The Adventures of MDawg

Quote: BoSox

The president of the fan club displays plenty of sarcasm in an attempt for provocations from others. Let's put the reality into all of this. The MDawg thread helps everyone, it is great advertising for casinos' businesses. And it is great for advantage players. Because most all of those who believe all of this nonsense and put their money where their mouth is and gambles in the same type of fashion are going to learn the hard way. Subsequently, AP's need plenty of losers to make things run smoother.

Speaking for me personally, I try to straddle a pretty fine line between discussing gambling and not encouraging anyone to gamble. I'm certain that I fail at that from time-to-time, obviously leaning more towards the, "Discussing gambling," side since I'm paid to write about it.

I'm not sure that this thread is great for advantage players, and more than that, considering that many of MDawg's detractors (lack of a better term) ARE advantage players---they'd be acting against their own interest even if you were right.

The best I can do for anyone is say that it's this simple---betting systems don't beat negative expectation games in the long run. If MDawg has a specific system with absolute rules at all, and imo (based on his posts) it doesn't sound like he does, then he could post it and either myself or someone else will demonstrate why it mathematically fails and why the expected result of its employ is a negative number.

MDawg is obviously under no obligation to disclose everything, (or, maybe he has and I missed it) but the only thing I would really want to know is if he is working a loss rebate. Kickback on total action? Matchplay?

I would think he has to be getting at least some of those things, and I'd certainly be asking for them if I weren't, were I in his position.

On the other hand, I wonder what his average total action is during this trip. I mean, when tables look at time and average bet, that's basically what they're figuring out. If his average action is $50,000, for example, then that's only (I use the word ONLY loosely) a $500-$600 expected loss per day depending on a somewhat balanced mixed of betting Player and Banker.

I also understand that he has reported a bunch as far as RFB comps are concerned.

Anyway, no doubt, most people who play Baccarat for any length of time are going to end up on the losing end. Absolutely. Over a long enough stretch of time, they'll all lose.

Advantage Play aside, here would be my Baccarat advice:

1.) Don't play Baccarat.

2.) If you do play Baccarat, flat bet table minimum on Banker.

Quote: Marcusclark66

"I just figured he was the President of the MDawg Fan Cub". (Club) That outright statement is, IMO 100% antagonistic.

It sure is, but it's not an insult. You seem to admire MDawg's play as you said:

*ADDED: Also, I'm not admitting to Trolling you, because I didn't. By admitting that my post was, "Antagonistic," I'm not suggesting that I oppose you, personally, just the overly flowery language in your post.

Quote:

This thread is definitely great reading and there's great change from so much other stuff that is absolutely meaningless and filled with drama and has one purpose and we all know what that is, while really describing next to nothing except a grab at attention. Yes some of you will say this thread has all of that but it does in a factual and most explicit way and the people poking at it, IMO is a clear indication of their jealousy or resentment for one reason or another towards the OP.

Once again I am involved full time in the casino industry. I find this thread terrific and amazing from many points and I love to read it almost everyday. The pictures are real and the documents are real as well, there is not one indication or clue that they are not.

Keep up the great work and I do appreciate your time and trouble in posting, if it means anything MDawg and I'm sure lots of other people do they're just too scared to admit it!

Thank you again to an amazing individual and thank God they do not grow on trees!!

So, if there actually were an MDawg Fan Club, I think you'd make a great President!

Actually, the last statement of your first paragraph IS outright antagonistic, now that I read through that post again, but doesn't seem to be directed at anyone specifically.

ADDED: Sorry about the missing, "l." I think I accidentally deleted it when I changed my mind and decided to capitalize the, "C."

Quote: MDawg

That's probably about right, if not spot on. I could find out for sure, but I believe those are the correct numbers for credit line players.

However they couldn't be right for cash players as I know a player who brought five million cash to one of the majors on the Strip in the very early 2000s (when the regular Baccarat limit was 15K), and all they let that player go was 50K. It could have had to do with that they didn't believe the player could come up with more for future trips, or maybe that's just the way it is. That player actually managed to lose it all in far less hands than should have been statistically possible, and - shouldn't have been playing at that level in the first place - because I knew this person somewhat well and that Five million represented most of what the player had. In life.

