The Adventures of MDawg
Just before I went down my host let me know that lately my play would cover the suite but no food and beverage charges. However, host stated categorically that was not implying that I needed to play more. That’s a standard disclaimer.
I pulled an 8K marker at a table filled with people. Didn’t go well. Not even half way through the shoe I lost 8K and left for another table, with a higher minimum.
I pulled another twenty K and was up and down like a roller coaster, gradually losing that too. I did a call bet for 2000, lost that too, and had them print another marker.
Then I started winning like a madman, ten grand a hand, but cut back to five then just one. For the next two shoes I kept hovering around forty some thousand in chips in front of me, and I assumed I needed fifty to pay off all markers. I just couldn’t get there.
Then I started betting heavily into a Player’s run and declared that a tie was in order. Mostly because I had no chips in front of me lower than 1000, I put 7000 on Player and 1000 on tie. Both sides opened with a 3. I drew a four sided nine. Ouch. I was down to 2. I could just see the face card coming, but, incredibly, dealer drew another nine for a 2 – 2 tie – paying me 8000. I leapt out of my seat shouting. That was quite a feeling!
I have not bet more than 500 on a tie bet since the Old Days. In my lifetime I have WON all of the large (1000 or more) tie bets I have placed, but I think I could count all of them on one hand, or maybe on one hand plus another finger or two. It’s a rare event that I will put that much on a tie bet, but somehow, it has always paid off.
Anyway, you can’t really put a price on hitting an 8000 tie. The whole pit lit up, or at least, in my corner everyone did.
From there it wasn’t too hard to get the fifty grand in chips in front of me and I even had a few grand extra, but finally decided to end the play with 51300 in front of me. THEN, it turned out that I had pulled just 40000 at that table, and 8000 at the other, so I was actually up +3300 for the day. Plus the experience of winning an eight THOUSAND dollar tie bet, which is hard to measure.
I texted my host to see how the RFB status was looking now, to see if today’s heavy hitting action put me back on track. It did, now about half of the food is being covered. There’s not a ton on there anyway, we don’t even always order from casino restaurants.
Played five and a half shoes. I was up a few thousand by the end of the second shoe and was actually thinking of stopping, but wanted to see where it would go. Next thing you know, dumped all eight grand. Did a two thousand call bet, lost, pulled a twenty thousand marker and eventually dumped that too. Pulled another twenty.
From here, it was pretty much uphill (as in, my chip stack kept growing higher and higher), although I did make a number of huge bets, up to twelve thousand dollars, as I struggled to get back to even.
At the end of the fourth shoe, the cut card came out in the middle of the last hand. Some casinos declare that the penultimate, some the final, but in general offer the opportunity to bet the tie even after the cards have started to come out, especially if that is considered the last hand of the shoe. I mentioned this (didn’t insist) to the pit boss, that I should have the right to place the tie wager now, but finally just left it alone.
“I would have only bet a hundred anyway.”
Wouldn’t you know it, the tie landed.
“That’s eight hundred you owe me!” I kept joking with the pit boss, after that.
I eventually got within about ten grand of even, and on one bet I put six hundred on bank and tossed a chip on tie. As the cards came out I realized I had tossed a five hundred chip, not a hundred on the tie! I’d never do it that way, I’d always bet a lot more on the hand than on the tie – never a nearly equal amount.
“That’s a mistake.” I declared.
“Good mistake.” the dealer responded.
Okayy. Nothing I could do anyway cards were out.
Sure enough, Tie! Four thousand!
How that dealer was so sure it was a “good” mistake, I’ll never know (probably was just trying to make me feel better), but in any case, that was four grand on the tie!
“We’re even now! You no longer owe me eight hundred!”
The pit boss just laughed and made an even (baseball umpire “Safe!” like criss cross motion with arms).
From there it was pretty easy. I ended with a twelve bank run, not nearly betting enough but following it almost all the way, got ahead a couple grand, paid off the 48K in markers, and called it a day. It would be sacrilege to hit a $500 tie and end up losing.
At the end this pit boss was very accommodating and asked me “What do you need?” when it came to entering the average bet. The computer showed 1400 – pit boss entered 1800.
I messed up some today. Towards the end of three shoes I was up a solid ten grand, then dumped about 1500 of it. About one-third of the way through the fourth shoe I had lost the first 8K marker, pulled another 20K, and by the end I lost a huge series of hands and had maybe ten grand left. I put all of it on Player for the last hand of the shoe, and then simply because I had nine hundred in change, put Player of that on the tie. It hit! 7200.
From there on the fifth shoe I was nearly unstoppable including with a thirteen bank run, where I actually, sadly, eased off on the gas about half way through, but still ended with about thirty grand. I didn’t think about how I was eight grand down from my peak, but rather that I had just gone from negative -18K to +2K, and called it a day.
Pit boss said he gave me an 1100 average. This was the same pit boss from the other day who had refused to bump my bet. I won 2K but I must’ve won at least a grand maybe more for the dealers, including on tie bets on that bank run where I kept hitting them two in row at a time. It was beautiful.
