The Adventures of MDawg
Quote: dawinnaatlozinsJohn Dont be a pee brain ok?
In addition to not having one's brain composed of urine, it's also good not to be a peabrain.
By the way, you used the right term in an earlier post. What made you change your mind?
Quote: coachbellyAre you suggesting that all members create a set of questions for other members,
and lay out different scenarios by which those questions shall be answered?
If the claims rise to this level, YES. You even earlier proposed such a meeting. MDawg is in Vegas Now (supposedly). We can solve this drama NOW.
And there is precedent for it. Wizard called out Rob Singers claims many, many times. Even had him on for an interview, after he was banned and remained banned. These Mdawg claims are no different. It IS Rob Singer all over again. Only difference is we are dealing with month long stays in high end comped suites instead of a 1.6 million dollar Newell RV.
MDawg has been given this platform for years to make these claim that most feel defy math and reality. Why will he not accept this opportunity to prove himself RIGHT? He has this chance to silence me and all the critics and take an enormous victory bow. Why would he not only not do that but fight it every step of the way? If these claims, this "story", this person were real, he would be jumping through hoops at this opportunity.
Quote: ChumpChangeI was trying to count chips to see if it matched anything he was posting about his betting habits of the day. I gave up when I saw 8 $5000 chips. Yeah, I was misled to believe it was a pic from the day, until YOU called it into question. I think kewlj was right to raise an objection, but it was a bit belated, but his objection does call into question MDawg's propensity to mislead.
Then came a trip report that may have matched the chip load.
The question, it seems, is one of intent. Could a person have gotten the wrong idea? Perhaps. Was there an actual intent to deceive? At worst, not provable. At best, no.
That's what I take from Wizard's post, anyway. You'd have to ask him.
Quote: kewljIf the claims rise to this level, YES.
And who shall be the arbiter of whether the questions merit answering,
and whether the scenarios by which they are answered are reasonable?
Quote: Mission146but may I ask if this is leading to something and, if so, can we get there faster?
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the probability of MDawg's claims.
Just trying to clear that up...I think you just did.
To be clear, given what is known about MDawg's play, one cannot determine
the probability of his claims of consecutive winning sessions.
Is that correct?
Quote: coachbellyThere seems to be a misunderstanding about the probability of MDawg's claims.
Just trying to clear that up...I think you just did.
To be clear, given what is known about MDawg's play, one cannot determine
the probability of his claims of consecutive winning sessions.
Is that correct?
That is correct. The only assertion that one could make is that it is more likely than not that a person would not win so many sessions in a row.
We're up to fifty sessions? In order to be more likely than not to win fifty sessions, assuming a system even had set parameters (which, as we have established, I don't think this one has any that are absolute) your system would require a probability a little north of 98.62% to win an individual session.
So, there's a difference between these two statements:
Statement A: It is, in my view, based on what has been reported, very unlikely that MDawg has won this many sessions in a row in the amounts being claimed.
OR:
Statement B: These reports are absolutely untrue.
Statement B is obviously an accusation and is probably not mathematically correct. Actually, it's technically never mathematically correct---but you may recall the eighteen Yo's in a row thing at Craps---while technically possible, I mean, come on. Anyway, we're not to eighteen Yo's in a row territory, at least, I don't think.
Statement A is a reasonable statement. Baccarat is a negative expectation game, so even if we knew what MDawg's system is, all players would play it with the expectation of losing AND, over a long enough period of time, would definitely lose sooner or later.
Quote: Mission146That is correct. The only assertion that one could make is that it is more likely than not that a person would not win so many sessions in a row.
Given what is known about MDawg's play,
are mathematical expressions of the probability of MDawg's claims valid ?
Quote: coachbelly
Given what is known about MDawg's play,
are mathematical expressions of the probability of MDawg's claims valid ?
I made no claims about his play.
Is it valid to say that, in general, a Baccarat player will not win fifty sessions in a row? Yes.