Here are two observations one. Mdawg really seems to want people to be impressed. He brags a lot and has to use words like he returned to his suite when a normal person would say I went to my room. Secondly why does he never post pictures from a hand in progress. It’s such a simple thing yet I scanned and cannot recall seeing even one. Axel is spot on when he says the hands that were posted are very old and worn out looking. Not like that of a wealthy attorney

Whatever some people want to post here (over and over) to make themselves feel better.

One thing that makes me feel better is winning stacks and towers of checks I can't even see over.

Quote: dawinnaatlozins

for every Mdawg out there how many losedogs are there?
and same for Kj for so many aspiring card counters how many flop at the endeaver?
real numbers pls no guess no estimates solid numbas people!

I take offense at this comparison. I and other 'advantage players' play by the math. With the math on my side. It is a small but but real advantage that will show itself with positive and winning results over time. In REAL WORLD play with such a small advantage there is great variance, meaning the player will lose nearly as much as he wins over the longterm. In sharing my experiences this fact has come through with 2 years far below expectation....$60,000 below expectation. 2-3 standard deviations below expectation. Again, that is how REAL WORLD gambling works.

Now playing by the math, or with that tiny sliver of advantage on the players side. does not guarantee success. A player has to have the bankroll to withstand the variance just described and maybe more important the mental ability to do so. This is where many fail or just decide it is too much work for such a small, narrow advantage. And lastly with blackjack and card counting players have to be comfortable with the cat & mouse game that is played. These are the reasons most "aspiring" card counters fail, NOT because of the math. The math is as sound as 50 years ago.

What MDawg is describing DEFIES math. DIFIES reasonable expectation. I know people will say there is a 1 in whatever growing number that it is possible, but it is ridiculous. Is he at 50 wins in a row now? It is FICTION and FANTASY! Some of it is an enjoyable read, but it is just NOT real. And his use of movie clips and scenes, obviously very fresh and real TO HIM, makes me think he is lost in some sort of alternative, movieland reality. That is not a diagnosis....just an opinion based on his posts.

They took the plexiglass down at the Wynn?

Quote: Mission146

I just figured he was the President of the MDawg Fan Cub. I'm not sure that the paying of overly-flowery compliments can be considered, "Antagonistic." Who do you purport that said post is antagonizing?

*I guess they could be if they were meant sarcastically. That would basically require an admission, though.

Quote: Marcusclark66

This thread is definitely great reading and there's great change from so much other stuff that is absolutely meaningless and filled with drama and has one purpose and we all know what that is, while really describing next to nothing except a grab at attention.

I call that being sarcastic, as well as an attempt to get people angry. Not even mentioning his following sentence:

Quote: Marcusclark66

Yes some of you will say this thread has all of that but it does in a factual and most explicit way and the people poking at it, IMO is a clear indication of their jealousy or resentment for one reason or another towards the OP.

Quote: kewlj

I take offense at this comparison. I and other 'advantage players' play by the math. With the math on my side. It is a small but but real advantage that will show itself with positive and winning results over time. In REAL WORLD play with such a small advantage there is great variance, meaning the player will lose nearly as much as he wins over the longterm. In sharing my experiences this fact has come through with 2 years far below expectation....$60,000 below expectation. 2-3 standard deviations below expectation. Again, that is how REAL WORLD gambling works.

Now playing by the math, or with that tiny sliver of advantage on the players side. does not guarantee success. A player has to have the bankroll to withstand the variance just described and maybe more important the mental ability to do so. This is where many fail or just decide it is too much work for such a small, narrow advantage. And lastly with blackjack and card counting players have to be comfortable with the cat & mouse game that is played. These are the reasons most "aspiring" card counters fail, NOT because of the math. The math is as sound as 50 years ago.

What MDawg is describing DEFIES math. DIFIES reasonable expectation. I know people will say there is a 1 in whatever growing number that it is possible, but it is ridiculous. Is he at 50 wins in a row now? It is FICTION and FANTASY! Some of it is an enjoyable read, but it is just NOT real. And his use of movie clips and scenes, obviously very fresh and real TO HIM, makes me think he is lost in some sort of alternative, movieland reality. That is not a diagnosis....just an opinion based on his posts.

Ain't that the darn truth! (The first two paragraphs)

If there's one (false) conclusion that hearing all of these stories (not just MDawg) would lead me to believe, it's that it's much easier to win a -EV game than to win when you have the advantage! I think I'll stay away from all of that, for the most part...winning when I am mathematically expected to is hard enough.