And again, how could I win 7200 on a tie bet and not walk a winner? That would be humiliating. So, I paid off all the markers, carried a couple thousand dollar chips to the winner’s stash, and headed back out for a sumptuous take out. It’s hard to keep an MDawg down.
Dumped my 8K marker relatively quickly, did a 2K call bet on Bank, lost, pulled the balance to 20K.
From there did fine and got within a grand or two of even, but my table started filling up with people and the shoe fell apart, so I left to another table.
Now, THAT shoe, was a beauty. Long Player runs, side by side with banks, I got all my money back plus +2200 and called it quits. Dealer tried to convince me to stay, I said No, I’m done. We free handed the next fourteen hands – would you believe, ALL PLAYER? So that shoe had two nearly side by side runs, 11 Player, and 14 Player. Quite a shoe! Woulda easily cleared MINIMUM five grand on a run like that, even starting with just a couple hundred.
Pit boss and I talked about another lifetime winner they have, who has the ability to bet up to 160K a hand. The other lifetime winner being – I! Pit boss said that even when that player is stuck a million or two, always get out of it. Must be a friend of MDawg’s!
On the way out I ran into another pit boss I know.
“I won!”
“Of course you did – you always do!”
8K marker was lost over the course of about ¾ of a shoe. These two Asians kept following me, and slowed down the play. I moved tables – dealer commented “He knows when to move! he won’t just sit there if it’s not going well.” and won for a bit, and then the two Asians followed me again to my table, and slowed the play again.
After something like four shoes I finally got just above even, them dumped to where I was -5K again. Didn’t appreciate that.
The Asians left my table, as they finally got the hint that I didn’t want them there, free handed the first hand of the next shoe, Player, slapped 2K on Player and boom! eight players in a row. I cut back to only five hundred or so once I was ahead, but at the end of the run I was ahead almost five grand, paid off all markers and called it a day.
Dealer commented, “I don’t know why those two don’t just follow you. I never see them win, and I never see you lose.”
“Well, yes, but – I actually didn’t like it when they played at my table because they didn’t follow me – they kept betting against the runs. Also they wouldn’t vary their bet much, if at all. Flat betting is the sure way to lose. Over all, I just, don't like anyone at my table.”
One of the dealers told me more about the multi-million dollar player who is also a lifetime winner at that casino. Apparently he bets EVERY hand, Bank only, with some kind of 1, 3, 7 or some such progression.
“So what if he experiences a 14 Player run, such as we saw yesterday?”
“Well. Then. He’s dead!”
I see Player runs all the time, so how is this guy a lifetime winner? In any case, I did confirm that the guy is a lifetime winner with a couple of other sources, but how, betting Bank only and betting every hand in the shoe, I couldn’t say.
Quote: MDawgI have WON all of the large (1000 or more) tie bets I have placed
Good job Jeff.
For the MDawg challenge (courtesy of DarkOz), the Wizard and I met in the high limit salon and first went over the logistics of the Challenge, and then had some general chit chat about Baccarat in general. I explained to the Wizard that if given a good shoe I would always win and that there was in fact a difference between a good Baccarat shoe and a bad one. I already stated in all my session reports, and repeated to the Wizard in person, that I preferred to play alone, and that the salon looked empty which was good.
We went to the table where I had won yesterday, but the shoe was already mid session (someone had started playing the shoe and then left before it ended), and I commented to the Wizard that I preferred to play a shoe from the beginning. Many dealers, pit bosses and drink servers greeted me as a familiar guest, which I am sure the Wizard observed. I sat down at a fresh table, alone, and pulled an 8K marker.
The table minimum at this table was $200., so there was no way to bet less than that on Bank or Player. I free-handed the first hand, which turned out to be a Player, and then I bet Player again, won that hand, bet Player again, lost that hand, bet Bank, won that hand, won the next Bank hand too, and then free handed one hand, until I declared out loud to the dealer, “two two, two two” meaning that the hands were dropping in sets of two. With one exception where I deviated (and should not have deviated), I followed this pattern and won, pressing my bets up from 200 to as high as about 600, until the pattern changed.
Then there followed a period of about a dozen hands where the shoe was random and I was neither winning nor losing much, although I did win my larger bet during this sequence of the shoe. My bets during this period varied from 200 – 1000. After two banks, I declared that the Bank ran only two, and that a Player was absolutely certain, dropped 1000 on Player, and won. I then pressed to 1500, won again. I then pressed to 2000, won again, and then pressed pretty much every hand, by a unit of 500. My highest bet in this run, which I lost, was 3500, although I kept this up winning each hand prior to the final 3500 one, on an 8 player run, all the way down the line. While in the salon prior to playing I had mentioned to Wizard that I always always caught runs or patterns and always pressed into them. As this Player run was happening, just a few hands into it, I pointed out that this is exactly what I was doing now, and that it was not as hard as it sounded to detect a run and press into that.
I didn’t just catch some of the winning hands in that 8 Player run – I caught every single one, losing only on the 9th bet, when it switched to Bank. I do this all the time, catch runs, and press into them.
I caught another sequence in the shoe when I followed another series of side by side runs, pressing into them again.