Quote: kewljWhile I understand and appreciate your concern and warning, my answer to this question is YES IT IS. This is a gambling, math related forum, comprised of gambling mathematicians, players that play for a living, players that play recreationally. And anyone in any one of those groups should know that what this person is claiming can't be. It is NOT how gambling works. It defies math and reality. It MOCKS this forum, Wizard and the intention of this forum. So, No I will not sit by quietly and say nothing. "Evil triumphs when good men say and do nothing"
I am sorry Mike, but I won't stand by and stay out of this thread as is. This forum has a systems section for systems that defy math and don't work. This "adventure" thread either belongs there or in a new voodoo / fiction type section that should be created. To allow such a thread to continue in the main forum, everyday as the top thread, may not violate forum rules but it violates math and reality.
And for you to allow this to go on and "protect" this member is a quazi-endorsement from you. You are allowing this thread and person to make a mockery of both this forum and your name. If WoV is no longer about math and reality, then it is just another one of the voodoo gambling forums like VCT or gambling forums. Is that REALLY where we are? Is that really the Wizard brand and what you stand for?
It's gambling; we're not Cub Scouts. We're not going to save the world by disputing one person's claim.
Pure satire to follow:
In the beginning, positive expectation gambling was separated from negative expectation gambling, and it became known that positive expectation gambling was good and righteous whilst negative expectation gambling was sinful and wrong.
From the dawn of gambling time, players have been separated into two categories: The advantage players and the ploppies. The Advantage Players are the chosen people of gambling who are tasked to spread the good word across all the land---except for the information that they don't want to share---and to do good works and deeds both within and without the casinos. The ploppies, NAY, they are negative expectation players and promoters of all that is sinful and wrong. (Except Video Keno, which gets a pass) The ploppies are to be subjugated as inferior gamblers and must be silenced, ostracized and cast away from the holy advantage players lest their gambling immorality spread and infect the minds of the advantage players like a cancer.
But, really, Baccarat is a negative expectation game and anyone who plays it (absent outside factors or other mechanisms, hole carding, etc.) should expect to lose. That's it. No system will ever change that Baccarat is a negative expectation game and, if you're not going to figure out and employ advantage play tactics---the best way to play Baccarat is simply NOT to play Baccarat. The second-best way is to flat bet Banker for Table Minimum.
That's all that's really needed. I'd like to think that the fun and games of reporting trips aren't making people think Baccarat is beatable. I'm going to give anyone who reads here more credit for their intelligence than that.
Seriously, dude, not everything is the end of the world. That comes from a place of well-meaning. It's just a thread. Go forth, ye, employ hi-lo and spend the rest of this day making money (well, making EV) as a penance.
Quote: Mission146I made no claims about his play.
Which question does this answer?
Quote: coachbellyWhich question does this answer?
I don't know, you got what you wanted out of me. Are MDawg's claims absolutely mathematically untrue---no. I'm honestly almost done with this thread, except as a reader; I'm quickly running out of time for this.
Quote: Mission146I don't know, you got what you wanted out of me. Are MDawg's claims absolutely mathematically untrue---no. I'm honestly almost done with this thread, except as a reader; I'm quickly running out of time for this.
OK. Thanks for your help. Happy reading.
Quote: Mission146I made no claims about his play.
Is it valid to say that, in general, a Baccarat player will not win fifty sessions in a row? Yes.
Lets be clear what we are talking about here. Sabre has come up with a number of 51 winning sessions in a row. Mdawg claims to be in Vegas now and and in his 17th, so that is 17 of them. Late last year he was in Vegas for a month (or so he claimed), so that almost covers the 51 winning sessions. before that there were earlier trips last year, one in which he told us he would continue to win every day.
Go back a little further and you are in late 2019 when this thread started at that time he told us he has played 110 in 2019 and the pit told him he was ahead for the year and LIFETIME.
At the start of this thread, he showed pictures of Caesars on Fire in 2001, claiming he was staying and playing at Bellegio.
So we are going back 21 years, that the guy has been winning constantly, maybe not every session like he currently claims, but an overall winner playing -EV game. And betting big enough to be receiving high end comped suites.
My point: This cannot be dismissed as some small sample size. This is claims of very longterm winning playing -EV.
