = y
On rare occasions, Tie will be the, "Best," bet, but I'm ignoring ties above.
Ignoring ties, the least negative of x or y is the best bet to make at any given time. If one is positive, then that is the best bet to make.
In any event in which one is ignorant of results X and Y, Banker should generally be bet. All other concepts are meaningless and are just guessing or having a preferred way to play if X and Y are not known.
Quote: Mission146I'm just saying that math cannot demonstrably prove them false.
Then, when we're talking about the same claims here...
Quote: coachbellyof the members' assertions that MDawg's claims are math-defying, has the math demonstrably proven those assertions to be false ?
Quote: Mission146I can't answer that because I have not read every post MDawg has ever made.
The math proves that MDawg's claims are not math-defying, but does not dis-prove assertions that the same claims are math-defying?
How can that be?
Quote: coachbellyJust to be clear, you read enough of MDawg's claims to state this...
Then, when we're talking about the same claims here...Quote: coachbellyof the members' assertions that MDawg's claims are math-defying, has the math demonstrably proven those assertions to be false ?
The math proves that MDawg's claims are not math-defying, but does not dis-prove assertions that the same claims are math-defying?
How can that be?
Because I don't know how you or anyone else is using, "Math-defying." Perhaps people have a different standard than I do for what constitutes, "Math-defying." I'm saying that MDawg's claims, at least those that I have read, are mathematically within reason.***
If someone says, "Winning at any negative expectation game over several trips in the course of a year is math-defying," then yes, MDawg's claims are math-defying because he claims to be a winner over several trips in a year with no losing sessions.
If someone says that results that do not correspond to mathematical expectation, "Defy the math," then any form of winning is math-defying, since one is mathematically expected to lose.
Who said, "Math-defying?" Can you quote or link me to the post so I can get a context for the terminology?
***Edit to Add: As far as his Baccarat play is concerned, anyway. I guess there's something about stocks and Bitcoin? I don't know anything about it.
Quote: Mission146Quote: coachbellyJust to be clear, you read enough of MDawg's claims to state this...
Then, when we're talking about the same claims here...Quote: coachbellyof the members' assertions that MDawg's claims are math-defying, has the math demonstrably proven those assertions to be false ?
The math proves that MDawg's claims are not math-defying, but does not dis-prove assertions that the same claims are math-defying?
How can that be?
Because I don't know how you or anyone else is using, "Math-defying." Perhaps people have a different standard than I do for what constitutes, "Math-defying." I'm saying that MDawg's claims, at least those that I have read, are mathematically within reason.
If someone says, "Winning at any negative expectation game over several trips in the course of a year is math-defying," then yes, MDawg's claims are math-defying because he claims to be a winner over several trips in a year with no losing sessions.
If someone says that results that do not correspond to mathematical expectation, "Defy the math," then any form of winning is math-defying, since one is mathematically expected to lose.
Who said, "Math-defying?" Can you quote or link me to the post so I can get a context for the terminology?
Don’t get yourself sucked down the rabbit hole of getting Coachbelly’s deposition transcript perfect. 😂
Me, with the Wiz's Baccarat game, would likely buy-in for $2500 (4 sessions available) and try to double it and redouble it during that time for a $7,500 win (win 3 sessions).
Quote: Mission146Oh, and I also return to the fact that I have not read the majority of MDawg's posts.
So how do you know everything that is going on here?. If you posted that you're sure proud to announce you really haven't read everything!
Why do you spend so much time here and why do you post daily over here under this thread especially if you don't endorse it, like it or find it in interesting?
Went straight to the higher limit table again, this player who plays big sat down next to me after a bit. Player actually did all right but player's betting was all over the place - sometimes 20K and sometimes 2-3K, and no progression into the streaks. Player ended up losing some and leaving. Once player left did fine, and ended the first shoe a few grand ahead.
Second shoe I was doing all right too playing a sort of a chop perfectly and then another big player who noticed how animated I was and how well I was doing sat down next to me and bet 20K and PROMPTLY lost every hand after that as well. I dumped while that player was there and some afterwards and then paused. I looked at the shoe and declared that the next hand was going to be Player. I put first one thousand, then two, then three then finally sprinkled ten five hundred dollar chips and there and stated definitely - it's GOTTA be Player now. I KNOW it will be. Sure enough - BAM! natural nine for player and hand over. I played just five hundred next hand on Player again, won, and then ended the shoe +4030 ahead, and quit for the day.