During this latter part of the shoe, there was one hand where I mentioned to the Wizard that the sequence of cards that had landed prior plus some other factors led me to believe that the next hand would be a Player, and I increased my bet and won on Player that hand. However, in general I simply played, rather quickly, and did not comment on how or why I was betting the way I did.
I frequently placed bets for the dealer side by side with my bets, ranging from $5. to $35., and the dealer and I won pretty much every time we bet together.
My bets for this session ranged from 200 – 3500.
After I had played (placed bets for) exactly 57 hands, the Wizard declared the Challenge over, and we counted up. At that moment, with all commission paid off, I had 14,915. in front of me, meaning that I was ahead 6,915. (This does not include whatever I tipped out, which was at least 150 at my end, doubled to 300, at the dealer’s end since it was placed on winning bets.) That +6915 was the official end WIN and does NOT include what I tipped out.
Note: At some point after the Challenge was called, the Wizard realized that he had counted two “tie only” bets I had placed as hands played, even though they were 100 only (although – 100 is actually not such a small sum to place on the tie wager). However, the two hands after the Challenge was called, I won one and lost one, so they didn’t affect the Challenge or the final tally of 6,915. The Wizard did witness these two additional hands played.
I played alone for most of the shoe, although two players did show up and play for periods during the time I was there.
To summarize: there were no long periods of flat betting. If anything, I pressed into runs quite successfully time and again, and my bets ranged from 200 – 3500. There was no Martingale betting; in fact, I would tend to lower my bet after losing a hand versus increasing.
End win: +6915 for the MDawg Challenge.
The Wizard shortly after the Challenge was called as “clearly a win” (the Wizard’s exact words) remained either at the table or in the salon, and I kept playing to end out the shoe (ended at 71 hands), and walked with +5100. (I dumped a little of my winnings during the last 10 or so hands of the shoe.)
This is a typical shoe for me, netting around five grand. Not the greatest shoe, but certainly not a bad one. (During the shoe I in fact commented to the Wizard that this was merely an “average” shoe, although I did make this comment before the 8 Player run landed. Once that, and the subsequent side by side streaks occurred, the shoe went from average to better than average.)
After the session was completed and I had paid off my marker and pocketed the 5000 chip and hundred chip I had won, Wizard and I took a “Victory Stroll” to VIP where I was given new keys to my suite, because we had just extended our stay (again). During the course of my conversation at VIP the VIP host (VIP host, not casino host) mentioned in a positive way that I had already been in the suite for some time (exact time will not be disclosed, but it was substantial), and then said that expected that I would be there even longer.
Wizard and I then walked up to my suite, where he observed my Vitamin Bar, and also will corroborate that it is a very large suite, in a top Vegas Strip casino – and by no means just a typical Vegas suite, but among the largest on the Strip short of the obscene ones that are for uber whales.
In my suite, Wizard and I relaxed and discussed some of the finer points of my casino play and Vegas casino “hustle,” including details of any “concessions” I have negotiated with the casinos. Most of that conversation is confidential, although one thing I did discuss with him that was not private was my opinion of why the two Players who stepped briefly onto my table lost. The one, I explained, lost because flat bet – pretty much just 200 each hand. The other lost because of two reasons: (1) because got too greedy. This Player stepped up with I believe it was 1000, and parlayed it all the way to 6000 in three bets, but then got greedy, and greedy in a bad way, because then (2) bet against the streak that was obviously happening at that time (a streak I was winning at). This second player didn’t play too many hands –won quickly, then dumped it all and lost quickly. The first player lasted a while longer, but also lost.
While in the suite, Wizard commented on my watch, and I handed the watch I had been wearing that day - my Rolex DD 40mm platinum - to the Wizard to hold, along with a heavy platinum chain I sometimes wear when wearing my platinum watches, and he remarked on how heavy both the watch and the chain were, because they are platinum. Wizard and I discussed the relative malleability of platinum versus gold.
Wizard paid me the 2000. for the wager in cash, and gave me an autographed copy of his Gambling 102 book. My wife wasn’t present when Wizard visited the suite so they did not meet, but I showed her the book and she Googled his name and found various pictures of him, which she showed me.
In sum, and I mentioned this verbally to Wizard at the conclusion of our visit, this established the following:
(1) That I am in fact in Vegas in a very large suite and have been here for some time.
(2) From the fact that everyone seemed to know me in high limit, that I do play regularly and did pull an 8K marker for today’s play.
(3) That I did do exactly what I have posted in countless other session reports – that is follow and press into streaks/runs/patterns in a Baccarat shoe.
(4) That I did in fact win over the course of our session, +6915 over the course of the 57 hands minimum play decided for the Challenge.
(5) That I was wearing a quite heavy platinum 40mm Rolex Day Date, and equally heavy (but tasteful) thick platinum chain, both of which the Wizard handled.
In all this was an enjoyable experience and thanks and respect are in order and due to DarkOz for making it happen.
Do you have any specific plans for the $2k? I know it is a rounding error in your account, but sometimes if I win a bet like that I segregate that money for something unique.
I am now convinced you are big time baccarat player! Keep the trip reports coming!
I would like to say a huge THANK YOU to darkoz for sponsoring this challenge and for my $500 witness fee!!!