My second point: Eliot told a story of being called in to evaluate a player and player's game who has won for a couple years. Eliot's evaluation revealed that the player was not playing a winning game and eventually would lose. And I believe he did. Now understand that when Eliot was called in, the casino was trying to decide whether to 1) continue to allow this player to play at all and 2) continue to comp this player high end everything on top of that. 2 YEARS. Small sample size.
MDawg is claiming winning for 21 years, with play of 110 hours a year and now including 51 consecutive winning sessions. Anyone accepting this doesn't understand how Las Vegas casinos work. The ONLY way to get that level of comps for 21 years over thousands of hours of play, is if he is a LOSING PLAYER.
Look at the magnitude of this claim. This is Rob Singer decades long claims of defying the gambling math and reality. Only difference is Mdawg has decided to take it up a notch, claiming very high stakes and because of the high stakes, no one can understand. The stakes makes ZERO difference to the math. -EV is -EV at $50 a hand or $5000 a hand.
It is all smoke and mirrors and that is why he refuses to meet the forum owners now calling for him to show them.
Quote: SOOPOO
So in summary, I think you are too valuable a member to let this morass of a thread take you down.
^^^^ This ^^^^ @ KewlJ
Seems to me that both are so far out there, so far on beyond zebra, so as to warrant zero credibility.
I recall the Wiz did the math and figured out the odds against seeing 18 yo's in a row; couldn't the same thing be done to examine the odds for or against the claimed winning streak?
Mission I think said it can't be done without knowing his method of play: is that correct, assuming MDawg is not cheating or using some form of advantage play?
I'd just like to know this: "What are the odds?"
Quote: MrV
Mission I think said it can't be done without knowing his method of play: is that correct, assuming MDawg is not cheating or using some form of advantage play?
I'd just like to know this: "What are the odds?"
Mdawg is using a progression betting system! he claims he is not but his own posts state that on those occasions that he loses, he takes out more markers and places a few larger bets and presto, has won it all back. THAT IS A PROGRESSION SYSTEM. He simply don't want to call it that because that has already been thoroughly debunked.
You cannot win via how Mdawg is claiming for the length of time and trials he is claiming. Continuing these claims is essentially calling math a 'hoax'.
Quote: MrVWhich claim is less likely: MDawg's claim of always winning, or alan's claim of seeing 18 yo's rolled in a row?
Seems to me that both are so far out there, so far on beyond zebra, so as to warrant zero credibility.
I recall the Wiz did the math and figured out the odds against seeing 18 yo's in a row; couldn't the same thing be done to examine the odds for or against the claimed winning streak?
Mission I think said it can't be done without knowing his method of play: is that correct, assuming MDawg is not cheating or using some form of advantage play?
I'd just like to know this: "What are the odds?"
18 Yo's is considerably less likely. Yes, can't be done without knowing his method of play. It has to be simulated or done with long-form math, but even if the system had absolute rules, there's no way in hell I am taking the time to analyze it long-form. Betting systems are usually simple.
Quote: MrVWhich claim is less likely: MDawg's claim of always winning, or alan's claim of seeing 18 yo's rolled in a row?
Seems to me that both are so far out there, so far on beyond zebra, so as to warrant zero credibility.
I recall the Wiz did the math and figured out the odds against seeing 18 yo's in a row; couldn't the same thing be done to examine the odds for or against the claimed winning streak?
Mission I think said it can't be done without knowing his method of play: is that correct, assuming MDawg is not cheating or using some form of advantage play?
I'd just like to know this: "What are the odds?"
I think the mathematical odds are just one aspect.
What are the odds that after winning thousands and even tens of thousands every day casino hosts are pouring out more comps, congratulating on his wins with statements like "I know you always win"?
What are the odds MDawg has been comped two months straight at the same suite as in his last trip?
What are the odds he receives a hotel suite of high caliber 7 days a week for two months but doesn't rate for any Freeplay?
What are the odds he can correctly predict he is always going to win?
