It's not you I'm laughing at EB. Honest!Quote: EvenBobI played a
practice session today as usual
and got one wrong in 16 bets.
It's what you wrote:
So emphatic, So impressive, So utterly meaningless. For all we know you bet 16 times that it wouldn't be green and it only was once.
Mdawg will be so pleased at how we've rallied around to keep his thread alive and full of what it usually is.
Quote: EvenBobStreaks are few and far between. All
I said about them is never bet against
them, that way you will only lose once,
when it ends. People always think
they're smarter than the streak.
you couldn't sit at a roulette or bac table and make predictions any better than a 5 year old child
*
Quote: OnceDearSo utterly meaningless. .
It was meant to be meaningless, it
has no context. I only posted it
because it happened. Do you
think Annie Oakley was amazed
every time she shot the middle
of the playing card from 100 feet
away? Hardly, she was just doing
what she had taught herself. It's
only a big deal if you can't do it.
Meaningless and pointless. It's not a big deal even if you can do it. 'It' is nothing!Quote: EvenBobIt was meant to be meaningless, it
has no context. I only posted it
because it happened. Do you
think Annie Oakley was amazed
every time she shot the middle
of the playing card from 100 feet
away? Hardly, she was just doing
what she had taught herself. It's
only a big deal if you can't do it.
Edison,
Bell,
Annie Oakley
EvenBob
Mdawg
All have one thing in common!
Quote: OnceDearIt's not a big deal even if you can do it.
It's not a big deal WHEN you can
do it. Ever teach yourself to
count cards? Did you think it
was a big deal when you did?
Why would you..
Quote: SOOPOOEB... which is easier to beat, baccarat or roulette? If I plopped you into a single casino, and you had to double your $1000, which would you play?
Define beat? The definition Bob uses or the definition everyone else uses?
Quote: sabreDefine beat? The definition Bob uses or the definition everyone else uses?
He did double 1000=beat
. I asked Bob. So his definition. And I was frankly specific. I defined a starting bankroll and a defined win goal.Quote: sabreDefine beat? The definition Bob uses or the definition everyone else uses?
Quote: SOOPOOEB... which is easier to beat, baccarat or roulette?
Roulette. Bac takes too long and
you might get stuck with an
unplayable shoe. Half the
strategy in bac is knowing when
not to bet. You don't really lose
you just break even for 20 bets,
what's the point. I suppose you
could use a progression but I
don't like those because the
casino doesn't like them. They
love them if you're losing, if
you're winning not so much.
I can't know but I think casinos
suspect there are people who can
beat bac. They wouldn't be
surprised, lets put it that way.
Not like they were surprised
when Thorpe's book came out,
they were totally blindslided.
Quote: EvenBob
I can't know but I think casinos
suspect there are people who can
beat bac. They wouldn't be
surprised, lets put it that way.
Not like they were surprised
when Thorpe's book came out,
they were totally blindslided.
ZCore works as a suit in a casino. Face did surveillance. Now that I think about it, the Wiz worked for the dark side for a short while.
I have not. But I have NEVER heard of a player being backed off for successful baccarat play that did not involve cheating. If you can cite one such example I’d be interested.
Quote: sabreThe following is a list of casinos that don't like it when gamblers increase their bets:
They like it if you're losing,
they do NOT like it if you're
winning. They almost view
it as cheating. I'm talking
about winning and winning
and winning.
Quote: EvenBobI don't want my name in the title. Call it 'Can Baccarat Be Beaten'
I said I'll renamed it and I shall.
In answer to the question in the thread.... No.
that truth is wrong and lies ok?
What first seems false might still be true
But Bob might just be fibbing too.
Who's to know if claims are truthful
Seems to me the boasts are bull, y'all.
Quote: rdw4potusBut Bob might just be fibbing too.
For what it's worth, he has been saying he can beat roulette and baccarat since almost the inception of this site in 2009. EB, correct me if I'm wrong. I honestly believe that he believes this. Does this bother me? Not at all. I'll take such claims seriously when I see substantive evidence, as opposed to pictures of money on a bed.
Quote: WizardI'll take such claims seriously when I see substantive evidence,
Read my lips.... NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Carry on.
I only go by what I have been told about hydration...Quote: EvenBobAsk Axel, that's his area.
I think it steams from a thread where some system player said that it was a key element to winning. It's been a running joke every since.
So, my takeaway from that is that we can assert that Evenbob is misguided in some of his assertions, but we don't apply perjorative terms to EB.Quote: WizardFor what it's worth, he has been saying he can beat roulette and baccarat since almost the inception of this site in 2009. EB, correct me if I'm wrong. I honestly believe that he believes this. Does this bother me? Not at all. I'll take such claims seriously when I see substantive evidence, as opposed to pictures of money on a bed.