Later in the host's office determined that they have me down at WIN +53,100, Theo loss -12,500, average bet about 1000 - and given that I have 48K in cash and chips in the winner's envelope, means I have tipped out about five grand, which sounds about right. The dealers love me!
As I generally do after winning I make the rounds and chat with some of the dealers and I found out that this player mentioned at the top has won more than one contest at this casino so far - to the tune of almost a million in winnings. So they were saying that no matter what this player claims to have lost at the tables, player is still way ahead.
Quote: Marcusclark66So how do you know everything that is going on here?. If you posted that you're sure proud to announce you really haven't read everything!
Why do you spend so much time here and why do you post daily over here under this thread especially if you don't endorse it, like it or find it in interesting?
Recency bias is also something to be avoided in gambling, as well as other things.
A perusal of my posting history would reveal that not only do I not post everyday, but as relates this thread specifically, I’d not posted since at least October (which is as far back as I went) until a few days ago.
I also didn’t say that MDawg’s trip reports are not interesting. I said that the veracity of MDawg’s claims makes me no richer or poorer. I see in the OP that he had tickets for The Cult...I would be interested to know if he thought they were good live as Sonic Temple is amongst my favorite albums.
I also noticed Duran Duran tickets, so would be interested in his opinion on that show. I’ve seen them live and was impressed, but would have liked to have heard more of their 90’s stuff. I kind of liked the gothic/ethereal thing they were doing when Warren was in the band.
Warren is his first name; I’d misspell his last name and don’t feel like looking it up at the moment.
I know enough to know there have been Suspensions aplenty related to this thread and other MDawg threads and would prefer not to see so many people suspended. If they are suspended, then they cannot post in threads that I might find even more interesting than this one.
He did? Can you link me to that?Quote: unJonBut he said he changed his mind about that challenge.
Sounds exactly like what would happen with his Big Bet Bluff. I remember everything was set for a B79 meet up and then he ducked out just before.
Quote: AxelWolfHe did? Can you link me to that?
Sounds exactly like what would happen with his Big Bet Bluff. I remember everything was set for a B79 meet up and then he ducked out just before.
That was a tedious few minutes:
Page 208 of the thread, Axel and Coachbelly discuss the $50k to watch challenge.
Page 235 I tell coachbelly I met the conditions with the $50k he keeps saying is the deal.
Page 236 you tell me to worry about people getting my personal information. I say I’m not worried about that and reiterate I’m willing to show the $50k bona fides.
Continues into 237 where I call out Coachbelly for not holding MDawg to the terms he offered. Coachbelly claims he’s not following on 238. 😂
Page 238: I spell it out again. And then in that page MDawg says that it’s not an open ended invitation. Coachbelly says he must of misunderstood and asks me to go back and quote the posts about it. Hilarious that he now can’t remember but pages before went on and on about it.
I tell MDawg no hard feelings.
Quote: Mission146
In fact, perhaps this whole thing might be rectified if MDawg were to agree to change his signature to a disclaimer, of sorts. Or, maybe include one at the end of his results posts.
He's under no obligation, of course, but maybe that would be sufficient to appease his detractors that nobody is getting the idea that betting systems work from his posts or that profitable lifetime (or annual) playing of Baccarat is to be expected.
He has done that both times after I asked him basically the same question on two different sites, one of those two is in this thread.
Quote: unJonPage 235 I tell coachbelly I met the conditions with the $50k he keeps saying is the deal.
I reviewed page 235 and I don't agree that you met the conditions.
That's as far as I got with this...post the quote that you reference above.
Quote: coachbellyI reviewed page 235 and I don't agree that you met the conditions.
That's as far as I got with this...post the quote that you reference above.
Read what I wrote and read what you wrote. Page 235 I tell you I met the conditions. Do you agree that I tell you that on page 235?
Do you agree you say on page 238 that you misunderstood?
Quote: unJonPage 235 I tell you I met the conditions. Do you agree that I tell you that on page 235?
You wrote that, but you did not meet the conditions....did you?
Quote: unJonI thought I met the terms that you keep posting.
Quote: coachbellyYou wrote that, but you did not meet the conditions....did you?
I did meet them. Just not on page 235, which I never claimed.
Do you agree on page 238 you admitted you misunderstood the challenge that you went on and on about around page 208?
Quote: unJonI did meet them. Just not on page 235, which I never claimed.
How and when did you meet the terms?
Quote: coachbellyHow and when did you meet the terms?
