The Adventures of MDawg

Yet more "magical thinking."

He might have been attracted to this board thinking that Mike really IS a wizard who also believes that he has mastered the magical aspects of casino gambling.

*snorts the pixie dust*

Wow, man, it's all so CLEAR to me now ...

Quote: Wellbush

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, 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.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Go play at the casino. If you’re right, you’ll make a nice living.

Quote: Wellbush

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.

"Math theory" does cover this scenario. Math (and "math theory") says to maximize the value of this scenario the player should bet the table max on every winning streak and bet the table minimum (or $0) on every losing streak. Math (and "math theory") also says the player could earn $1,000,000 per hour, or more in this scenario.

But for your idea to be anything other than meaningless word salad you would have to explain how someone can identify when winning and losing streaks will start and stop. I am curious how you would be able to do that.

Quote: TomG

"Math theory" does cover this scenario. Math (and "math theory") says to maximize the value of this scenario the player should bet the table max on every winning streak and bet the table minimum (or $0) on every losing streak. Math (and "math theory") also says the player could earn $1,000,000 per hour, or more in this scenario.

But for your idea to be anything other than meaningless word salad you would have to explain how someone can identify when winning and losing streaks will start and stop. I am curious how you would be able to do that.

I'm not convinced from what you've written above, that math theory is applied to table games, as you have explained it.

I'm also not sure why you're asking some of the questions your asking, Tom, unless you're unfamiliar with negative progression betting strategies?

I am saying that card games ebb and flow. They have winning and losing streaks. The strategy I am referring to works with the fact that all streaks eventually break. It is not necessary to know when they break.

MD's strategy would be different to mine. I play BJ. He plays Baccarat. Nevertheless, the fact that MD may win consistently may suggest he uses strategies that may not fit the theoretical mathematical models.

I think the fact that MD wins consistently is what needs proven.

I could have the Wizard come watch me play a shoe and theres a an approx. 50/50 chance I could show him a single winning session.

I could walk him thru my $350,000 home, show him the balances of my checking, savings, 401K, and money market accounts, the free tickets I got to the Tropicana in house comedy show, and the 12 empty Miller Lite bottles I was comped while playing.

Quote: mwalz9

I think the fact that MD wins consistently is what needs proven.

I could have the Wizard come watch me play a shoe and theres a an approx. 50/50 chance I could show him a single winning session.

I could walk him thru my $350,000 home, show him the balances of my checking, savings, 401K, and money market accounts, the free tickets I got to the Tropicana in house comedy show, and the 12 empty Miller Lite bottles I was comped while playing.

And why would MD want to explain in detail, his strategy to the world? So everyone can use it? All the casinos then stop offering baccarat, otherwise they go broke?

Here's one....MD's a fraud, that's why he doesn't share his strategy. Seriously? Of course there has to be a mathematical explanation for MD to win. If his winnings can't be explained by math theory, there's something fishy. I tell you, maybe the only thing fishy is that many math heads can't think laterally. Everything's gotta fit an equation otherwise math heads are in no man's land.

I could go on....but maybe it's not worth it?

Day 30 play

Played one shoe only - dealer cut, all alone, got a shoe where the Player wouldn't go past 1, got a 6 Bank run out of it, pressed all the way, caught every single hand on the run (was easy - remember - Player never went past 1), then another Bank run 15 long, then another 4 Bank run, then Player went double (for the first time), so I followed it for a 7 Player run, then a perfect chop for 9 hands, lost the last hand, and then - shoe over.

If this had been a second shoe and I had been playing harder I would have easily cleared forty grand on it. As it was, "only" +$16,500.

Ole!

Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.

Quote: mwalz9

I think the fact that MD wins consistently is what needs proven.

I could have the Wizard come watch me play a shoe and theres a an approx. 50/50 chance I could show him a single winning session.

I could walk him thru my $350,000 home, show him the balances of my checking, savings, 401K, and money market accounts, the free tickets I got to the Tropicana in house comedy show, and the 12 empty Miller Lite bottles I was comped while playing.

I'm sorry but I disagree.

I am not in the MDawg fan club but I tell it like is.

Wizard does NOT need to follow MDawg around day after day. All he needs to do is understand what mathematical advantage and "strategy" MDawg employs and with his knowledge of gambling math determine if it's feasible.

For example, a few years ago people claimed I was full of hogwash about my NY AP move (back when people didn't get suspended for calling people liars because several called me that) and without meeting the Wizard all I did was explain my methodology and the Wizard was able to emphatically state that if everything I said was true then yes, I was killing it

In this situation Wizard has actually witnessed MDawg presumably doing what the Wizard says is confidential but not qualified as a losing system (i.e and advantage play).

Imo this gives MDawg more cred than in my situation where Wizard had to take my word.

What hurts MDawg is his "fictionalized" account of winning through luck and trying to make it seem like some James Bondian, "I never lose cause I am so cool and the Martini is always shaken, not stirred" routine.

But that was just a routine

The Wizard has identified this as a play that is possible and witnessed it.

Why it should be questioned further I don't know.

Curious if the Wizard now knows enough to win at baccarat using Mdawg's method?