This was interesting.
Congrats to MDawg on the nice win.
Whilst such an event does not conclude that winning at casinos can be consistently profitable, it does hint that it could. Something I have been suggesting all along.
What's your take on those last two sentences, Wiz?
I did suggest that if MD were to somehow show Wiz a history of wins at the casino/s, then this kind of information would be more telling. It was not a condition of the challenge, though.
IF there was a System that worked consistently against a game with a mathematical House Edge, THEN that would be Double Top Secret Confidential information, wouldn't it ? Well it would be if I had that System.Quote: WellbushI did suggest that if MD were to somehow show Wiz a history of wins at the casino/s, then this kind of information would be more telling.
Now playing for fun and entertainment and inexpensive Vacations plus some more Comps along the way WITHIN your Loss Tolerance, THAT I understand.
Quote: WizardI attest that Mdawg's report is accurate, especially that all the conditions of the challenge were met.
I would like to say a huge THANK YOU to darkoz for sponsoring this challenge and for my $500 witness fee!!!
Without giving any details away, was the method of play used by MDawg a long-term winning system from your opinion as a math expert?
I.E. does it appear MDawg can consistently overcome the -EV of Baccarat?
To me and probably most WOV'ers this is the primary point of such a challenge.
And a big your welcome to Wiz and MDawg's thanks.
Quote: WizardI attest that Mdawg's report is accurate, especially that all the conditions of the challenge were met.
I would like to say a huge THANK YOU to darkoz for sponsoring this challenge and for my $500 witness fee!!!
The Wizard and I went back and forth several times with drafts of this report to make certain that it is accurate.
At the same time, the Wizard and I have an agreement that this is all that will be disclosed about this matter.
We did try hard to make this report at least as detailed, if not more detailed, than my other session reports.
Still intend to meet up and chat music if we're out there at the same time and both available, MDawg.
That aside, it happened, it was stupid and it was a waste of Darkoz's money. The only way that the detractors would have had anything to support their positions is if the meetup hadn't happened. Looks good for MDawg no matter what.
Based on the description of the shoe...when I did my experiment to demonstrate the high probability of winning a session with various systems and/or, "Methods," it looks like I hit the nail almost exactly on the head when it comes to what MDawg is doing. He might be hole-carding, as well.
Quote: darkoz
Without giving any details away, was the method of play used by MDawg a long-term winning system from your opinion as a math expert?
I.E. does it appear MDawg can consistently overcome the -EV of Baccarat?
To me and probably most WOV'ers this is the primary point of such a challenge.
And a big your welcome to Wiz and MDawg's thanks.
The answer will obviously be no to all, not to speak for the Wizard. You could have got that answer for free.
Quote: Mission146Pretty close to an optimal scenario for MDawg, but like I said before (might not have been here, but I think here also), even assuming that some of the rudiments of his claims are fundamentally true, there is no way this challenge could have possibly gone that badly for him. Even losing (in terms of his perceived legitimacy) during the challenge (but all of the other stuff happening the same way) still does more for his credibility than the detractors gain by way of him losing.
Still intend to meet up and chat music if we're out there at the same time and both available, MDawg.
That aside, it happened, it was stupid and it was a waste of Darkoz's money. The only way that the detractors would have had anything to support their positions is if the meetup hadn't happened. Looks good for MDawg no matter what.
Based on the description of the shoe...when I did my experiment to demonstrate the high probability of winning a session with various systems and/or, "Methods," it looks like I hit the nail almost exactly on the end when it comes to what MDawg is doing. He might be hole-carding, as well.
Considering the shoe description helped "hit the nail on the end" I don't see it as a waste. The meetup needed to happen.
There won't be another four hundred pages speculating on a meetup at least.
.
I too pretty much have conclusions about what MDawg does.
He doesn't realize he has given up more info than he likes over the course of his adventures
Quote: darkoz
Considering the shoe description helped "hit the nail on the end" I don't see it as a waste. The meetup needed to happen.
There won't be another four hundred pages speculating on a meetup at least.
.
I too pretty much have conclusions about what MDawg does.
He doesn't realize he has given up more info than he likes over the course of his adventures
Darn it, I just edited that. I do that sometimes, but I usually catch it on the read through. Anyway, it did hit the nail on the head, but I don't see the benefit of that. I probably haven't read 10% of MDawg's session reports and I could tell it was something along those lines---again, assuming that the reports themselves were at least somewhat more-or-less true.
You're not one of those who didn't, I don't think, but this is why I like to extend at least the tiniest shred of benefit of the doubt when it comes to individual claims. That's not saying that people should profess to believe every word, but just that it's better not to call people liars when what they are reporting (and I am only referring to the Baccarat here) is more or less within reason. Personally, I don't believe a 20% daily loss rebate, but I'm not going to say absolutely not. Maybe his host is an idiot.
I mean, if you look at it, imagine I tell someone that I can go into a casino and play (insert game) at a 40% advantage. Not only can you do that with some vulture machines, at least from time to time, but also with the Longhorn promotion that Wizard discussed with the DJ's. Again, not going to name the game, but I want to say that you'd be right at about 40% advantage overall.