Did you misunderstand the challenge? If you misunderstand it, what terms are you asking me about? The terms of a challenge you misunderstood? What do you understand the terms to be?
I say it before 235. You can find it if you want to I’m sure.
I say it after 235 again. That’s easy to find because it’s in my summary above. Oh, but you stopped reading the summary on 235. Lol.
Anyway, this is information I posted in response to Axel. It’s nice you want to have a back and forth with me about it. But please inform yourself a bit before asking these basic questions about a challenge you say you misunderstood.
Quote: unJonwhat terms are you asking me about
You wrote that you met the terms...those are the terms I'm asking about.
What were those terms, how and when did you meet them?
Quote: coachbellyYou wrote that you met the terms...those are the terms I'm asking about.
What were those terms, how and when did you meet them?
What do you understand the terms to be?
Quote: unJonWhat do you understand the terms to be?
I don't recall, but you wrote that you met them, so please refresh my memory.
What were the terms, how and when did you meet them?
Quote: coachbellyI don't recall, but you wrote that you met them, so please refresh my memory.
What were the terms, how and when did you meet them?
Ok. But only because you said please. Page 227. You even said “that’s the spirit.”
Quote: unJonYou even said “that’s the spirit.”
Did you work something out?
Quote: coachbellyDid you work something out?
See page 238. MDawg said that wasn’t a challenge. Then you said you must have misunderstood what the challenge was.
Though prior to that you were pretty clear:
Quote: coachbelly
Quote: AxelWolf
So that's all you have to do is deposit 50k into a casino without any risk, just prove you have 50k and you can then watch him play at the limits he claims to be playing? I was unaware of this.
This was posted almost a year ago.
I thought you already declined to participate, stating it was not worth your while.Quote: MDawg
He will need to come and deposit $50K at the cage. He may play whatever he wants to play BJ roulette craps Baccarat I don't care. No sports betting tho. So may I play whatever I want to play, but it has to be play at the same casino. At the end of two weeks I will be in the plus and I will have won more than he. It is a simple challenge, there is no side bet.
How can any interpretation of the above conclude there is a $50K bet, or any risk required of the challenger?
Quote: unJonBut he said he changed his mind about that challenge.
MDawg said he changed his mind about that challenge?
Is that what you are claiming?
Can you please provide a quote to that effect, or a link to the page where he wrote that?
Quote: coachbellySo when did this happen?
MDawg said he changed his mind about that challenge?
Is that what you are claiming?
Can you please provide a quote to that effect, or a link to the page where he wrote that?
No. “Changed his mind” is bad paraphrasing on my part and not my claim.
Below was the end of it. The reader can decide who misunderstood what, and changed minds about what, and when.
Quote: MDawgI wasn't aware until now of what UnJon was trying to say.
Sorry for missing it.
In any case, a while back in the days when BeachBumBabs was active, there was a challenge made with a specific member here who has since disappeared, where he could play whatever casino game he wished other than sports betting, and I would play Baccarat, and then we would see who won more by the end of the trip. And yes, the dollar amount mentioned as the starting bankroll for both of us was 50,000. There was no award offered.
That proposal never went anywhere as the member who claimed that he could win more than MDawg disappeared without accepting the challenge.
It was never an open ended invitation to anyone who posted 50K to play with me, or even side by side with me. In fact, one of the things the other member was adamant about was that he be able to play whatever he wanted, not Baccarat, but again, the wager went nowhere.
This later morphed into a wager where AxelWolf proposed that he would play side by side with me at Baccarat as long as I covered his losses, which meant that I would be effectively bankrolling him. Of course, I nixed such a proposition.
Quote: unJonNo. “Changed his mind” is bad paraphrasing on my part and not my claim.
LOL...yeah OK whatever...I thought so.
Quote: coachbellyLOL...yeah OK whatever...I thought so.
Did you? You could have gotten there long ago as I posted the page number in my first post. But if you think you have the punchline great.
Quote: coachbellyMaybe he chooses to deal in-person only with those who are of at least minimal substance, and the minimum is $50K.
That's not an unreasonable, considering there is no risk to the challenger to witness the play.
Just deposit the $50K at the cage, why is that onerous?
Did you think so here also?
Quote: coachbellyThis was posted almost a year ago.
I thought you already declined to participate, stating it was not worth your while.
How can any interpretation of the above conclude there is a $50K bet, or any risk required of the challenger?
Did you think so here?