Quote: Wellbush

I tell you, maybe the only thing fishy is that many math heads can't think laterally. Everything's gotta fit an equation otherwise math heads are in no man's land. I could go on....but maybe it's not worth it?

You're right, it's not worth it, no question about it, with meaningless comments about "math heads" being unable to "think laterally."

I'd ask what you're trying to say but I fear a detailed explanation would take me further down the path to Cloud Cuckoo Land.

note, for those unfamiliar with Aristophanes and Greek comedy terms:

"Cloud cuckoo land" is a state of absurdly, over-optimistic fantasy or an unrealistically idealistic state where everything is perfect. Someone who is said to "live in cloud cuckoo land" is a person who thinks that things that are completely impossible might happen, rather than understanding how things really are.

Wikipedia

I got a 36 on my ACT in math, but Im not even one of the top 100 "math heads" in here. I dont have to be to know that you cant consistently when a -EV game without doing something illegal or something such as "edge sorting", "card counting", etc...

Guessing when a streak will happen is called luck!

I stop at my local casino 5-6 nights a week. I am an extremely disciplined gambler who buys in with $500 a night and is happy to leave and has the discipline to leave when I am up $50. I play craps and blackjack only!

Sure, most nights I make my $50-$75 and walk out the front door. One month I won over $2000 doing that in just a 30 day span. I paid my mortgage at the casino!
.

Then sometimes I lose all $500. Which has happened! I never got up even $50 before I went broke. Its called gambling. It happens. You play long enough...you will LOSE!

Think Ive bragged to people about playing 30 days in a row and paying my rent? SURE HAVE!

Think I tell people when I.lose all $500? NOPE! This is.only about 3rd time Ive told it!

I think MDawg is a bit richer than most and tells a similar story!

Quote: MrV

You're right, it's not worth it, no question about it, with meaningless comments about "math heads" being unable to "think laterally."

I'd ask what you're trying to say but I fear a detailed explanation would take me further down the path to Cloud Cuckoo Land.

note, for those unfamiliar with Aristophanes and Greek comedy terms:

"Cloud cuckoo land" is a state of absurdly, over-optimistic fantasy or an unrealistically idealistic state where everything is perfect. Someone who is said to "live in cloud cuckoo land" is a person who thinks that things that are completely impossible might happen, rather than understanding how things really are.

Wikipedia

Yeh, very clever. Now who was it that mentioned magical thinking and pixie dust? Hmm....I am not sure if you're aware but human interaction is a two-way affair. You know, respect given, respect received. Go on, say it with me...respect given, respect received. And here's another...derision given, derision...uh, I better not finish that statement otherwise certain people may feel insulted.

For some, and they're apparently very smart, they don't seem to get that previous statement. They seem to somehow understand the first bit...derision given, but the second bit....derision ******** , somehow doesn't apply to them. Oh well, just some strange human variance I suppose?

Quote: Wellbush

Yeh, very clever. Now who was it that mentioned magical thinking and pixie dust? Hmm....I am not sure if you're aware but human interaction is a two-way affair. You know, respect given, respect received. Go on, say it with me...respect given, respect received. And here's another...derision given, derision...uh, I better not finish that statement otherwise certain people may feel insulted.

For some, and they're apparently very smart, they don't seem to get that previous statement. They seem to somehow understand the first bit...derision given, but the second bit....derision ******** , somehow doesn't apply to them. Oh well, just some strange human variance I suppose?

If only you could find $2k to test your theories. You PM DarkOz to see if he would stake you?

Quote: unJon

If only you could find $2k to test your theories. You PM DarkOz to see if he would stake you?

I see a running gag for a few years coming on.

I'm starting to miss the bus jokes now

I dont have time.to read this who thread.

What was the MDawg Challenge exactly?

What did DarkOz.stake?

Quote: Wellbush

I'm not convinced from what you've written above, that math theory is applied to table games, as you have explained it.

That is just your own willful ignorance, given how widely available information about math (and "math theory") of casino table games is.

Quote: Wellbush

I am saying that card games ebb and flow. They have winning and losing streaks. The strategy I am referring to works with the fact that all streaks eventually break. It is not necessary to know when they break.

Feel free to describe the strategy you refer to in a way that isn't word salad or worthless drivel. I have a feeling you are never going to do that.

Wellbush, I will give you respect as opposed to derision when you post something worthy of something other than a Bronx salute.

Believe me, you and your "mentor" are not the first ones to come here loudly banging their tom-toms, chanting "Ding dong the math is dead."

Your notion of securing an advantage by engaging in "lateral thinking" is nothing more than a plan to disregard the math of gambling and to descend into the depths of superstition and magical thinking.

But I encourage you to lay it all out, specifically, for myself and others to objectively view and analyze; otherwise, well like they say: "It don't mean nothin'."

Quote: MrV

Wellbush, I will give you respect as opposed to derision when you post something worthy of something other than a Bronx salute.

Believe me, you and your "mentor" are not the first ones to come here loudly banging their tom-toms, chanting "Ding dong the math is dead."

