The Adventures of MDawg II

Why does anyone care if MDawg is lying about or covering up his losses? He's not trying to sell anything to anyone, or get anyone to join a cult. It would be different if he was making claims in order to scam people out of money or something, but from everything I've seen, he's just reporting his play. If he is refusing to disclose his losses, how does that affect you? What exactly would change around here if he suddenly admitted a bunch of losses?

Quote: Ace2

Quote: AlanMendelson

I believe Mdawg.

All it takes is one or two big bets to win $10k or more.

And I'm sure that's what happens: he quits when ahead, which makes no sense to those of you who follow math because you think it's one long session.
link to original post

Quit while you’re ahead is like the martingale “strategy”, which does not change the house edge

link to original post

Who said anything about changing the house edge?

Put away your maththink for a moment and realize that people can win -EV bets.

Win a few at $5,000 or $10,000 and you walk away with a profit.

I realize that doesnt fit your maththink but that's life in the real world.

How hard is it to get ahead 1000000 with a 1000 bankroll playing standard table limits (it happens, but rarely)?

How hard is it to get ahead 10000 with a 1000000 bankroll playing special table limits (can happen almost every session)?

Show me someone who claims to have won or lost “exactly what is expected” (via + or - EV) over a long period of time and I’ll be most likely looking at someone who doesn’t play at all and is making it all up or reading from a book. Much more likely is to end up at somewhere on either side of the theoretical curve. As well too, our lifetimes of gaming aren't really very long periods of time, and sessions are definitely not very long periods. Even all sessions for a given player combined aren't really all that long a period of time.

And it’s just as unlikely that the person who wins the superlotto will give it all back in his lifetime via lotto tickets as it is that a person who has had some huge wins - especially huge wins proportionate to his bankroll - will give it all back at table games. The lotto player isn’t going to start buying million dollar tickets any more than the million dollar table game winner is going to start risking millions per bet.

Some people think square and within only the square box which is why they can’t imagine anything happening other than within expectation or via something as square as martingale. There are a whole range of other plays and expectations.

Quote: MDawg

How hard is it to get ahead 1000000 with a 1000 bankroll playing standard table limits (it happens, but rarely)?

How hard is it to get ahead 10000 with a 1000000 bankroll playing special table limits (can happen almost every session)?

Show me someone who claims to have won or lost “exactly what is expected” (via + or - EV) over a long period of time and I’ll be most likely looking at someone who doesn’t play at all and is making it all up or reading from a book. Much more likely is to end up at somewhere on either side of the theoretical curve. As well too, our lifetimes of gaming aren't really very long periods of time, and sessions are definitely not very long periods. Even all sessions for a given player combined aren't really all that long a period of time.

And it’s just as unlikely that the person who wins the superlotto will give it all back in his lifetime via lotto tickets as it is that a person who has had some huge wins - especially huge wins proportionate to his bankroll - will give it all back at table games. The lotto player isn’t going to start buying million dollar tickets any more than the million dollar table game winner is going to start risking millions per bet.

Some people think square and within only the square box which is why they can’t imagine anything happening other than within expectation or via something as square as martingale. There are a whole range of other plays and expectations.
link to original post

This of course makes perfect sense.

Also, why does it not make sense that someone might be determined to lose it all and be able to lose it all. (The converse of that being that it should make sense that someone should be able to win if determined to walk a winner.)

For example one night I was playing a public Baccarat table and some kid came up and plunked 20K on Player. Fourteen Players in a row came up. I kept pressing my bet with each successive win, but that kid left the standard table limit up for the entire time, losing only on the last hand. The kid did better than I did! Along the way the kid wanted to switch to the Bank a couple times but I yelled, "No! you're not doing that" and the kid kept his bets on track. That's right, took 20K to 280K. But - the kid kept hanging around and a couple hours later was placing bets when the shoe had gone random and there were no streaks or runs. During all of that subsequent bad period I was just watching, not even betting. Kid actually said, more than once, "I just want to lose everything so I can go to bed." Well, guess what, the kid did lose everything! And you can't tell me that if the kid had not walked with 260K to the good that that would not have made a difference in that player's trip or over all gaming record.