I'm not certain that MDawg cares what he has given up. I tend to believe it was not your goal to prove wrong/fictitious everything MDawg was saying, but for those who would call him a liar, this event was an absolute disaster for them.
And...why anyone cares about any of this more than near-zero, I still have no idea.
Quote: Mission146Darn it, I just edited that. I do that sometimes, but I usually catch it on the read through. Anyway, it did hit the nail on the head, but I don't see the benefit of that. I probably haven't read 10% of MDawg's session reports and I could tell it was something along those lines---again, assuming that the reports themselves were at least somewhat more-or-less true.
You're not one of those who didn't, I don't think, but this is why I like to extend at least the tiniest shred of benefit of the doubt when it comes to individual claims. That's not saying that people should profess to believe every word, but just that it's better not to call people liars when what they are reporting (and I am only referring to the Baccarat here) is more or less within reason. Personally, I don't believe a 20% daily loss rebate, but I'm not going to say absolutely not. Maybe his host is an idiot.
I mean, if you look at it, imagine I tell someone that I can go into a casino and play (insert game) at a 40% advantage. Not only can you do that with some vulture machines, at least from time to time, but also with the Longhorn promotion that Wizard discussed with the DJ's. Again, not going to name the game, but I want to say that you'd be right at about 40% advantage overall.
I'm not certain that MDawg cares what he has given up. I tend to believe it was not your goal to prove wrong/fictitious everything MDawg was saying, but for those who would call him a liar, this event was an absolute disaster for them.
And...why anyone cares about any of this more than near-zero, I still have no idea.
The fictitious camp (I call it the Axelwolf camp as he is most vociferously proposes it) is that the pics, and everything are fictitious. Either real but borrowed or just not a true representation.
My camp and claim is that MDawg is an advantage player but won't admit it and is trying to make it appear as if he has overcome the house edge without an advantage.
But he periodically gives up info.
MDawg cares or he wouldn't be so concerned about secrecy
Quote: darkozThe fictitious camp (I call it the Axelwolf camp as he is most vociferously proposes it) is that the pics, and everything are fictitious. Either real but borrowed or just not a true representation.
My camp and claim is that MDawg is an advantage player but won't admit it and is trying to make it appear as if he has overcome the house edge without an advantage.
But he periodically gives up info.
MDawg cares or he wouldn't be so concerned about secrecy
I've speculated that he could be an advantage player. There's a host somewhere who needs to be fired if he's getting a 20% daily loss rebate. On the other hand, maybe he is and the casino will just sue him if he wins enough money. It worked for the casinos against Ivey, negative publicity (that mostly won't matter as most casual gamblers will never even know about it) aside. Hell, the difference with Ivey was that the casinos knew they were extending these things to a professional gambler, which should have hurt their case, but they still won in court.
I mainly tend to think that MDawg doesn't want his real identity and personal information compromised. That could have something to do with advantage play, something to do with other claims he has made...or because he just doesn't. I'm not going to speculate as to why he wouldn't want that known or why he wouldn't want people to easily be able to find him---but there are a myriad of possible reasons for him to not want that.
Quote: Mission146I've speculated that he could be an advantage player. There's a host somewhere who needs to be fired if he's getting a 20% daily loss rebate. On the other hand, maybe he is and the casino will just sue him if he wins enough money. It worked for the casinos against Ivey, negative publicity (that mostly won't matter as most casual gamblers will never even know about it) aside. Hell, the difference with Ivey was that the casinos knew they were extending these things to a professional gambler, which should have hurt their case, but they still won in court.
I mainly tend to think that MDawg doesn't want his real identity and personal information compromised. That could have something to do with advantage play, something to do with other claims he has made...or because he just doesn't. I'm not going to speculate as to why he wouldn't want that known or why he wouldn't want people to easily be able to find him---but there are a myriad of possible reasons for him to not want that.
Well, he recently claimed to lose $48,000 at one casino only to win most of it back at another. This isn't the first time.
Those people who say MDawg could not possibly be comped over and over while winning aren't understanding the full import of what MDawg describes.
For the casino that he lost $48,000 in one session they don't give a rat's ass that MDawg won it back across the street. That single session loss makes him very valuable.
MDawg could win five or six thousand a day for a week and then have one catastrophic session which satisfies the casinos.
I believe he is doing things that are much more intricate than people give him credit for and that extend beyond just Baccarat wagers
Along with about just everybody else here on these forums.Quote: Mission146I mainly tend to think that MDawg doesn't want his real identity and personal information compromised. That could have something to do with advantage play, something to do with other claims he has made...or because he just doesn't. I'm not going to speculate as to why he wouldn't want that known or why he wouldn't want people to easily be able to find him---but there are a myriad of possible reasons for him to not want that.
Quote: darkoz
Well, he recently claimed to lose $48,000 at one casino only to win most of it back at another. This isn't the first time.
Those people who say MDawg could not possibly be comped over and over while winning aren't understanding the full import of what MDawg describes.
For the casino that he lost $48,000 in one session they don't give a rat's ass that MDawg won it back across the street. That single session loss makes him very valuable.
MDawg could win five or six thousand a day for a week and then have one catastrophic session which satisfies the casinos.