Your notion of securing an advantage by engaging in "lateral thinking" is nothing more than a plan to disregard the math of gambling and to descend into the depths of superstition and magical thinking.

But I encourage you to lay it all out, specifically, for myself and others to objectively view and analyze; otherwise, well like they say: "It don't mean nothin'."

MrV, you know if I held a mirror up what you would see is the following:

A person thinking that they’re on the right side of knowledge about gambling. And that’s because they see their own kind pontificating to so-called ignorants, like myself.

Yeah, an ignorant one, that’s how you see me. It’s written all over the above post. And, if you bother to contemplate what you see in the mirror....how you’ve just addressed me..... you may just make out some aspects about yourself that may need some polishing.

But for some, the task is very difficult. So let me help a little. If you bother to read back through this thread, and think good and hard about a host of things I’ve written, you may just find one or two pieces of knowledge that may help answer some of your questions.

That’s because, I’m sure you’ll agree, people should not have to repeat themselves for every so-called smart one like yourself, who hasn’t bothered to look. And if, after looking, you have a question or two about what I’ve written, I’ll be pleased to answer.

If however, you find nothing to query, then it may not be worth your while asking me to explain myself 😊

As I said before and I'll say it again. The only thing this proves for sure is that there is someone who is willing to put up money for someone to play Baccarat in order to scoop up 2k. There is probably a never-ending supply of people who would be willing to do that. I have put up money for people to make plays that could not afford it on their own for a % of the profits.


I'm sure this will encourage MDawg to be more grandiose expecting that everything should be believed I'm sorry but, the always winning, being able to predict streaks, the BTC claims and some other things are simply ridiculous, such claims will never be believed by most logical people.

No one needs to disprove any betting system claims, that has already been done by the math.

Mike alluded to the fact that there may be something else at play here and if that gives him an advantage then MDwag has not been upfront with us since he has said more than once just the opposite of that.

I absolutely believe there's more going on here than meet the eye, some things don't make sense.
This has overtones of the Dan Bilzerian situation for those who don't know about him (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD7rdgTLfHw).

Someone mentioned this has all Jumped the shark that happened when all the socks or whatever showed up. With that being said, it seems as if there's really nothing to see here any more.

Whatever the case I, am going to assume it was MDawg himself, and give MDwag credit since he showed up and it seems as if he didn't make some small min bets looking to maximize his advantage and he won a nice amount(congrats).

Quote: MDawg

Day 30 play

Played one shoe only - dealer cut, all alone, got a shoe where the Player wouldn't go past 1, got a 6 Bank run out of it, pressed all the way, caught every single hand on the run (was easy - remember - Player never went past 1), then another Bank run 15 long, then another 4 Bank run, then Player went double (for the first time), so I followed it for a 7 Player run, then a perfect chop for 9 hands, lost the last hand, and then - shoe over.

If this had been a second shoe and I had been playing harder I would have easily cleared forty grand on it. As it was, "only" +$16,500.

Ole!

Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.

There was a post that mentioned smoking, MD. Here in Australia, smoking has been outlawed virtually everywhere. The casinos probably held out the longest. I'm not sure I would frequent a casino if there was even the passive smell about the place.

It's such a delight going to the casino here, with no smoke smell at all now! What's it like in the US? Still smoking everywhere, or does it depend on the state the casino's in?

Quote: mwalz9

I got a 36 on my ACT in math, but Im not even one of the top 100 "math heads" in here. I dont have to be to know that you cant consistently when a -EV game without doing something illegal or something such as "edge sorting", "card counting", etc...

Guessing when a streak will happen is called luck!

I stop at my local casino 5-6 nights a week. I am an extremely disciplined gambler who buys in with $500 a night and is happy to leave and has the discipline to leave when I am up $50. I play craps and blackjack only!

Sure, most nights I make my $50-$75 and walk out the front door. One month I won over $2000 doing that in just a 30 day span. I paid my mortgage at the casino!
.

Then sometimes I lose all $500. Which has happened! I never got up even $50 before I went broke. Its called gambling. It happens. You play long enough...you will LOSE!

Think Ive bragged to people about playing 30 days in a row and paying my rent? SURE HAVE!

Think I tell people when I.lose all $500? NOPE! This is.only about 3rd time Ive told it!

I think MDawg is a bit richer than most and tells a similar story!

Yes it's good to be frank with oneself about what's really happening, rather than what we would like to happen. Otherwise one can lose money solely due to a fanciful state of being. I try to keep my feet on the ground, too.

If you read back through my posts you may gather that I don't actually have any issues with math, per se. I do know enough, though, not to be bluffed by people pretending to know more than what they actually do. So I'm quite happy to acknowledge and listen to someone endowed with better understandings than myself, in any aspect of life. It's called humility.

I'm also quite happy to accept whatever conclusions math theory clearly shows about gambling. Whilst it may appear from many on this website that math knows better, I seriously question the depth of knowledge they have on the subject. I have a math and science qualification in another field of endeavour, so I have some understanding of scientific enquiry, and especially what assumptions one can and can't make from theory.