Quote: kewljDo people understand how Hosts make money? It is based on the money the players they are hosting LOSE. If Mdawgs claims were true, every host he ever dealt with would have been out of a job.
Some hosts are compensated based on money put in action. I cite an interview with Steve Cyr, but don't recall the specific interview.
Quote: Mission146Some hosts are compensated based on money put in action. I cite an interview with Steve Cyr, but don't recall the specific interview.
And if that money put into action wins, every session, and the player wins for 21 years, that host will not be a host for long.
At $200 average bet, 80 hands per shoe, that's $16K bet per shoe, times 4 shoes equals $64K total bet, times 1% equals $640 expected loss. So with a 1/3rd rebate rate, you'll get the $200 room.
That out of the way, if someone wants to invalidate claims, or MDawg's claims specifically, then the first thing that I would suggest is picking a focal point of attack.
For instance:
1.) MDawg does not have a winning system AND the claims as to his results are untrue. I'm not suggesting that; I'm talking hypothetically.
---Okay, well, he doesn't have a winning system because there is no such thing. Baccarat is a negative expectation game. It's possible that he is winning with advanatge play tactics, but he has not made that claim. It's possible he's winning playing at -EV, but over enough time, he will definitely be on the losing end.
---As far as a casino not allowing for advantage play tactics. I mean, they let Phil Ivey do it, until they sued him, and he's a well-known professional gambler. I wouldn't have let Phil Ivey in my casino whatsoever except for at the poker tables. Anywhere else, and I'd just automatically assume he's working some sort of advantage.
---Same thing with Don Johnson, they let him go for quite sometime, but he was not as well known.
2.) MDawg is not a high-limit Baccarat player. (Again, as a hypothetical statement)
---This is much more difficult because, as has been pointed out, if he is a high-limit Baccarat player who is doing so at a losing expectation---it makes sense that the casinos would comp him. Hell, I even mentioned that, were I in his position, I'd be asking for more than RFB. Actually, they can keep the RFB, I'll take Match Play chips and thank you.
---I would say that, in terms of evidence that has actually been presented, there is no evidence that would serve to disprove that MDawg is a high-limit player of one kind or another. If I were, for whatever reason, absolutely determined to prove his claims untrue---this is not where I would start.
------
As far as demanding to interact with MDawg off the forums, that's an unreasonable demand for someone to make. May I follow you around and watch you play Blackjack, KewlJ?
Maybe it's not an unreasonable demand, but it's an unreasonable demand coming from anyone but Wizard. Also, Wizard is a quite busy guy, so I don't know that he necessarily wants to take that kind of time just to watch someone play Baccarat----which Wizard (more than anyone) knows is a -EV game that no betting system can beat absent other factors.
In any case, we want to stick to statements of fact. If someone thinks a claim is fiction, then you don't disprove it with more fiction or conjecture, you disprove it with fact. A host would be fired if one of his or her players was winning consistently? Pure conjecture. Again with Ivey, the casinos literally put in place the mechanisms that allowed him to play with a tremendous advantage. I mean, whoever green lit that should definitely be fired, but I don't know if he or she was.
Any idiot* can win 20, 30, 40, or many more consecutive winning sessions if his bankroll at risk is far greater than his session target. Especially if he chases losses with some sort of neg progressive. EVEN with a -ev game.Quote: ChumpChangeThe odds are in MDawg's favor as long as he has that big LOC and never loses a session.
Like this idiot!
We KNOW that Mdawg has a penchant for progressives if we just look at how he 'averages in' to his supposed* day trades. E.g. buys 100 Tesla and if the price drops, put another order in for another 100 and if the price drops further, put in another buy order for another 200 and then be ready with another order for 400. He disagrees when I refer to that as Marty for investors
Look for the evidence of him playing catch-up in his trip reports. They are pretty common and obvious. So IF he has the firepower and Massive LOCS, he could indeed be winning all those sessions. Do you think for one second he would report a losing session?
Take heart in the knowledge that if his reports are true, then the universe will assert itself soon to crush him. If, on the other hand, you believe its all fabrication, take heart in how sad his life would have to be.