As far as MDawg's claims in particular, my assertion that they are mathematically possible remains unchanged. Again, however you want to define, "Session," many gambling systems are such that there is a high probability of individual session wins at the risk of the inevitable and crushing huge loss. That said, if you could put a percentage on winning an individual, "Session," then that percentage for the next session will remain the same regardless of how many consecutive sessions have been profitable prior.

Quote: BoSox

I call that being sarcastic, as well as an attempt to get people angry. Not even mentioning his following sentence:

I'll let the Admins do the Administrating. Perhaps I'll eat a three-day ban for my comment, or something. If so, I'll serve my three days without complaint. Anything longer and I might challenge the duration, I've been a good little boy recently.

Quote: Mission146

If there's one (false) conclusion that hearing all of these stories (not just MDawg) would lead me to believe, it's that it's much easier to win a -EV game than to win when you have the advantage!

THAT is the big lie and is by design and one of the big concerns.

Quote: Mission146

As far as MDawg's claims in particular, my assertion that they are mathematically possible remains unchanged. Again, however you want to define, "Session," many gambling systems are such that there is a high probability of individual session wins at the risk of the inevitable and crushing huge loss. That said, if you could put a percentage on winning an individual, "Session," then that percentage for the next session will remain the same regardless of how many consecutive sessions have been profitable prior.

Because I was not an active member of this forum at the time Mdawg began his great "fable", for more than a year, all I could do was read, not respond or ask questions. When I finally had the opportunity, the first question was "is there anything you are doing, that allows you to play with an advantage longterm?" His answer was "no".

Ruling that out, putting together bits and pieces here and there, it seems like he is playing some variation of a progression system. When asked, he claims "no", but there is definite varying of wagers, and it seems like that is based on whether he is winning or losing at the time. Um....THAT is what a progression betting system is! :/ A martingale is just one particular progression system. There are many and Mdawgs bits and pieces of description sure seems like a progression system. I suspect that is why he refuses to allow Wizard to witness his play.

As Mission correctly identified, progression systems, will change the percentages and make up of winning losses and losing sessions to where there are many smaller winning sessions, which matches Mdawgs "tales", but eventually there is that massive losing session that wipes out all those wins plus some. The math GUARANTEES it! And these progression system players always manage to leave out that part of it...just "will" that part away. Never mentioning it in their results. That is a lie of omission.

One of the really disturbing parts to me is that Mdawg claims having a bigger bankroll somehow effects the math. That is really what all the pictures of piles of cash and chips and watches are about....to convey the false message that playing larger stakes changes the math. That it is a world that most of us can't understand and the mathematics can't touch. That is not reality

Occasionally with something like blackjack or even video poker where playing higher limits or denomination may have slightly better rules (usually still -EV) but other than that the math is exactly the same. Playing higher limits changes nothing! Negative expectation remains negative expectation whether playing big or small. To win longterm, you have to do something that changes that.

I have questioned his claims of not losing but then I recall the story of Archie Karas and his hot streak at Binion's Horseshoe in 1995.

Variance will allow for a streak of wins, no question, but eventually the math dictates that "what goes up, must come down," or something like that.

Bottom line: Archie won a lot, and when the streak ended he didn't walk away and gave it all back, and then some IIRC.

Luck happens ... but it doesn't, it can't, last too long / forever.

As with the ocean, the tide must turn.

If you win a million dollars, you could reduce your bets so you don't fall below $800K. But greed is greed, and going for the next million without reducing your bets will likely bring you below that stop loss.

Quote: kewlj

THAT is the big lie and is by design and one of the big concerns.

It's a false conclusion for a reader to make, but it doesn't necessarily mean that MDawg is lying. If MDawg thinks that some combination of betting and any sort of predictive capability (unless hole-carding, edge-sorting, or something) is going to beat the game of Baccarat, then MDawg is wrong. That's being wrong, though. Being wrong about something and lying are two different things because, in order for MDawg to be lying, he would be required to not believe that he can beat the game.

In any case, what I can say is that I have not seen MDawg present anything that would lead me to conclude that he has a positive expectation in Baccarat. I have theorized how he could perhaps be playing with a positive expectation, but unless I missed it, MDawg has not claimed to be doing any of the things that I suggested.