At the moment, I seriously question some here about how they can APPLY math theory to CERTAIN VARIABLES that card sharks are capable of taking advantage of, at casinos. Again, it may appear that math theory is all sown up on the subject, but I'm not convinced.

I am definitely not so foolish to think I know better than centuries of math theory. I do know enough to question assumptions and make scientific enquiry. There are at least two other reasons why I challenge some here. 1. MD appears to be a genuine case. 2. Card counting is one strategy that has been proven, both in theory and in the real world scenario, to circumvent math theory at the casinos.

I'm not saying card counting debunks math theory. I am saying, to my knowledge, that math theory accepts that card counting can turn a profit. I'm therefore also saying, that there could easily be other gambling strategies that also beat the dealer, both in application and theory.

If you find yourself ready to jump at various things I'm saying, or even see others here do it (often it's the same ones, and they're full of derision), you may not realise that I'm quite capable of seeing holes in my own or other's arguments. If I thought my rebuffs of other's arguments, were full of my own hot air, I wouldn't be rebuffing. If I am rebuffing others here, you may want to question my reasoning rather than just jump on the naysayers bandwagon with a number of others. So if you do have further genuine questions about my divergent views, feel free to ask.

Unfortunately, all of the Vegas casinos I am aware of still allow smoking inside the casinos.

The current rules about smoking at the table games vary - some casinos allow smoking at the tables if the plexiglass barriers are set up, others do not allow it at all, plexiglass or not.

Quote: MDawg

Unfortunately, all of the Vegas casinos I am aware of still allow smoking inside the casinos.

The current rules about smoking at the table games vary - some casinos allow smoking at the tables if the plexiglass barriers are set up, others do not allow it at all, plexiglass or not.

Nobody cares you lying Board addict
Wise up
Get a real life
There is no doubt you are the biggest snitch on this forum demanding suspensions

Quote: Wellbush

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?

If you're referring to Blackjack card counting, that was, "Shown to beat the system," before I was even alive...so I think not.

I did not want to post this before the challenge, but here is how I would have played it.

1. Make 56 $200 bets on the Banker and one $205 bet on the Player. The one $205 on Player to comply with the rule against flat betting and not always betting the same way.
2. If I'm up after step 1, quit.
   
3. If I'm not up after step 1, go into a Martingale until I'm up or lose the full $8,000.
   

I estimate my probability of success at 98%.

Quote: Wizard

I did not want to post this before the challenge, but here is how I would have played it.

1. Make 56 $200 bets on the Banker and one $205 bet on the Player. The one $205 on Player to comply with the rule against flat betting and not always betting the same way.
2. If I'm up after step 1, quit.
   
3. If I'm not up after step 1, go into a Martingale until I'm up or lose the full $8,000.
   

I estimate my probability of success at 98%.

That's interesting, Wiz, 98% probability of success. You have possibly a very lucrative knowledge base. Is the 2% probability of failure the killer for gamblers (i.e. the catastrophic loss that's talked about)?

Quote: Wellbush

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.

First of all, I want to congratulate you on producing the single most erroneous and nonsensical post that I have ever read on this site in my entire life. There are no superlatives strong enough to overstate how immeasurably impressed I am with the torrent of unmitigated nonsense that I have quoted above.

Honestly, this probably doesn't even rise to the level of deserving a response, but I am going to respond anyway because I am clearly a demented self-loathing masochist.

Quote: WB

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.

Do you not see the word, "Negative," in, "Negative Progression?" Do you know what else is negative? The Expected Value of most casino games (including Baccarat) in most situations.

Betting systems do not change results and they do not change expected results. The only thing that a negative progression betting systems does is create a set of parameters by which small wins and huge losses become more likely.

Why big losses? Consider a five-step Martingale: If you lose all five attempts, then you'll have lost more than would have even been possible had you been flat-betting the base bet.

Anyway, the math explains all of this---you know, that whole math thing that you seem to be contesting does not apply.

Casino chips represent dollars, money goes either one way on a bet...goes the other way...or, on bets that can push, nothing changes. If you look at that incredibly simple concept, then you'll understand EVERYTHING about gambling relates directly back to math. Math answers the question, "In this situation, by expectation, how much money goes from either the player to the casino or the casino to the player."

In the incredibly unlikely event that you cannot grasp that money changing hands is math and only math, then my suggestion to you is to do yourself a favor and never gamble. I'd probably also avoid the stock market, as well.

Quote:

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.

It's incredible that, from a technical standpoint, this is reasonably well-written, and yet, conveys an idea almost impossibly dumb. If I didn't know better, I'd think that you were messing with me, and everyone else here, but I have no doubt whatsoever that you are being 100% genuine and posting earnestly while engaging in a legitimate back-and-forth in which you are absolutely NOT advancing arguments that you consider disingenuous.

So, since you are so clearly making this statement in good faith, I will address it.

1.) If the player believes what you said is true, then he should take a break of the remainder of his life before he ever gambles again.

2.) You seem to think that the player taking this break has some impact on changing the probabilities or expected value for the next hand he plays. If you're talking about Wonging-Out of a bad shoe at Blackjack, then you would be right, but if you believe this as some sort of general rule then, once again, I encourage you not to ever gamble for as long as you live. Either that, or learn how the math applies, but not gambling at all would be much easier.