* I say 'supposed' because I find his trading evidence incredible.
Quote: OnceDear
Take heart in the knowledge that if his reports are true, then the universe will assert itself soon to crush him. If, on the other hand, you believe its all fabrication, take heart in how sad his life would have to be.
(Quote clipped, relevance)
See, I wanted to go there...but I didn't know when it comes to interpretations of the rules...
This is part of what my post would have looked like were I still an Administrator. Almost verbatim. I think OD and I have a similar sense of humor.
ADDED: Okay, I'm out. Peace love and happiness. I am banning myself from this thread for three days.
Quote: Mission146
As far as demanding to interact with MDawg off the forums, that's an unreasonable demand for someone to make. May I follow you around and watch you play Blackjack, KewlJ?
My claims do not defy math and there are plenty of other people winning by playing +EV strategies. Nothing to prove here. The low bar has to be does the claim defy math.
MDawgs claims are equivalent to levitating and flying around town using only one's arms. Equivalent to claims of running a 2 minute mile. Person makes these kind of claims over and over and over and it is not unreasonable to request a show me moment.
Quote: Mission146
Maybe it's not an unreasonable demand, but it's an unreasonable demand coming from anyone but Wizard. Also, Wizard is a quite busy guy, so I don't know that he necessarily wants to take that kind of time just to watch someone play Baccarat----which Wizard (more than anyone) knows is a -EV game that no betting system can beat absent other factors.
I know you pop in for a few days here and there and are gone long periods of time, but Wizard announced back in December "that it was time for Mdawg to put up or shut up". <-Wizards exact words. Mike was talked out of it by a barrage of behind the scenes PM's from Mdawg. That is all that anyone needs to know. Mdawg should have jumped at the chance to prove himself and have one of the most respected casino math experts validate him.....IF his claims were real!
Of course, I was not attempting or intending to insult anyone, nor giving an opinion as to MDawg's truthfulness.Quote: Mission146(Quote clipped, relevance)
See, I wanted to go there...but I didn't know when it comes to interpretations of the rules...
This is part of what my post would have looked like were I still an Administrator. Almost verbatim. I think OD and I have a similar sense of humor.
If I overstepped, I'll take my suspension.
If MDawg is as wealthy as he claims ( no need to suppose otherwise ), then I suggest what I believe is a likely scenario. If he isn't, then who's the winner in a public argument with him?
Quote: darkozI think the mathematical odds are just one aspect.
What are the odds that after winning thousands and even tens of thousands every day casino hosts are pouring out more comps, congratulating on his wins with statements like "I know you always win"?
Bingo Bango Bongo
The sheer improbability of the 18 yo claim from a probability perspective was compounded with the description of the event. Nobody won any substantial money (at a game where betting streaks and pressing bets is commonplace). Nobody from the casino examined or changed out the dice. Crowds didn't gather. Nobody from casino advertising and marketing hyped it. The description of the supposed 18 yo event was as laughable as the odds of it happening.
Could a baccarat player frequently using a negative progression system when losing experience a huge string of winning sessions and be up lifetime even after thousands of hours of play? Sure. People experience 4 and 5 SD events.
When you read MDawg's description of this purported historic run, it comes across just as Alan's telling of the fictitious 18 yos in a row. It just isn't a believable account of a fantastically improbable event.
Quote: kewljDo people understand how Hosts make money? It is based on the money the players they are hosting LOSE. If Mdawgs claims were true, every host he ever dealt with would have been out of a job.
Maybe that's how it worked back in the day but from conversations I've had with hosts I've only heard of them being compensated based on theo.
And then as far as casino hosts, no, they don’t get a penny more if you win or lose, at least not the salaried ones working for the casinos (even independent hosts no longer get a cut of the losses from their players in Vegas – that was a while back, was only in certain casinos in Vegas, and only for independent hosts – today this “cut” of losses, according to my independent host friend, is only in certain Indian casinos not in Nevada). The host’s job is just to take care of you based on either your actual or theoretical loss. Hosts employed by the casinos have no vested interest in whether you win or lose.