Another thing is that it doesn't speak to individual results. You can look at Wizard's simulations of various things for proof of this. Others have done the same, I'll go ahead and give Bluejay a plug:

https://easy.vegas/gambling/betting-systems

So, as you can see in his example (which I guess wasn't a sim) you can have 1% with one system or another who are still ahead after 10,000 rounds of a particular game.

It's the same thing. If you've even played 10,000 hands of something, then you've played for a long time. If you've played 10,000 hands, are ahead, are ignorant to the math or refuse to accept it---why wouldn't you believe that what you are doing works? The mind is interesting when it comes to gambling because it does a good many things that can have limited uses (or sometimes be overall useful) in other contexts, but are detrimental when it comes to gambling. Confirmation Bias, Recency Bias, Pattern Recognition---to name a few.

There are only two ways that I could conclude that MDawg is lying:

1.) For his actual claims to be proven untrue, on direct.

2.) For him to basically admit it, or contradict an earlier statement so massively that no other conclusion is possible.

That doesn't mean that anyone has to accept what he is saying as true. The safest thing for anyone to do when it comes to any claim of a negative expectation game being beaten is to assume that the person is lying. I'm talking about making a quiet assumption, not an accusation.

Hell, when it comes to people claiming to win at a positive expectation, you're still safest just to assume they're lying. People say, "Trust, but verify," they should say, "Verify."

I look at what I try to do for the sites as educating, informing and hopefully---once in a while---as if by accident---a stopped clock is right twice a day---entertaining people.

All of that said, if someone wants to play it safe in terms of gambling, I can summarize how to do that in one simple phrase, if you don't bet, then you can't lose.

Quote:

Because I was not an active member of this forum at the time Mdawg began his great "fable", for more than a year, all I could do was read, not respond or ask questions. When I finally had the opportunity, the first question was "is there anything you are doing, that allows you to play with an advantage longterm?" His answer was "no".

Ruling that out, putting together bits and pieces here and there, it seems like he is playing some variation of a progression system. When asked, he claims "no", but there is definite varying of wagers, and it seems like that is based on whether he is winning or losing at the time. Um....THAT is what a progression betting system is! :/ A martingale is just one particular progression system. There are many and Mdawgs bits and pieces of description sure seems like a progression system. I suspect that is why he refuses to allow Wizard to witness his play.

As Mission correctly identified, progression systems, will change the percentages and make up of winning losses and losing sessions to where there are many smaller winning sessions, which matches Mdawgs "tales", but eventually there is that massive losing session that wipes out all those wins plus some. The math GUARANTEES it! And these progression system players always manage to leave out that part of it...just "will" that part away. Never mentioning it in their results. That is a lie of omission.

I have no basis to disagree with your first paragraph and I agree with your second paragraph. Like I said, it doesn't seem like his betting system has any set in a stone rules like the Martingale or the Labouchere might have. It also seems not to be 100% oriented to just varying bet amounts, but there's a component of betting into streaks or chops to it.

Call it, "Predicting," or, "Trend following," whatever. Actually, given a few of his more recent posts, I think when I did my little experiment I actually was playing in a way that closely approximates how he does...except I don't know if he has ever bet Tie. I also doubt if he ever bet Player and Banker simultaneously just to be snarky.

It's a lie of omission if that has happened to MDawg yet, but we have no way of knowing if he's encountered a losing session since the start of this thread.

Quote: MrV

Luck happens ... but it doesn't, it can't, last too long / forever.

As with the ocean, the tide must turn.

Streaks do happen. Streaks that defy math for short periods of time. I guess some of the mathematical arguement comes down to 'are we still in that short period of time' window?

But here is another part that bothers me a great deal. Last February, well into Mdawgs multi trip "adventures", he declared that he would continue to win at the same pace, and presto he has done just that.

Now playing with an advantage, I can claim that I will continue to win "longterm". Maybe not today, maybe not this week, maybe not this month. I could still lose over all those short-term periods even playing with an advantage. Counting last year, I have now had 5 different losing period of 4-6 months, WHILE playing with an advantage. But unless I am being cheated or they change the rules, I will win longterm.

But to claim that and then do so without SOMETHING making your play +EV, defies math.

Quote: kewlj

One of the really disturbing parts to me is that Mdawg claims having a bigger bankroll somehow effects the math. That is really what all the pictures of piles of cash and chips and watches are about....to convey the false message that playing larger stakes changes the math. That it is a world that most of us can't understand and the mathematics can't touch. That is not reality

Occasionally with something like blackjack or even video poker where playing higher limits or denomination may have slightly better rules (usually still -EV) but other than that the math is exactly the same. Playing higher limits changes nothing! Negative expectation remains negative expectation whether playing big or small. To win longterm, you have to do something that changes that.