3.) The long losing streak has not been broken. Imagine that the Milwaukee Bucks lose five games in a row, but then the NBA All-Star break comes up, so they don't play anymore games for a week...is their record from the last five games not still 0-5?

Quote:

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.

1.) Math is not a theory when it comes to gambling and math doesn't, "Hope," for anything. Math just exists and is applied to specific situations. Do you presume math is a sentient entity that wants you to lose at gambling?

Hell, if nothing else, math (if it were sentient) wants you to win. Why? Because if you learn the math as relates gambling, then you will be able to differentiate scenarios in which you are expected to win from those in which you are expected to lose.

Judging from what you have said in your post, I could only conclude that you do not believe what I have just said. My advice to you is to absolutely NOT gamble until you do believe it.

2.) Math can account for everything that you just said because no, "Breaks," that you take are going to change the situation. I guess they do in Baccarat since a concept called Effect-of-Removal changes the house edge slightly based on the remaining composition of the shoe. Judging from your post, I don't expect you to know that. Anyway, the player can leave after a particular number of losses and return to start a different shoe, but the house edge is going to just be based on whatever the composition of that shoe is----or the base house edge, if the shoe hasn't had any hands come out yet.

Quote:

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.

The only thing that you're explaining is how a person could produce barely comprehensible nonsense if they felt like it.

Your post is not only nonsensical, your post is also irresponsible. I'd like to believe that there's nobody that understands so little about gambling that they would read your wall of unadulterated gobbledygook and somehow come away from doing so, not only without a severe migraine, but also thinking they learned something---I have been proven wrong before, though.

If the player, "Knew anything in advance," then the player would not experience many losing streaks at all and would have only winning streaks. There are things that you can know in advance, with certain tactics, but what you are saying is not one of them.

The tactics by which a person might gain information that would change the probabilities that would otherwise be assumed is also mathematically calculable, just so you know. For example, if I know or have reason to strongly suspect that the first card out is going to be a face, then that has an impact on the House Edge that is calculable. I can use that information to my advantage. The math still applies.

Anyway, that's all. I close with my advice that I suggest that you never gamble if you truly believe that five paragraphs of ill-conceived quackery that you posted. Or, if you really must gamble, learn something about math.

Even if the equivalent of a large order of McDonald's fries, large strawberry milkshake and two Double Quarter Pounders with cheese that your post has binged and then violently purged upon us had even the tiniest shred of logic to it, which it doesn't, it would STILL be able to have math applied to it.

Quote: Wellbush

". 2. Card counting is one strategy that has been proven, both in theory and in the real world scenario, to circumvent math theory at the casinos.

I'm not saying card counting debunks math theory. I am saying, to my knowledge, that math theory accepts that card counting can turn a profit. I'm therefore also saying, that there could easily be other gambling strategies that also beat the dealer, both in application and theory."

Wellbush, you are using the words circumvent and debunks in ways that are incorrect.
Card counting and Math theory are not separate things as you are saying. They are one and the same. card counting is the math theory behind overcoming a negative expectation game.

Regarding you saying there could easily be other gambling strategies that also beat the dealer, off the top of my head, other than cheating ' which can be debated", collusion, and sloppy dealers I am not sure of what else there is. What you have presented so far is nothing more than speculations without any theory to back it all up. Nothing more than Voodoo thinking.

Quote: darkoz

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

I guess he thinks that, but if that were true, I'd choose to only pay my fare for busses on their way to, "Winning Streak City."

Quote: MrV

Yet more "magical thinking."

He might have been attracted to this board thinking that Mike really IS a wizard who also believes that he has mastered the magical aspects of casino gambling.

*snorts the pixie dust*

Wow, man, it's all so CLEAR to me now ...

I wouldn't mind snorting some pixie dust after reading that long post that I just responded to. If I didn't previously have a drinking problem, a nice double of Bombay Sapphire neat would also help.

Quote: Wellbush

I'm not convinced from what you've written above, that math theory is applied to table games, as you have explained it.

I'm also not sure why you're asking some of the questions your asking, Tom, unless you're unfamiliar with negative progression betting strategies?

I am saying that card games ebb and flow. They have winning and losing streaks. The strategy I am referring to works with the fact that all streaks eventually break. It is not necessary to know when they break.

MD's strategy would be different to mine. I play BJ. He plays Baccarat. Nevertheless, the fact that MD may win consistently may suggest he uses strategies that may not fit the theoretical mathematical models.

(Bold added)

I can assure you that the mathematical models won't seem so, "Theoretical," once you have lost all of your non-theoretical money.

Or, do you only play with theoretical money?

Quote: Wellbush

And why would MD want to explain in detail, his strategy to the world? So everyone can use it? All the casinos then stop offering baccarat, otherwise they go broke?

Here's one....MD's a fraud, that's why he doesn't share his strategy. Seriously? Of course there has to be a mathematical explanation for MD to win. If his winnings can't be explained by math theory, there's something fishy. I tell you, maybe the only thing fishy is that many math heads can't think laterally. Everything's gotta fit an equation otherwise math heads are in no man's land.