I generally do get up and leave after extraordinary streaks or runs because - experience tells me that it just won't get better than that. And if a huge run comes and I did NOT make a lot, I will tend to get up and leave even faster, because it means that I am not playing right and need to reset because if I'm not winning a ton when it's good, how will I win anything when it's not that good? These sorts of strategies make sense in the real world.

Mdawg in the real world we know that quitting when ahead works and make sense. But they dont teach that in math class.

They teach it in business school.
Entrepreneurs know it.
Business people know it.
But mathematicians do not.

Plus, how else you gonna win if you don't leave when ahead? What if you leave when behind every time. 😅 It sounds silly, but there really are players including very high rollers who will not leave the casino or town until they have dropped whatever bankroll they have available, every time.

And Alan, your analogy with business is brilliant. The value of a company doesn't necessarily increase infinitely in dollars or forever in time. There just might be a best time to sell and move on. Just as Shakespeare wrote
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
so it is with gaming. The good times don't roll forever, but if you're able to walk at the height of the tide or at least something close to it more often than not, certainly this will add up to over all good fortune which might eclipse the bad times for you.

Quote: TigerWu

Why does anyone care if MDawg is lying about or covering up his losses?

I agree 100%

If you reread my recent post, I state that anything can happen in the short term. This is obvious but most of us, including/especially MDawg, are long term players. I think MDawg's posts are mostly based on truth or he has a vivid imagination. But I know they are not the whole truth because he never reports his losses (which exceed his wins).

I also like to quit when ahead but there are many trips to Vegas when I'm not ever ahead, at least not by a material amount. But let's say I'm in the middle of a great dice session, up $4000 over my buy-in, then I'd probably set a limit of $3000 meaning I will leave if my winnings drop to that amount. If I were to go up to $10,000 then my limit might be $8000. Sort of like adjusting up stop-losses as a stock price goes up.

I realize you two are math deniers and possibly flat earth believers, but here's a simple example anyway. Let's say you make 900 bets on the flip of a coin for $100 per flip. Even money payout so no house edge, which is better terms than you'll get in any casino. You will stop playing at a $1000 win or 900 bets, whichever comes first...

You will make the $1000 profit about 74% of the time and lose an average of $2,846 about 26% of the time for a net expectation of zero, which is the same expectation with no $1000 stopping point. The average standard deviation is (900 * 2/π)^.5 * $100 =~ $2400, meaning your average result (with no stopping point) is a $2,400 win or loss. 74% sounds good but remember: by stopping at a $1000 win you are very often cutting off what would have been a much larger win.

Quote: Ace2

I realize you two are math deniers and possibly flat earth believers,
link to original post

Why are you insulting me?

Years ago I interviewed a gaming author who said 99% of Vegas visitors are ahead at some point during their stay, but 99% leave without a profit. I believe that.

Quitting when ahead violates nothing about math.

I look forward to discussing the idea of adding up wins... but without your insults.

By the way... there is a principle known as setting a stop loss. It doesnt violate math either.

Quote: Ace2

If you reread my recent post, I state that anything can happen in the short term. This is obvious but most of us, including/especially MDawg, are long term players. I think MDawg's posts are mostly based on truth or he has a vivid imagination. But I know they are not the whole truth because he never reports his losses (which exceed his wins).

I also like to quit when ahead but there are many trips to Vegas when I'm not ever ahead, at least not by a material amount. But let's say I'm in the middle of a great dice session, up $4000 over my buy-in, then I'd probably set a limit of $3000 meaning I will leave if my winnings drop to that amount. If I were to go up to $10,000 then my limit might be $8000. Sort of like adjusting up stop-losses as a stock price goes up.

I realize you two are math deniers and possibly flat earth believers, but here's a simple example anyway. Let's say you make 900 bets on the flip of a coin for $100 per flip. Even money payout so no house edge, which is better terms than you'll get in any casino. You will stop playing at a $1000 win or 900 bets, whichever comes first...