Having a massive bankroll relative to, "Base bet," makes the probability of having a winning session using negative progression betting higher, generally speaking, and if you're willing to risk it. To wit, if your entire bankroll were only one bet, you couldn't do a negative progression system at all. Martingale with a bankroll of three units, two losses in a row and you're El Busto. You see where this is going.

I agree with the rest.

Enjoying the discussion Mission, as I do most with you, but unfortunately, I gotta go to work. It is day 2 of my work year and I am already late. . I am going to have to adjust my schedule back to a work schedule of not even looking at this forum in the mornings or I will end up losing too much time. :/

Quote: kewlj

Enjoying the discussion Mission, as I do most with you, but unfortunately, I gotta go to work. It is day 2 of my work year and I am already late. . I am going to have to adjust my schedule back to a work schedule of not even looking at this forum in the mornings or I will end up losing too much time. :/

Always a pleasure! I'd say, "May the odds forever be in your favor," except I know they are. I hope Lady Variance isn't a fickle mistress to start your Fiscal Year.

Quote: Expectedvalue

They took the plexiglass down at the Wynn?

Pretty irresponsible of them.

Quote: Expectedvalue

why does he never post pictures from a hand in progress.

Quote: MDawg

One thing that makes me feel better is winning stacks and towers of checks I can't even see over.

Quote: Expectedvalue

They took the plexiglass down at the Wynn?

Yeah, what's up with these photos?

If you took and posted the Wynn chip photos 5 minutes
after Expectedvalue called you out, then that's not enough time
for them to have taken the plexiglass down.

Even if you had taken the photos earlier in the day,
the plexiglass would still show up.

Either you are not at the Wynn,
or you took these photos during an earlier trip.

Which is it?

It is one of the above. 🙂 Although, the two statements are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

You'll recognize those chip posts from a prior trip about a year ago.

For security reasons many forum members have advised me to cease with any real time specific pictures that might tie me to a particular casino, so I stopped doing that about a year ago. It's a dirty shame, as I'd love to post a lot of pictures I have taken.

Quote: MDawg

the two statements are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Oh, I see. That's very different.

Pretty dumb of me not to consider that possibility.

Nevermind.

One thing I noticed Mission said made sense. Actually, a couple of things. He repeats that there is nothing intrinsically impossible about my session wins, which, he doesn't have to tell me that, I am living them, and each report is exactly correct and represents the entire play for that session, day, or trip. It's all truthful.

The second thing he mentioned was that the results of one session do not affect the outcome of the next. I agree to the extent of that going in to play today it doesn't make any difference how many sessions I have won previously, as today's session is an independent event.

However, let's think about this for a moment. If I lose the session the day before, and I come to the session the next day, I will be playing from in the hole. No, I don't chase losses, but nevertheless, the fact that I lost the day before may affect how I bet the next day. As well, if I won the day before, and won several sessions before hand and am holding a lot of the house's money, that may affect how I bet too.

It's not entirely scientific, but it does make a difference. Of course I am going to argue that the fact that I am currently holding a tidy sum of the house's money gives me an advantage. Certainly it gives me an advantage of winding up ahead no matter what. Does it affect the potential outcome of the session today that I am up a grip already? I believe it might - but in which direction, I am not sure. I'd like to think that it affects it positively.

The fact of the matter is, no matter what anyone says, human beings will behave differently when under the gun - or not under the gun. I tend to perform very well in both circumstances, but I can't say that I behave exactly the same. As far as casino play, I do play without emotion, but it doesn't mean that underneath all that there wouldn't be some effect to being up or down at that moment.


Consider for example a Blackjack card counter. He sits there losing hand after hand. Loses the small hands count negative, loses the big hands count positive. When does he get up to leave? And if you consider that scenario maybe it makes more sense to accept that being up or down does affect casino play, even if only to the extent of deciding when to stop.

I always wonder how big winners lose it all back to the house. Seems like the mob got them.

Please clarify:

Roughly how many sessions have you won in the past couple years and how many, if any, have you lost?

I only seem to recall a brag from you that you don't lose and haven't lost, which is patently absurd, but if that is incorrect please explain.