I could go on....but maybe it's not worth it?

There is a mathematical explanation and Wizard has been informed as to what it is. He just can't say. A loss rebate, if the case, would be one component of said explanation.

Quote: Wellbush

There was a post that mentioned smoking, MD. Here in Australia, smoking has been outlawed virtually everywhere. The casinos probably held out the longest. I'm not sure I would frequent a casino if there was even the passive smell about the place.

It's such a delight going to the casino here, with no smoke smell at all now! What's it like in the US? Still smoking everywhere, or does it depend on the state the casino's in?

The states are left to decide their own smoking laws and sometimes individual states will leave it for smaller jurisdictions, such as counties.

Examples of states in which casinos could do whatever they wanted, Covid-19 temporary changes aside, are Nevada and New Jersey.

Examples of states in which no smoking is allowed in the casinos, but those casinos sometimes have, "Outdoor," smoking areas that are basically de facto indoors are Ohio and Maryland.

West Virginia is one example of a state in which it is left up to the counties. Unfortunately for Mountaineer Casino, it keeps going back and forth whether or not they are allowed to have indoor smoking. Fortunately for a casino such as Wheeling Island, which is in a different county, that county has it such that the casino (and isolated video lottery terminal rooms in other establishments) are permitted to allow smoking.

Revel (pre-closure) in Atlantic City is one of the only casinos I can think of that chose, of its own volition, to be completely non-smoking. They closed, but it's hard to say if that was exclusively the reason why---the truth is, they messed up basically everything a casino could possibly mess up.

Now that I think about it, I want to say that there are a very small number of Native American owned casinos that are non-smoking of their own accord.

Quote: Wizard

I did not want to post this before the challenge, but here is how I would have played it.

1. Make 56 $200 bets on the Banker and one $205 bet on the Player. The one $205 on Player to comply with the rule against flat betting and not always betting the same way.
2. If I'm up after step 1, quit.
   
3. If I'm not up after step 1, go into a Martingale until I'm up or lose the full $8,000.
   

I estimate my probability of success at 98%.

That's a good play, but in the first iteration of the challenge, that's why I suggested that betting on both Banker/Player simultaneously should absolutely not be permitted.

As I understand it, MDawg was not limited to just that one $8,000 marker. I think my strategy would have been to just open with a five-step Marty with a 1k base and then flat bet with only slight variation in my bet amounts if I have won a few. Basically hope to just chop near 50/50 without ever getting down, and if down, revert back to the Martingale again.

I estimate my probability of success to be about 94%.

Quote: Wizard

I did not want to post this before the challenge, but here is how I would have played it.

1. Make 56 $200 bets on the Banker and one $205 bet on the Player. The one $205 on Player to comply with the rule against flat betting and not always betting the same way.
2. If I'm up after step 1, quit.
   
3. If I'm not up after step 1, go into a Martingale until I'm up or lose the full $8,000.
   

I estimate my probability of success at 98%.

This is what Axel and a few others were concerned about and felt I was being conned.

The fact that MDawg lived up to the spirit of the challenge instead of just finding an advantage angle such as described speaks volumes.

Perhaps he has generated too much animosity but I am big enough to keep it real. MDawg has a means of making money at Baccarat.

What surprises me is there currently isn't a conversation now where all the 400 pages of details from trip reports aren't analyzed to search for how he does it.

Once Russia knew there was an atom bomb they didn't waste time trying to figure out how to build their own.

MDawg has an AP Baccarat equivalent of an atom bomb.

Get to work my fellow AP scientists

Quote: Wellbush

That's interesting, Wiz, 98% probability of success. You have possibly a very lucrative knowledge base. Is the 2% probability of failure the killer for gamblers (i.e. the catastrophic loss that's talked about)?

In considering my reply, I think it is probably more than 2%, but there is also a probably of more than a trivial win after the 57 hands. Maybe I'll run some simulations. If forced, I will decrease the probability of success to 95%.

The expected loss on the 57 hands is only 57*$200*1.06% = $120.84.

Whatever the case, this was a very sweet deal for Mdawg and darkoz was extremely generous to offer it.

Thanks for your replies 146. I see I've hit a nerve. I'll probably reply at some point after I've absorbed everything.

Before your posts, MD and I had already agreed that I would now continue on my old thread "Beat the House at Blackjack!!!!" So for topics like this, I'll only be responding over there. I'm sure I'll let you know when I respond.

Quote: darkoz

The fact that MDawg lived up to the spirit of the challenge instead of just finding an advantage angle such as described speaks volumes.

Yes, he absolutely did. I'd like to state I gave him no advice before the challenge.

Quote:

What surprises me is there currently isn't a conversation now where all the 400 pages of details from trip reports aren't analyzed to search for how he does it.

I agree.

Quote: Wizard

In considering my reply, I think it is probably more than 2%, but there is also a probably of more than a trivial win after the 57 hands. Maybe I'll run some simulations. If forced, I will decrease the probability of success to 95%.