I.e. We can firmly but politely dispute his assertions, but not call him a liar. Can we call his claims nonsense?
Like Wizard, I propose not to take some claims seriously. I might extend that to denying, trivialising or even mocking some claims.
Not deliberately Mocking EB, of course. He can do that himself, by comparing himself to Edison, Annie Oakley or whoever. I might take offence if he compares me to Mark Twain.
Is that fair, Wizard?
Quote: WizardFor what it's worth, he has been saying he can beat roulette and baccarat since almost the inception of this site in 2009. EB, correct me if I'm wrong. I honestly believe that he believes this. Does this bother me? Not at all. I'll take such claims seriously when I see substantive evidence, as opposed to pictures of money on a bed.
He came and said his friend won lots
by beating roulette with such ease.
He asked if it could be done well.
Then he claimed it was him, but why?
Wasn't the pivot obvious?
It seems he needs to be the man
who beat the game that can't be beat.
But there is never proof just words.
It is getting old like spoiled fish.
The smell gets worse as time goes by.
But it wasn't over.... It only got better and better .People are still doing it today, and doing well.Quote: EvenBobI wonder about that all the
time. There's no way of
knowing. I'm never the
smartest person in the room,
and I did it. Pull a Thorpe
and write a book about it
and it's over.
Which method, not mine. I had
an uncle who had a method for
finding dear in hunting season.
No math involved.
meth·od
a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something
Has nothing to do with math.
You can explain a casino game
with math, doesn't mean only
math can beat it. I played a
practice session today as usual
and got one wrong in 16 bets.
Your 'math' would say that's
impossible. But I did it anyway
because the math has nothing
to do with it.
I have no interest in being wealthy,
I don't see the point of it. 40 years
ago, maybe. Now it would just be
more crap to worry about, who
needs that. People only think
being rich would make them happy,
they have no idea.
Again, you can call it a method if you want, but as far as this forum is concerned, it's nothing but a betting system.
We are not buying the. "I don't want to be rich, it just creates problems" bit, one bit. You could always give the money to a cat or dog charity, help kids in need, or leave the money to loved ones.
There have been, but it's rare. Remember, sometimes the people making the decisions can be just as ignorant as the people who think they can beat a -EV game in the first place.Quote: SOOPOOZCore works as a suit in a casino. Face did surveillance. Now that I think about it, the Wiz worked for the dark side for a short while.
I have not. But I have NEVER heard of a player being backed off for successful baccarat play that did not involve cheating. If you can cite one such example I’d be interested.
You might find this interesting. Houston Curtis: How I Got Banned For Life From The Golden Nugget Casino In Las Vegas https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/25598-houston-curtis-how-i-got-banned-for-life-from-the-golden-nugget-casino-in-las-vegas
the next great question to discuss is this:
we need for EB to tell us how great his edge is over bacc and roulette is
I'm predicting this:
he has a 12% edge over the house in baccarat
and a 17% edge over the house in double zero roulette
even if I'm off by a little bit one thing is for sure - his edge is a large one
I'm predicting that his edge on roulette is much greater because the house edge in double zero roulette is much greater than in bacc
so obviously EB would have worked harder to design a system to punish the house more
he would make the house pay for its' sins
*
Quote: lilredroosterthe next great question to discuss is this:
we need for EB to tell us how great his edge is over bacc and roulette is
I'm predicting this:
he has a 12% edge over the house in baccarat
and a 17% edge over the house in double zero roulette
even if I'm off by a little bit one thing is for sure - his edge is a large one
Maybe we should embrace Roulette in the title of this thread.
Meanwhile, I predict that House Edge or Player Edge is irrelevent, and win or lose is determined solely by 'Bet Selection'
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/other-games/24089-why-do-you-lose-at-roulette/#post494081
Paraphrasing from that thread, the two green pockets and HE are irrelevant, and what matters is 'Bet Selection' or 'Game Plan'
... Or as others might say, 'Guessing right'
Quote: EvenBobIf you're worried about the zeros, you shouldn't play. They are just 2 extra pockets,
if you don't have a game plan, they won't make any difference.
Quote: EvenBobBut it's not the HE that beats you, it's poor bet selection. If you lose a $100 buy in after making five bets (or 50), what beat you. The HE or your lack of a good bet selection, I think you know the answer.
Quote: OnceDearCan we call his claims nonsense?
I would like to see evidence of this assertive claim, otherwise it could be interpreted as insulting. Context would play into it. However, can one make such a claim when his method is a secret. It is like proving the invisible dinosaur in EB's backyard doesn't exist -- How can you?
Serious honest question.Quote: EvenBob
I know you were attempting to get money in and out of Bovada and play roulette there, how is all that going?