Not sure whether you're the second coming of christ or an imp from hell.

Quote: MrV

Roughly how many sessions have you won in the past couple years and how many, if any, have you lost?

The guy wins 25% of the tie bets he makes. It's almost impossible to have a losing session when you're that good.

Quote: MDawg

One thing I noticed Mission said made sense. Actually, a couple of things. He repeats that there is nothing intrinsically impossible about my session wins, which, he doesn't have to tell me that, I am living them, and each report is exactly correct and represents the entire play for that session, day, or trip. It's all truthful.

In other words, they are REAL adventures?

You should add "REAL adventures" to your tag line, or as an intro,
just to advise everyone that your adventures are REAL.

Make sure to capitalize the word REAL,
that makes them more REAL for the readers.

Of course they are real. They don't have to be - well - what EvenBob described as

Quote: EvenBob

Terapined apparently has not noticed absolutely nobody says, hey, I'm going to buy some kind of a motor home and travel around the country and live in trailer parks and people are going to look up to me and respect me for it. Because for every person that does it on purpose, there's half a dozen who have no other choice. For many people it's one rung up the ladder from homelessness and everybody knows it.

to be real.

Oops, REAL.

Quote: MrV

Roughly how many sessions have you won in the past couple years and how many, if any, have you lost?

Irrelevant...there are no such thing as "sessions"

It's all one session.

But wait....I'm not sure.

That's just what some math guys and APs have written.

Maybe it's just theory?

Any trip I have reported has included all sessions, and a correct tally of the end trip results. Between this forum and elsewhere, all trips have been reported.

The same way I report all my stock trades. The way the stock account works, when I ask it to show all the FILLED trades, it shows all the filled trades. Not some, all. And then I have posted the screenshots here. Nothing has been held back from either of my threads. That was the whole point of my two Wagers - that whatever I posted could and would be corroborated by any means that the person who accepted my Wagers wished to utilize.

So, 98% (or whatever high % it is) of Vegas visitors are ahead at some point? And most leave behind? Well that tells me that every person here who objects to that I could be winning must be in that category of having lost. Makes sense. Or as EvenBob put it,

Quote: EvenBob

You can't do it so nobody can do it.
Got it, thanks.

and that applies to not just casino play.

OK, but I haven't read and don't want to re-read all the stuff you posted: here and elsewhere, so please just answer the question I asked above.

Oh, I'll behave on this site, under penalty of being moderated, so you can chill out.

Quote: ChumpChange

I always wonder how big winners lose it all back to the house. Seems like the mob got them.

By believing that winning begets winning and that the house edge won't get them in the end. Over enough time, it will. If the game is -EV, they'll all lose, sooner or later.

Quote: sabre

The guy wins 25% of the tie bets he makes. It's almost impossible to have a losing session when you're that good.

Wait, what?

If there are 17 ties dealt in 73 total hands,
and the bettor bets the tie every hand,
then it's almost impossible to lose that session?

Well, that explains everything...unless sessions don't exist.

Do they exist?

Is there any such thing as a gambling session?

Or is it all one session?

Quote: coachbelly

Wait, what?

If there are 17 ties dealt in 73 total hands,
and the bettor bets the tie every hand,
then it's almost impossible to lose that session?

Well, that explains everything...unless sessions don't exist.

Do they exist?

Is there any such thing as a gambling session?

Or is it all one session?

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Quote: MrV

please just answer the question I asked above.

Don't answer Mr V...ignore him.

I gotta get down there and play soon. Enough talk for now anyway.

Quote: MDawg

However, let's think about this for a moment. If I lose the session the day before, and I come to the session the next day, I will be playing from in the hole. No, I don't chase losses, but nevertheless, the fact that I lost the day before may affect how I bet the next day. As well, if I won the day before, and won several sessions before hand and am holding a lot of the house's money, that may affect how I bet too.

(Quote clipped, relevance, bold added by me)

No such thing. Money in play is undecided. Money not in play is your money. By, "In play," I mean actually in the betting spot on the table, in your case.

That's why sessions are arbitrary, so are trips. It's just one lifetime result. If you had $60,000 yesterday and won $20,000, you now have $80,000. If you lose $5,000 of that, you're not, "Up $15,000 in house money," you're down $5,000 on the cash that actually belonged to you. If that $20,000 win (assuming you're a winner so far in life) put you at your highest lifetime winnings, then you're down $5,000 relative to that. You lost $5,000, any caveat to that is mental gymnastics and irrelevant.