I believe he is doing things that are much more intricate than people give him credit for and that extend beyond just Baccarat wagers
If they're giving him a daily loss rebate, then they should care. Let's pretend for a second that I'm stupid enough to ever give a person that and that I am also a casino host: One of my conditions is that you're only going to play at my casino---unless, I suppose, the other property is owned by the same entity. However, if the other property were owned by the same entity, then it would constitute the same play for that day.
If he's tanning them for a few thousand day in and day out, and getting a daily loss rebate, then he's not valuable at all. Played right, the casino is mathematically getting slaughtered (by expectation) just on the rebate absent any other advantage play tactics.
Let's think about it this way for a second:
Game: Baccarat
Buy-In: $8,000 (to start)
Average Bet: $1,000
Rounds Played: 80
Okay, so let's start with those things really fast. Let's assume that we're roughly splitting time between Player/Banker and call the House Edge 1.15%.
With that, you have $80,000 that gets put in action in total bets, which comes with an expected loss of $920.
The problem with the daily loss rebate being that the rebate itself will frequently exceed a player's expected loss for that day. On the flip side, when the player wins, then the player just wins.
So, assuming you have put in the minimum necessary amount of action...the simplest (though it is not the best) strategy would be to quit if you are down such an amount that the 20% rebate is more than you were expected to lose in the first place.
In other words, when the expected loss presents itself in the form of actual losses, you're giving the player back more than you were expected to win in the first place. On the other hand, when the house edge (on an individual day) fails to manifest in terms of actual results, then the player just keeps all of the winnings.
If Teliot pops in, then he can almost certainly offer a better explanation of the concept that I am talking about. It's important to keep in mind that what I am talking about ignores everything else the casino is giving him and also ignores any other potential form of AP that could be occurring simultaneously.
Even without any form of advantage play, when you combine this with a betting system that meets the minimum total amount of action that you have to be putting out there AND has a high probability of winning an individual session as it is, well, the casino is not in great shape.
And, that is why any host who green lights that should be fired.
Even with your example of losing $48,000 in one day, okay, so he gets $9,600 back in the form of a rebate, based on what he is saying. He'd have to put over $800,000 in action for the rebate not to exceed his expected loss. Based on his reports, that's quite doubtful.
Quote: Mission146but for those who would call him a liar, this event was an absolute disaster for them.
One would think...but we shall see how they interpret it.
Quote: Mission146If they're giving him a daily loss rebate, then they should care. Let's pretend for a second that I'm stupid enough to ever give a person that and that I am also a casino host: One of my conditions is that you're only going to play at my casino---unless, I suppose, the other property is owned by the same entity. However, if the other property were owned by the same entity, then it would constitute the same play for that day.
If he's tanning them for a few thousand day in and day out, and getting a daily loss rebate, then he's not valuable at all. Played right, the casino is mathematically getting slaughtered (by expectation) just on the rebate absent any other advantage play tactics.
Let's think about it this way for a second:
Game: Baccarat
Buy-In: $8,000 (to start)
Average Bet: $1,000
Rounds Played: 80
Okay, so let's start with those things really fast. Let's assume that we're roughly splitting time between Player/Banker and call the House Edge 1.15%.
With that, you have $80,000 that gets put in action in total bets, which comes with an expected loss of $920.
The problem with the daily loss rebate being that the rebate itself will frequently exceed a player's expected loss for that day. On the flip side, when the player wins, then the player just wins.
So, assuming you have put in the minimum necessary amount of action...the simplest (though it is not the best) strategy would be to quit if you are down such an amount that the 20% rebate is more than you were expected to lose in the first place.
In other words, when the expected loss presents itself in the form of actual losses, you're giving the player back more than you were expected to win in the first place. On the other hand, when the house edge (on an individual day) fails to manifest in terms of actual results, then the player just keeps all of the winnings.
If Teliot pops in, then he can almost certainly offer a better explanation of the concept that I am talking about. It's important to keep in mind that what I am talking about ignores everything else the casino is giving him and also ignores any other potential form of AP that could be occurring simultaneously.
Even without any form of advantage play, when you combine this with a betting system that meets the minimum total amount of action that you have to be putting out there AND has a high probability of winning an individual session as it is, well, the casino is not in great shape.
And, that is why any host who green lights that should be fired.
Even with your example of losing $48,000 in one day, okay, so he gets $9,600 back in the form of a rebate, based on what he is saying. He'd have to put over $800,000 in action for the rebate not to exceed his expected loss. Based on his reports, that's quite doubtful.
Quite a few AP is due to casino employees not understanding the situation.
The Plaza tax deal, the Revel 100% rebate, the Phil Ivey Baccarat edge sorting, the Don Johnson concessions.
So it would not surprise me if he managed to pull off some shenanigans like you describe.
Again to a host who See's a $48,000 losing session with handing back $9,600 they still see a big amount for the session coming their way.
They aren't breaking it down the way you are
Quote: darkozQuite a few AP is due to casino employees not understanding the situation.
The Plaza tax deal, the Revel 100% rebate, the Phil Ivey Baccarat edge sorting, the Don Johnson concessions.