If EB claimed to have an invisible dinosaur in his back-yard, he could well succeed in getting me suspended, when I failed to deliver proof $:o)Quote: WizardI would like to see evidence of this assertive claim, otherwise it could be interpreted as insulting. Context would play into it. However, can one make such a claim when his method is a secret. It is like proving the invisible dinosaur in EB's backyard doesn't exist -- How can you?
Would I get suspended If I said, disregard the invisible dinosaur in his back yard, there's a real one who likes playing roulette on the premises?Quote: WizardI would like to see evidence of this assertive claim, otherwise it could be interpreted as insulting. Context would play into it. However, can one make such a claim when his method is a secret. It is like proving the invisible dinosaur in EB's backyard doesn't exist -- How can you?
Quote: WizardI would like to see evidence of this assertive claim, otherwise it could be interpreted as insulting. Context would play into it. However, can one make such a claim when his method is a secret. It is like proving the invisible dinosaur in EB's backyard doesn't exist -- How can you?
Mike, I'm sorry, but this means ANYONE can make ANY claim of a past event and there is NO way to prove it wrong enough for you to call the person a liar! As an example, I have slept with 20 Sports Illustrated super models, and it is because THEY sought me out! This was after Lebron James came to me and asked for advice on how to dunk more efficiently, which coincidentally coincided with me giving Tiger Woods putting lessons.
No one can 'prove' that the above is false, but anyone can prove 'beyond a REASONABLE doubt that it is false. I say MDawg's baccarat claims, and EB's roulette and baccarat claims are false, beyond a REASONABLE doubt. If it is good enough to send someone to jail for life, it should be good enough for WoV.
Quote: SOOPOOMike, I'm sorry, but this means ANYONE can make ANY claim of a past event and there is NO way to prove it wrong enough for you to call the person a liar! As an example, I have slept with 20 Sports Illustrated super models, and it is because THEY sought me out! This was after Lebron James came to me and asked for advice on how to dunk more efficiently, which coincidentally coincided with me giving Tiger Woods putting lessons.
Yes, you're allowed to say all those things. What rule does it break?
Quote:No one can 'prove' that the above is false, but anyone can prove 'beyond a REASONABLE doubt that it is false. I say MDawg's baccarat claims, and EB's roulette and baccarat claims are false, beyond a REASONABLE doubt. If it is good enough to send someone to jail for life, it should be good enough for WoV.
I would prefer the phrasing, "I say MDawg's baccarat claims, and EB's roulette and baccarat claims are not proven true, beyond a REASONABLE doubt." Much like a defendant in a criminal court might get a "not guilty" verdict, as opposed to "innocent."
Did we learn nothing about the hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts about Allen's 18 yo's in a row? He is allowed to make that claim. People may say they don't believe it and certainly may comment on the odds of that. However, they may not say he is a liar or the claim is a lie/work of fiction.
EB hounded me with derisive claims that my story about being robbed was BS to the point the post below was thanked by more members from WOV in recent memory
isn't toeing the line trolling
when it's done repeatedly, yes.
that's the definition, i think
he's done it for a decade here
but there's not punishment for him
I'd be banned if I did that, no?
what makes bob special to this site?
Is my claim outlandish to make?
I don't think it can be disprov'n
and any claim is now allowed
so this one too may stand its ground
but I'm sure some won't be happy
I wonder if I'll be jailed now
oh well! c'est la vie, mes amis.
Quote: WizardYes, you're allowed to say all those things. What rule does it break?
I would prefer the phrasing, "I say MDawg's baccarat claims, and EB's roulette and baccarat claims are not proven true, beyond a REASONABLE doubt." Much like a defendant in a criminal court might get a "not guilty" verdict, as opposed to "innocent."
Did we learn nothing about the hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts about Allen's 18 yo's in a row? He is allowed to make that claim. People may say they don't believe it and certainly may comment on the odds of that. However, they may not say he is a liar or the claim is a lie/work of fiction.
It just shows the weakness of your rules. If I were the boss (you) I'd be nuking people "in the best interests of the forum". Since there is no rule that prevents the implausible claims.
But I'm obviously still here! It must be a flaw in ME, but I enjoy the 'implausible' threads.
Nice meter, RDW. I can sing your posts to the Gilligan's Island theme! Any chance you can start rhyming every other line?Quote: rdw4potusYes, why does bob get his own rules?
isn't toeing the line trolling
when it's done repeatedly, yes.
that's the definition, i think
he's done it for a decade here
but there's not punishment for him
I'd be banned if I did that, no?
what makes bob special to this site?
Is my claim outlandish to make?
I don't think it can be disprov'n
and any claim is now allowed
so this one too may stand its ground
but I'm sure some won't be happy
I wonder if I'll be jailed now
oh well! c'est la vie, mes amis.