The expected loss on the 57 hands is only 57*$200*1.06% = $120.84.

Whatever the case, this was a very sweet deal for Mdawg and darkoz was extremely generous to offer it.

My impression was that DO was just getting some reality verified, rather than expecting MD couldn't achieve a successful outcome. I think it was good coz there would be many posters interested in MD's verifiable winnings.

Quote: Wellbush

My impression was that DO was just getting some reality verified, rather than expecting MD couldn't achieve a successful outcome. I think it was good coz there would be many posters interested in MD's verifiable winnings.

Plenty of posters have criticized my "generosity" but without knowing there was a truly advantageous move in play they probably wouldn't put time or effort into uncovering it.

The obfuscation of flowery trip reports and hocus pocus suggestions have been eliminated.

MDawg is for real!!!

For those who feel he generated an easy two grand I don't think they have the full import of the situation.

Every AP of a certain magnitude is at this very moment working on the solution as quietly as they can.

I don't doubt that Axel for all his hollering a page ago wasn't being disingenuous. He was more angry I suspect that he wasn't deciphering the play all this time than at MDawg for the actual deception.

The AP community talks and communicates when necessary. Multiple minds will figure out MDawg's move. I guarantee it's just a matter of time.

$2500 was probably a discount all things considered

Quote: darkoz

MDawg is for real!!!

Obviously, I didn't play just to win the $2000. I approached the Wizard monitored session like any other.

That short session that the Wizard observed proved absolutely nothing. If anything it proved just how worthless MDawg's system really is, where he would possibly jeopardize a one and only lifetime secret for 2k. I do not believe any of the BS.

Agree.

How does 1 winning session prove anything?

I used to feel like this forum was full of some of the smartest, most intelligent, logically thinking brains in the country.

Now you have me even second guessing myself.

I've said it many times and will say it again...

You CANNOT consistently win at an -EV game without cheating, "card counting", "edge sorting", etc...

I feel that MDAWG just one way or another has more money than most of us, whether it be inheritance, hard work, or some other activity, and he just brags about his wins and never about his losses!

As I said before I bought into my local casino at craps and/or blackjack for 30 days in a row with a $500 buy in. I left all 30 days in a row with a profit of at least $50, some days more. Yes...this can happen! I bragged about it, told everyone I talked to.

I have also bought in for $500 and lost every single dime before being up 1 penny! I didn't tell too many people about that one, obviously.

I also have become a DIAMOND member at my casino by playing this way. I'm not a whale by any means. I don't make a killing at the casino. I play for fun. I play for comps. I lose, surprisingly, about the house edge! I chalk it up as entertainment expense because I enjoy playing.

That's the MATH and the TRUTH!

Quote: BoSox

That short session that the Wizard observed proved absolutely nothing. If anything it proved just how worthless MDawg's system really is, where he would possibly jeopardize a one and only lifetime secret for 2k. I do not believe any of the BS.

That would leave only the outcome that the Wizard upon viewing MDawg in action is easily fooled.

I don't think so.

If true we probably have wasted a decade on the forum of one the premier minds of gambling mathematics.

More probable is that MDawg's ego built up over 400 pages of intense interest combined with his being outside the bubble of the AP community has led to a misstep.

He probably doesn't realize the cogs turning right now.

PM's and phone calls in private.

THERE WILL NOT BE 400 FURTHER PAGES OF DISCUSSION ON HOW HE DOES IT. THAT'S GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES!

There are AP's who have connections at casinos. Hosts who actively help with information for a price. And even innocently just talk too much, quick to give away half the casinos secrets without knowing it.

AP's know where the open spigots of information are to be mined.

MDawg might as well change his name to BitDawg because he is going to be mined!

Quote: Mission146

First of all, I want to congratulate you on producing the single most erroneous and nonsensical post that I have ever read on this site in my entire life. There are no superlatives strong enough to overstate how immeasurably impressed I am with the torrent of unmitigated nonsense that I have quoted above.

Honestly, this probably doesn't even rise to the level of deserving a response, but I am going to respond anyway because I am clearly a demented self-loathing masochist.



Do you not see the word, "Negative," in, "Negative Progression?" Do you know what else is negative? The Expected Value of most casino games (including Baccarat) in most situations.

Betting systems do not change results and they do not change expected results. The only thing that a negative progression betting systems does is create a set of parameters by which small wins and huge losses become more likely.

Why big losses? Consider a five-step Martingale: If you lose all five attempts, then you'll have lost more than would have even been possible had you been flat-betting the base bet.

Anyway, the math explains all of this---you know, that whole math thing that you seem to be contesting does not apply.

Casino chips represent dollars, money goes either one way on a bet...goes the other way...or, on bets that can push, nothing changes. If you look at that incredibly simple concept, then you'll understand EVERYTHING about gambling relates directly back to math. Math answers the question, "In this situation, by expectation, how much money goes from either the player to the casino or the casino to the player."

In the incredibly unlikely event that you cannot grasp that money changing hands is math and only math, then my suggestion to you is to do yourself a favor and never gamble. I'd probably also avoid the stock market, as well.