So it would not surprise me if he managed to pull off some shenanigans like you describe.
Again to a host who See's a $48,000 losing session with handing back $9,600 they still see a big amount for the session coming their way.
They aren't breaking it down the way you are
If there's a host not breaking it down the way I am, then it is because, once again, he or she is an idiot.
Quote: Mission146for those who would call him a liar, this event was an absolute disaster for them.
What an interesting turn of events.
Crow, to be served family style, for the table at the Spring Fling dinner,
this year and every year to follow...thanks to Axel.
Thanks for doing this MDawg.
Quote: Mission146If there's a host not breaking it down the way I am, then it is because, once again, he or she is an idiot.
Well to be clear, MDawg never said he had a "daily" loss rebate.
He stated after a certain day's losses his rebate would make him whole.
That's not the same thing and this forum has a habit of misconstruing statements.
Like my $20,000 a week claim suddenly had people multiplying by 52 weeks a year (I never said I make it every week just like if I said I make half a million a year you shouldn't then suggest I made five million dollars this past decade)
Quote: coachbellyWhat an interesting turn of events.
Crow, to be served family style, for the table at the Spring Fling dinner,
this year and every year to follow...thanks to Axel.
Thanks for doing this MDawg.
A post without a question! What progress this thread has made today.
Quote: darkozWell to be clear, MDawg never said he had a "daily" loss rebate.
He stated after a certain day's losses his rebate would make him whole.
That's not the same thing and this forum has a habit of misconstruing statements.
Like my $20,000 a week claim suddenly had people multiplying by 52 weeks a year (I never said I make it every week just like if I said I make half a million a year you shouldn't then suggest I made five million dollars this past decade)
I tend to prefer precision for just that reason. I don't like phrasing myself in a way that would cause inaccurate assumptions to be made and giving people the mechanism by which they would make those assumptions, then calling them out when they do make them, just seems like a cheap way to win a debate.
Quote: unJonA post without a question!
Oops, I can fix that...
MDawg's challenge report reads just like every other report he has written.
What's his reported record...60 wins out of 61 sessions?
Which reports were the lies? Were there any lies?
You don't need to predict what wave you'll ride tomorrow,
you just need to get up on your board when the wave rolls in.
Quote: darkozWithout giving any details away, was the method of play used by MDawg a long-term winning system from your opinion as a math expert?
I.E. does it appear MDawg can consistently overcome the -EV of Baccarat?
I have being saying for over 20 years that betting systems don't work. Not only can't they overcome the house edge, they can't even dent it. My experience with MDawg has not changed my position on that. However, there is more to what MDawg is doing, but due to confidentiality I am not at liberty to discuss this.
Quote: WizardI have being saying for over 20 years that betting systems don't work. Not only can't they overcome the house edge, they can't even dent it. My experience with MDawg has not changed my position on that. However, there is more to what MDawg is doing, but due to confidentiality I am not at liberty to discuss this.
Enough said!
And I called it from the beginning!
Holecarding, Edge sorting, cheating, not reporting losing sessions????
I dunno whats really going on and really never will, but I know you dont go to a casino on a consistent basis and ALWAYS win!
I do know you can only report your wins. That sure does make it look that way!
This was once a math based board where superstitious, non-math based systems players were tolerated, barely: not any more.
Looks like the green light has been given to make whatever claims you want, no matter how seemingly absurd on their face.
Too bad there isn't a process to vote posters "off the island."
Quote: mwalz9I read about the last 6 pages of this forum and feel that in no way shape or form is MDawg really making money solely at the casino at the rate he says he is.
Holecarding, Edge sorting, cheating, not reporting losing sessions????
I dunno whats really going on and really never will, but I know you dont go to a casino on a consistent basis and ALWAYS win!
I do know you can only report your wins. That sure does make it look that way!
Unfortunately that statement on it's own simply isn't true.
Slot vultures can almost certainly turn a profit on a daily basis.
And my own form of AP also returns daily profit.
I'm certain MDawg is spreading his play to avoid detection as an AP at his level partly by taking winning markers from Peter to pay losing markers to Paul.
The Wiz has confirmed he is doing something that gives him an advantage above and beyond simply beating an -ev game through luck and that's enough for me
I don't know precisely what MDawg does but then MDawg clearly doesn't understand fully what I do multi-carding.
We will all have to wait for the MDawg book to be published!
Quote: WellbushYes, it certainly looks that way when there are enough naysayers agreeing with one another!
Were this a board devoted to strict Catholic beliefs, would you want someone posting continually about how god is dead, or that the only way to salvation is to be a Muslim?
I think not.
Violation of the rules or not, the comfort level has been exceeded.
Quote: MrVYes, and the sad thing is he and others of his ilk have free rein to post their seemingly implausible if not impossible brags here as it is not a technical violation of the rules.
This was once a math based board where superstitious, non-math based systems players were tolerated, barely: not any more.
Looks like the green light has been given to make whatever claims you want, no matter how seemingly absurd on their face.
Too bad there isn't a process to vote posters "off the island."
It's just been shown that math may not cover all the variables associated with the real life scenario of casino games. Still, your post is technically not breaking the rules.