It takes enough time to write up what actually happened. To sit down and write up in detail something that didn’t happen, day after day, no one would waste time doing that, certainly not just for an internet forum, and anyone who thinks that someone would must be living in a world of weirdos and cons.
If you take the entirety of all of MD's claims, I'm going with Alan. Alan, since he could have seen 18 yo's in a row via some loaded dice, cheating, or something out of the ordinary. Obviously, I dont think that's the case, especially, since Alan was 100% convinced his son hit 5 Royals in a day and his son disputed that claim himself.Quote: MrVWhich claim is less likely: MDawg's claim of always winning, or alan's claim of seeing 18 yo's rolled in a row?
Seems to me that both are so far out there, so far on beyond zebra, so as to warrant zero credibility.
I recall the Wiz did the math and figured out the odds against seeing 18 yo's in a row; couldn't the same thing be done to examine the odds for or against the claimed winning streak?
Mission I think said it can't be done without knowing his method of play: is that correct, assuming MDawg is not cheating or using some form of advantage play?
I'd just like to know this: "What are the odds?"
No, that's not always true. Either way, for the most part, you may be correct, but at some point... when someone keeps winning they will take notice and deem you as someone not valuable to their bottom line, and cut you off.Quote: sabreMaybe that's how it worked back in the day but from conversations I've had with hosts I've only heard of them being compensated based on theo.
What is MDawg claiming his average bet and time playing is? I have asked this before and it didn't seem to be all that high anymore. I find it a little odd that the casino is comping RFB in those types of rooms for that many days based on what he has said in the past, all while winning money.
Quote: MDawg
P.S. I recommend NIACIN,
Niacin gets a strong thumbs down review from N.I.H., which is one of the most highly respected medical organizations in the world
"but this group had no significant reduction in rates of major vascular events compared with the placebo (statin-only) group. Furthermore, the nicotinic acid group had a significantly greater risk of diabetes, gastrointestinal dyspepsia, diarrhea, ulceration, bleeding events in the gut and brain, and skin rashes and ulcerations. An earlier randomized clinical trial of 3,414 patients with established cardiovascular disease was stopped after 3 years when the researchers found that patients taking niacin (1,500-2,000 mg/day extended release) in addition to their cholesterol-reduction medications did not have fewer cardiovascular events than those taking medication alone, even though the niacin reduced triglyceride and LDL-cholesterol levels further and raised HDL cholesterol levels further [31]. The results also showed that patients taking niacin had an increased risk of ischemic stroke.
The authors of two 2017 systematic reviews examining the clinical trial data concluded that nicotinic acid therapy provides little if any protection from atherosclerotic heart disease, even though the therapy raises HDL cholesterol levels and lowers total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels. One of these reviews examined 23 randomized controlled trials of moderate to high quality in 39,195 participants
Overall, use of nicotinic acid did not reduce overall mortality or cardiovascular mortality rates or the number of fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarctions or strokes.
A 2018 review of three randomized controlled trials with 29,195 patients found that all-cause mortality increased by 10% more in those who took 1 to 3 g/day extended release nicotinic acid in addition to a statin medication than patients taking the statin alone [33]."
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Niacin-HealthProfessional/
*
The odds of having 100 heads in a row are about an octillion to one against, I believe; what would the odds of 50 heads in a row be?
Quote: MrVThe odds of having 100 heads in a row are about an octillion to one against, I believe; what would the odds of 50 heads in a row be?
Given the probability of an event p, the probability of n consecutive events is p^n.
Quote: MrVPurely for the roughest of estimates then, might it not be helpful to look at it as analyzing a coin flip?
The odds of having 100 heads in a row are about an octillion to one against, I believe; what would the odds of 50 heads in a row be?
Let’s do this hypothetically but with some data. MDawg willing to go deep on markers to avoid a loss and book a small win. But it’s not as simple to say that he stops with a one unit gain. But just as a possible approximation let’s say he’s willing to go at least $50k in deep to end at a $500 gain. That’s 1% of “session bankroll”. Reasonable that with a negative progression of some sort that you could hit that win in baccarat call it 97% of the time.