It's incredible that, from a technical standpoint, this is reasonably well-written, and yet, conveys an idea almost impossibly dumb. If I didn't know better, I'd think that you were messing with me, and everyone else here, but I have no doubt whatsoever that you are being 100% genuine and posting earnestly while engaging in a legitimate back-and-forth in which you are absolutely NOT advancing arguments that you consider disingenuous.

So, since you are so clearly making this statement in good faith, I will address it.

1.) If the player believes what you said is true, then he should take a break of the remainder of his life before he ever gambles again.

2.) You seem to think that the player taking this break has some impact on changing the probabilities or expected value for the next hand he plays. If you're talking about Wonging-Out of a bad shoe at Blackjack, then you would be right, but if you believe this as some sort of general rule then, once again, I encourage you not to ever gamble for as long as you live. Either that, or learn how the math applies, but not gambling at all would be much easier.

3.) The long losing streak has not been broken. Imagine that the Milwaukee Bucks lose five games in a row, but then the NBA All-Star break comes up, so they don't play anymore games for a week...is their record from the last five games not still 0-5?



1.) Math is not a theory when it comes to gambling and math doesn't, "Hope," for anything. Math just exists and is applied to specific situations. Do you presume math is a sentient entity that wants you to lose at gambling?

Hell, if nothing else, math (if it were sentient) wants you to win. Why? Because if you learn the math as relates gambling, then you will be able to differentiate scenarios in which you are expected to win from those in which you are expected to lose.

Judging from what you have said in your post, I could only conclude that you do not believe what I have just said. My advice to you is to absolutely NOT gamble until you do believe it.

2.) Math can account for everything that you just said because no, "Breaks," that you take are going to change the situation. I guess they do in Baccarat since a concept called Effect-of-Removal changes the house edge slightly based on the remaining composition of the shoe. Judging from your post, I don't expect you to know that. Anyway, the player can leave after a particular number of losses and return to start a different shoe, but the house edge is going to just be based on whatever the composition of that shoe is----or the base house edge, if the shoe hasn't had any hands come out yet.



The only thing that you're explaining is how a person could produce barely comprehensible nonsense if they felt like it.

Your post is not only nonsensical, your post is also irresponsible. I'd like to believe that there's nobody that understands so little about gambling that they would read your wall of unadulterated gobbledygook and somehow come away from doing so, not only without a severe migraine, but also thinking they learned something---I have been proven wrong before, though.

If the player, "Knew anything in advance," then the player would not experience many losing streaks at all and would have only winning streaks. There are things that you can know in advance, with certain tactics, but what you are saying is not one of them.

The tactics by which a person might gain information that would change the probabilities that would otherwise be assumed is also mathematically calculable, just so you know. For example, if I know or have reason to strongly suspect that the first card out is going to be a face, then that has an impact on the House Edge that is calculable. I can use that information to my advantage. The math still applies.

Anyway, that's all. I close with my advice that I suggest that you never gamble if you truly believe that five paragraphs of ill-conceived quackery that you posted. Or, if you really must gamble, learn something about math.

Even if the equivalent of a large order of McDonald's fries, large strawberry milkshake and two Double Quarter Pounders with cheese that your post has binged and then violently purged upon us had even the tiniest shred of logic to it, which it doesn't, it would STILL be able to have math applied to it.

Game, set, match.

Quote: darkoz

That would leave only the outcome that the Wizard upon viewing MDawg in action is easily fooled.

I don't think so.

If true we probably have wasted a decade on the forum of one the premier minds of gambling mathematics.

More probable is that MDawg's ego built up over 400 pages of intense interest combined with his being outside the bubble of the AP community has led to a misstep.

He probably doesn't realize the cogs turning right now.

PM's and phone calls in private.

THERE WILL NOT BE 400 FURTHER PAGES OF DISCUSSION ON HOW HE DOES IT. THAT'S GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES!

There are AP's who have connections at casinos. Hosts who actively help with information for a price. And even innocently just talk too much, quick to give away half the casinos secrets without knowing it.

AP's know where the open spigots of information are to be mined.

MDawg might as well change his name to BitDawg because he is going to be mined!

darkoz this line that you wrote:

"That would leave only the outcome that the Wizard upon viewing MDawg in action is easily fooled."

There is another possible outcome. I do not believe for one second that the Wizard can be easily fooled. Although, I definitely call into question his neutral objectivity in the matter from a business point of view.

Quote: Wellbush

That's interesting, Wiz, 98% probability of success. You have possibly a very lucrative knowledge base. Is the 2% probability of failure the killer for gamblers (i.e. the catastrophic loss that's talked about)?

I thought I'd showed you this, but lest the maths put you off....
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/6/#post1370

Quote: OnceDear

I thought I'd showed you this, but lest the maths put you off....
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/6/#post1370

I'm sure I'll eventually get around to looking at it OD. Thanks for the post. MD now wants me to continue on my old thread for these kinda topics. I'm sure I'll eventually reply to this post over there. Cheers

Game, set, match.

If you think it's game, set, match before I have a chance to view and reply to the info, good luck. I'm not so presumptuous