Quote:

It's not entirely scientific, but it does make a difference. Of course I am going to argue that the fact that I am currently holding a tidy sum of the house's money gives me an advantage. Certainly it gives me an advantage of winding up ahead no matter what. Does it affect the potential outcome of the session today that I am up a grip already? I believe it might - but in which direction, I am not sure. I'd like to think that it affects it positively.

No, it doesn't change the Expected Value of any bet that you make whatsoever. Again, YOUR money. There is no such thing as, "House Money," any winnings from yesterday, the day before or any previous day don't belong to the house anymore. If it was, "House money," then the house could just ask for it back.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is, no matter what anyone says, human beings will behave differently when under the gun - or not under the gun. I tend to perform very well in both circumstances, but I can't say that I behave exactly the same. As far as casino play, I do play without emotion, but it doesn't mean that underneath all that there wouldn't be some effect to being up or down at that moment.

Consider for example a Blackjack card counter. He sits there losing hand after hand. Loses the small hands count negative, loses the big hands count positive. When does he get up to leave? And if you consider that scenario maybe it makes more sense to accept that being up or down does affect casino play, even if only to the extent of deciding when to stop.

Okay, so as I suspected, your system or method does not have any absolute set in stone parameters. Can't be simulated. Still expected to lose, because they all are, but I hope you continue to win. I have no reason to want to see you lose, or anyone, for that matter.

When does a card counter get up to leave? If he's properly bankrolled, I would say when the count is no longer positive.

Quote: coachbelly

Wait, what?

If there are 17 ties dealt in 73 total hands,
and the bettor bets the tie every hand,
then it's almost impossible to lose that session?

Well, that explains everything...unless sessions don't exist.

Do they exist?

Is there any such thing as a gambling session?

Or is it all one session?

Sessions are as real as a person wants to believe they are, but there is no absolute definition and people often have a habit of redefining it for themselves.

Is a session an hour? A Day? Until you leave the table? A single shoe? An entire trip? Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes...or, it can be.

The point is, what constitutes a, "Session," is subjective and therefore can't be argued unless we all come together to agree on the language---which is to say giving, "Session," an absolute definition.

Is life one session? I guess you could define, "Session," that way. Life is really just life...and if you play a -EV game for enough of your life, you will lose.

Quote: MDawg

and am holding a lot of the house's money

Quote: Mission146

No such thing.

I have read members refer to this as "a free roll".

For instance,
they invest it BC, when the value increases,
they sell enough to recoup their initial investment.

They consider their remaining holdings to be a "free roll"
in other words..."house money".

That may not change what you believe, but it's a common colloquialism,
and to say that there is no such thing is an obtuse observation.

Quote: coachbelly

Quote: MDawg

and am holding a lot of the house's money

I have read members refer to this as "a free roll".

For instance,
they invest it BC, when the value increases,
they sell enough to recoup their initial investment.

They consider their remaining holdings to be a "free roll"
in other words..."house money".

That may not change what you believe, but it's a common colloquialism,
and to say that there is no such thing is an obtuse observation.

Colloquialisms are colloquialisms, people speak in colloquialisms all the time.

For example, suppose I'm in a casino waiting on a must-hit machine that is in positive territory and I think the person who is on it might bust out...imagine I'm playing something like Video Keno (slowly) for $0.05/draw, you might come up and ask, "Keno now, Mission? What's your advantage on this play?"

I might respond, "Yeah, yeah, shove it. I'm up a few hundred on actual plays, so it's house money anyway. Besides, I'm waiting for something. It won't kill me to give them five or ten dollars of their own money back."

Of course, my statement in this hypothetical is untrue. It's my money that I am risking losing as it does not belong to the casino anymore. I consider myself a more pedantic than necessary type of guy, but I don't think I require that someone speaks with surgical precision ALL the time---and I certainly don't.

Anyway, when I said, "No such thing," that's because we are engaged in a conversation that's essentially akin to gambling strategy. When I'm actually discussing gambling strategy, I'm going to speak more precisely. Wouldn't want to ruffle any feathers, you know? If the context of this conversation didn't tend to be related to strategy, then I wouldn't have made that statement.

Quote: Mission146

Is a session an hour? A Day? Until you leave the table?
A single shoe? An entire trip? Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes...or, it can be.