BUT does it though ?Quote: WellbushIt's just been shown that math may not cover all the variables associated with the real life scenario of casino games.
I don't think MATH applies when you have an ACE up your sleeve. And I am saying that figuratively. I don't even know how to play Baccarat. OK, carry-on !
Quote: WellbushIt's just been shown that math may not cover all the variables associated with the real life scenario of casino games. Still, your post is technically not breaking the rules.
No, the math does. We simply don't know how the math applies to this specific situation due to want of details.
Quote: JohnnyQBUT does it though ?
I don't think MATH applies when you have an ACE up your sleeve. And I am saying that figuratively. I don't even know how to play Baccarat. OK, carry-on !
Yes, true. That's the thing. Are some expecting one possible theory will win out, ignoring all other possibilities?
Quote: Mission146No, the math does. We simply don't know how the math applies to this specific situation due to want of details.
Does it? I'm not so sure. Did you also discard card counting as an irrelevant possibility, before it was shown to be able to beat the system?
Quote: WellbushDoes it? I'm not so sure. Did you also discard card counting as an irrelevant possibility, before it was shown to be able to beat the system?
Well he isn't playing Blackjack so yes
Quote: WellbushDoes it? I'm not so sure. Did you also discard card counting as an irrelevant possibility, before it was shown to be able to beat the system?
Is this how math theory works? Scenario 1: A player comes to the table and starts playing. The player tries all sorts of betting strategies that can be statistically calculated, and they cannot know beforehand what the next card will be. The player leaves having lost by approximately the house edge.
BUT,....
Does the math theory cover this real world player behaviour? Scenario 2: A player comes to the table and starts playing. The player knows, IN ADVANCE, that there are streaks of wins and losses. The player therefore uses a negative progression betting strategy, to annihilate the house edge.
But the player then experiences a long losing streak. But the player knows, IN ADVANCE, that long losing streaks are inevitable. So the player takes breaks away from the table whenever they lose 5 hands in a row. The player then rejoins the table after a break, to reduce the chance of a catastrophic losing streak. The player restarts where they left off in the negative progression sequence, and because the long losing streak has been broken, the player regains the ascendancy with the negative progression strategy, annihilating the house edge once more.
The math theory can HOPE that the player will come back to the table after a break, and resume the losing streak each time, but this type of thinking defeats itself because it's not how the real world plays out. The casino card decks are always shuffled. Anyone would know, IN ADVANCE, that winning AND losing streaks can only last so long before the normal variation comes back to rule the game. One CANNOT rely on math theory if it CANNOT account for a negative progression betting strategy IN CONJUNCTION WITH the player breaking up losing streaks.
I am explaining here how a skilled player CAN KNOW IN ADVANCE how a game flows, and use a variation in their betting in conjunction with breaks away from the table, to defeat the system. One cannot apply math statistical formulae to table games, IF IT CANNOT account for a player taking advantage of inherent card flow variations within games. If this is true, then MD's and other card shark's wins, may also be true.
Quote: WellbushBut the player knows, IN ADVANCE, that long losing streaks are inevitable. ..........and because the long losing streak has been broken, the player regains the ascendancy with the negative progression strategy, annihilating the house edge once more.
......a skilled player CAN KNOW IN ADVANCE how a game flows, and use a variation in their betting in conjunction with breaks away from the table, to defeat the system.
Quote: WellbushIs this how math theory works? Scenario 1: A player comes to the table and starts playing. The player tries all sorts of betting strategies, but they still cannot know beforehand what the next card will be. The player leaves having lost by approximately the house edge.
BUT,....
Does the math theory cover this real world player behaviour? Scenario 2: A player comes to the table and starts playing. The player knows, IN ADVANCE, that there are streaks of wins and losses. The player therefore uses a negative progression betting strategy, to annihilate the house edge.
But the player then experiences a long losing streak. But the player knows, IN ADVANCE, that long losing streaks are inevitable. So the player takes breaks away from the table whenever they lose 5 hands in a row. The player then rejoins the table after a break, to reduce the chance of a catastrophic losing streak. The player restarts where they left off in the negative progression sequence, and because the long losing streak has been broken, the player regains the ascendancy with the negative progression strategy, annihilating the house edge once more.
The math theory can HOPE that the player will come back to the table after a break, and resume the losing streak each time, but this type of thinking defeats itself. The casino card decks are always shuffled. Anyone would know, IN ADVANCE, that winning AND losing streaks can only last so long before the normal variation comes back to rule the game. One CANNOT rely on math theory if it CANNOT account for a negative progression betting strategy IN CONJUNCTION WITH the player breaking up losing streaks.
I am explaining here how a skilled player CAN KNOW IN ADVANCE how a game flows, and use a variation in their betting in conjunction with breaks away from the table, to defeat the system. One cannot apply math statistical formulae to table games, IF IT CANNOT account for a player taking advantage of inherent card flow variations within games. If this is true, then MD's and other card shark's wins, may also be true.
So apparently winning and losing streaks are like bus schedules.
As long as you have a time schedule there is no excuse for inconvenience.
Of course even the darn buses have proven not to be reliable when it comes to schedules