Quote: JoemanNice meter, RDW. I can sing your posts to the Gilligan's Island theme! Any chance you can start rhyming every other line?
I'm torn! I think tetrameter
and pentameter both work validly
iams and trochees both work, too
couplets could be done as well, woo!
maybe a sonnet or cinquain
rhymes together or spaced, ok
gah! this format is so hard, man
how does bob make these small lines work?
Moves the ball with just his mind
Telekinesis
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandEB: Roulette God
*
Quote: SOOPOOMike, I'm sorry, but this means ANYONE can make ANY claim of a past event and there is NO way to prove it wrong enough for you to call the person a liar! As an example, I have slept with 20 Sports Illustrated super models, and it is because THEY sought me out! This was after Lebron James came to me and asked for advice on how to dunk more efficiently, which coincidentally coincided with me giving Tiger Woods putting lessons.
No one can 'prove' that the above is false, but anyone can prove 'beyond a REASONABLE doubt that it is false. I say MDawg's baccarat claims, and EB's roulette and baccarat claims are false, beyond a REASONABLE doubt. If it is good enough to send someone to jail for life, it should be good enough for WoV.
I’m calling you a liar, everyone knows it was only 19 supermodels and you’re Jewish so there is no way anyone is coming to you for sports help lol.
Quote: PokerGrinderI’m calling you a liar, everyone knows it was only 19 supermodels and you’re Jewish so there is no way anyone is coming to you for sports help lol.
I spit
my coke out now
all over my keyboard
you are an evil man, PG
Scott lies!
Quote: WizardFor what it's worth, he has been saying he can beat roulette and baccarat since almost the inception of this site in 2009. EB, correct me if I'm wrong. I honestly believe that he believes this.
This seems to be getting into some George Costanza "Its not a lie if you believe it" territory.
If Evenbob (just for example) believes he somehow was transported to Mars last night, and ate breakfast on the red Planet, viewing Earth tumble by, that doesn't make it true OR any less false. It would still be nonsense, alternative reality and there should be no penalty for saying so.
Quote: WizardYes, you're allowed to say all those things. What rule does it break?
it doesn't break any rules but you have the ability to change the rules if you see fit
elsewhere such claims are highlighted in yellow and thrown into a separate area called "the disadvantage forum"
I'm curious
what if instead of there being just a couple of geniuses here claiming they can beat house games with bet selection or other bogus money management methods -
𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 15 or 20 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮
would that still be perfectly okay with you?
*
I think the issue here is we are not allowed to insult other forum members.
You are taking the fact of an insult must be a "verbal" "physical" form i.e. "you are a dumbass" or "you are a liar".
Remember the scene in Godfather when confronting his brother in law Carlo. Michael wants the truth.
"Now don't insult my intelligence. Because that will make me really angry. So don't lie to me.". (I paraphrased that a bit so don't hold me to the quote)
This forum is populated by people who are having their intelligence insulted every time MDawg makes these claims that he flaunts but refuses to validate (pictures of a few watches means you have expensive taste but not that you can beat Baccarat)
So, there is the Crux. Our intelligence is being insulted!
We shouldn't have insults on this forum.
Stating that you can do mathematically impossible things (without proof to back it up) isn't opinion. It's plain insulting to anyone who believes in science and fact.
EDIT: And let me go out on a limb here because I know I feel this way. Your longtime forum members have some loyalty to you as an expert in this field. Our anger is also because we feel you and this forum are being insulted.
Quote: darkoz
(pictures of a few watches means you have expensive taste but not that you can beat Baccarat)
It is also a straight lie to state that
Quote: darkoz
MDawg makes these claims that he flaunts but refuses to validate
and to imply that claims are being made
Quote: darkoz
(without proof to back it up)
The watches or pictures of chips or cash are incidental to the trip reports. And then the proof (validation) posted to back up the trip reports are the win statements posted at the end of each year.
Unless someone is accusing me of lying or posting false evidence how does this sort of argument made by Darkoz not end here?
This post by DarkOz as far I may see breaks so many forum rules it’s risible – including unmasked profanity.
Quote: darkoz
dumbass
I think the main problem is that a few people are getting too excited over what my 2018 - 2020 trip reports MEAN. They mean, simply, that I have won in Vegas for a few years and have documented that with the win statements. For anyone to deny that is calling me a liar and poster of false evidence.
What's interesting is that all over the internet for example with the YouTubers who are selling systems and claim to beat the house, the universal derision they receive is along the lines of "you'll never see them post their win statements." Well, here's a guy who has posted his.
As far as I may see, the ones giving him the hardest time have never even played the game.
Only got twenty dollars in my pocket
I, I, I'm hunting, looking for a come-up
This is f****ing awesome.
Quote: AxelWolff****ing
More masked profanity. First day back, already breaking rules.