How about standing up, turning around, then sitting back down?

Or the often written...go outside touch the building and come back?

How about a single dealt hand?

Are these sessions?

Some APs say no, there is no such thing, the totality of your play is all one session.

And that is the basis of the math for the "long term" theoretical period
that you call "for enough of your life".

If the period is undefined, then the math behind it is theory. Isn't that right?

Quote: coachbelly

How about standing up, turning around, then sitting back down?

Or the often written...go outside touch the building and come back?

How about a single dealt hand?

Are these sessions?

Some APs say no, there is no such thing, the totality of your play is all one session.

And that is the basis of the math for the "long term" theoretical period
that you call "for enough of your life".

If the period is undefined, then the math behind it is theory. Isn't that right?

If nobody ever made a bet, then gambling itself would be nothing but theory.

Quote: coachbelly

How about standing up, turning around, then sitting back down?

Or the often written...go outside touch the building and come back?

How about a single dealt hand?

Are these sessions?

Some APs say no, there is no such thing, the totality of your play is all one session.

And that is the basis of the math for the "long term" theoretical period
that you call "for enough of your life".

If the period is undefined, then the math behind it is theory. Isn't that right?

Sorry, missed your point a little.

Suppose that MDawg defined his system or method with concrete parameters; someone could program a simulation to actually play Baccarat that way. If you ran a million simulations, then you could identify which simulated player lasted the longest and on what precise hand that simulated player went negative and never came back.

So, the math behind it isn't anything because there's no math to do on a system that is unspecified. Best I can do is a general statement which is that Baccarat is a negative expectation game and every player will eventually lose if they play long enough.

Do you want a number of hands? Can't do it. How do you expect me to know when the system doesn't even have any hard rules?

I think the casinos try to make a session the time between your buy-in and your color-up (if there's anything left that is).
I could buy-in for $100, lose it, and that would be a session for me; but I could pull out another $100 at the same game either now or an hour later to try to win back my original $100. If I get back to even or above, I'd prefer to put both buy-ins down ($200) as one session so I don't have a losing session for tax purposes.

Quote: Mission146

Do you want a number of hands? Can't do it. How do you expect me to know when the system doesn't even have any hard rules?

Does the expectation change based on whether the bettor plays Banker, Player or Tie?

Quote: coachbelly

Does the expectation change based on whether the bettor plays Banker, Player or Tie?

In general, Player has a slightly greater House Edge than Banker and Tie a much greater House Edge than both.

Quote: Mission146

In general, Player has a slightly greater House Edge than Banker and Tie a much greater House Edge than both.

And what betting rules employed by the bettor can change that?

Quote: coachbelly

And what betting rules employed by the bettor can change that?

Can change the House Edge? None. Whatever you want, "Session," to mean, you can bet in a way that increases the probability of a winning session.

EDIT TO ADD: Baccarat is theoretically countable, but you wouldn't have many positive expectation bets that you could make. As a practical matter, it would be insanely difficult for a person to count Baccarat profitably, and even if you were inclined to do so, there are much easier (and greater) advantages to be had elsewhere.

I see no claim that MDawg is card counting, anyway.

Quote: Mission146

Can change the House Edge? None.

If the house edge is known, the playing strategy is unknown,
and the playing period is undefined, then can the probability of
winning for a period (session) be determined?

Hold on a minute here! HOLD THE PRESSES!

Mdawg just got CAUGHT, by one of his own supporters no less, of falsifying pictorial evidence for this trip. The man supposedly is on day 16 of a trip to Las Vegas (every day a winner no less), in which he documents his play and winnings, including pictures, many of cash, and chips, and watches and God knows what.

One of those pictures has just (page 373) been proven to be fabricated for this trip and having been caught Mdawg confirms it to be over a year old. At the very least he should be penalized for misleading members with phony pictures (for this trip)

Even more than that to me it calls into question anything and everything he has ever posted. Axelwolf has suggested for some time that the pictures Mdawg has been posting as proof, don’t belong to him. This incident may indicate that.

But it certainly means he fabricated pictorial evidence to mislead people concerning THIS trip. I mean we are along the same lines as Rob Singer fabricating pictures of himself inside an RV at the dealership for credibility.

I call on Wizard to make a ruling on this and I believe there should be a penalty for intentionally misleading if nothing else. Maybe 16 days in accordance with day 16 of this now fabricated trip.