Above MDawg mentions 31 sessions with one loss and one or two breakevens. So let’s call it 28 wins and 3 not wins out of 31.
The probability of at least 28 wins out of 31 with p=0.97 = ?
Anyone want to guess?
Here is my guess 0%.
Quote: MrVWhich claim is less likely: MDawg's claim of always winning, or alan's claim of seeing 18 yo's rolled in a row?
Seems to me that both are so far out there, so far on beyond zebra, so as to warrant zero credibility.
I recall the Wiz did the math and figured out the odds against seeing 18 yo's in a row; couldn't the same thing be done to examine the odds for or against the claimed winning streak?
Mission I think said it can't be done without knowing his method of play: is that correct, assuming MDawg is not cheating or using some form of advantage play?
I'd just like to know this: "What are the odds?"
Since MDawg varies his bets and we do not know the exact formula, and his decision to end a ‘session’ is not exactly defined, we can’t ever exactly figure out the odds of him winning x sessions in a row.
I don’t remember the exact words, but he did claim to hit 25% of his tie bets over his career. Of course I can’t know exactly how many tie bets he has made, but a reasonable extrapolation was done which showed the likelihood of that occurring to be in the many billions to one against.
It is way more likely that a random internet poster who has made that ridiculous claim and the other ridiculous claims is making this stuff up than telling the truth. If you (agonizingly) went through ALL the winning claims it might approach the silliness of 18 yos in a row. I also remind the reader that IN ADDITION to massacring the house edge, he admits to doling out huge tips on top of that.
So just as I know that 18 yos in a row were not rolled, I know with equal certitude that MDawg’s totality of claims did not happen. It’s not that complicated. And no, coach, Marcus, and now wellbush, I do not have to explain further.
Quote: SOOPOOSince MDawg varies his bets and we do not know the exact formula, and his decision to end a ‘session’ is not exactly defined, we can’t ever exactly figure out the odds of him winning x sessions in a row.
I don’t remember the exact words, but he did claim to hit 25% of his tie bets over his career. Of course I can’t know exactly how many tie bets he has made, but a reasonable extrapolation was done which showed the likelihood of that occurring to be in the many billions to one against.
It is way more likely that a random internet poster who has made that ridiculous claim and the other ridiculous claims is making this stuff up than telling the truth. If you (agonizingly) went through ALL the winning claims it might approach the silliness of 18 yos in a row. I also remind the reader that IN ADDITION to massacring the house edge, he admits to doling out huge tips on top of that.
So just as I know that 18 yos in a row were not rolled, I know with equal certitude that MDawg’s totality of claims did not happen. It’s not that complicated. And no, coach, Marcus, and now wellbush, I do not have to explain further.
The tie bet brag was is insanely improbable to be true.
Maybe MDawg can stick his players card in.... 😁Quote: ChumpChangeMaybe MDawg can stick his players card in a machine and show us how many points he has.
Played a leisurely one shoe only. I was ahead some near the beginning, then about even a little later, and about half way through hit a 9 bank run where my max bet got to around 1600 I think it was? After that a hard patch but I kept my bets around 100 - 200, then hit I believe it was a six or so Player run, and I won the last hand too. When I counted up I had +4270 to the good and my dealer side bets had given them about 300 I think, maybe more.
The cocktail waitress - wow. Not your typical blonde but a smoldering tall thin brunette reminded me of my wife, and I was acting cool but I think the girl knew she had a little effect on me. I couldn't mention anything about her while the female dealer was present but when it was just us guys the male dealer pit boss and I definitely had a little chat about the "distracting" cocktail waitress.
Pit boss asked if I was coming back, I said No. In the past I used to pretend as if I were, but by now they know me anyway, so I don't play games I just let them know up front that's it for today.
Ran into my host and host said my average has been 1200 so everything is being taken care of. While with the host, ran into the credit manager. I didn't know that person but recognized the name badge and the host confirmed who it was. After a quick introduction I told the credit manager I wanted to bet more per hand, and manager said, How much more? I just laughed, I was mostly just joking.