You will make the $1000 profit about 74% of the time and lose an average of $2,846 about 26% of the time for a net expectation of zero, which is the same expectation with no $1000 stopping point. The average standard deviation is (900 * 2/π)^.5 * $100 =~ $2400, meaning your average result (with no stopping point) is a $2,400 win or loss. 74% sounds good but remember: by stopping at a $1000 win you are very often cutting off what would have been a much larger win.
link to original post

Why do mathletes always (not really, but it seems that way) use coin flipping to try and make their point? Instead Mr. Ace how about using the PL bet for your extreme exercise? You know win one, lose one, win two, lose one, etc. The last part of the last sentence is conjecture. The truth is stopping at a $1000 win IS a $1,000 win.

tuttigym

Quote: Ace2

If you reread my recent post, I state that anything can happen in the short term. This is obvious but most of us, including/especially MDawg, are long term players.

MDawg disputes your assertion here...

Quote: MDawg

our lifetimes of gaming aren't really very long periods of time, and sessions are definitely not very long periods. Even all sessions for a given player combined aren't really all that long a period of time.

Quote: Ace2

I think MDawg's posts are mostly based on truth or he has a vivid imagination. But I know they are not the whole truth because he never reports his losses (which exceed his wins).

It's clear that MDawg reports losses...

Quote: MDawg

Day 3 play.
Baccarat.
-38000

Are you claiming (above) that MDawg never reports losses that exceed his wins (such that he is never down overall after a reported loss), or are you claiming that he never reports losses, period, but you know that his total losses exceed his total wins?

In either case, you are implying that MDawg is not being truthful in his trip reporting.

Quote: MDawg

in any case there is no fiction in The Adventures of MDawg

Why not accept his challenge, and prove what you claim is fact, and what MDawg claims is not?

Quote: MDawg

I'm willing to present a side Challenge. If anyone doubts that any one, just any one of the Session reports I present during this trip is not entirely accurate, throw down a red flag! Put up a mere ten grand in cash, let's work out how to verify the Session to your satisfaction using the Wizard as the judge, and winner takes the twenty thousand.

I'll contribute five hundred from my end for the Wizard's time if the Challenger will do the same, so that's $19,000. to the winner of this side Challenge.

There doesn't seem to be any risk if you can't agree on how he can verify the session to your satisfaction.

Quote: tuttigym

Why do mathletes always (not really, but it seems that way) use coin flipping to try and make their point? Instead Mr. Ace how about using the PL bet for your extreme exercise? You know win one, lose one, win two, lose one, etc. The last part of the last sentence is conjecture. The truth is stopping at a $1000 win IS a $1,000 win.

tuttigym
link to original post

Because so many bets are very similar to a coin flip. Like PL with 49.3% chance of wining vs 50% chance. Both even-money.

Baccarat is also very close to a coin flip.

Coin flips are easier to understand for people at a 4th grade arithmetic level

MIT has done actual studies about gambling. Among the findings: dice are more likely to stop on the table showing the top faces when they were thrown. This flies in the face of those claiming DI doesnt work.

MIT also found that coins will land tails up because the heads side is heavier. So it is with Super Bowl coin tosses.

Quote: Ace

Because so many bets are very similar to a coin flip. Like PL with 49.3% chance of wining vs 50% chance. Both even-money.

Baccarat is also very close to a coin flip.

Coin flips are easier to understand for people at a 4th grade arithmetic level
link to original post

Perhaps, but I would venture that the vast majority of wagers are NOT 50/50 including the PL as you demonstrate above. And 4th grade arithmetic is totally understandable, extremely simple, and never confusing to the point that it reflects reality at the tables whereas your mathematical gymnastics with algebraic formulas and standard deviations cannot be performed at the tables nor related to actual play.

tuttigym

Quote: AlanMendelson

MIT has done actual studies about gambling. Among the findings: dice are more likely to stop on the table showing the top faces when they were thrown. This flies in the face of those claiming DI doesnt work.

MIT also found that coins will land tails up because the heads side is heavier. So it is with Super Bowl coin tosses.
link to original post

Link us the dice study and the narrative showing the data and results.

tuttigym

I started a new thread with a link.

Quote: AlanMendelson

MIT has done actual studies about gambling. Among the findings: dice are more likely to stop on the table showing the top faces when they were thrown. This flies in the face of those claiming DI doesnt work.

MIT also found that coins will land tails up because the heads side is heavier. So it is with Super Bowl coin tosses.
link to original post

The NFL uses tokens, not coins and I don't see any reason why both sides can't weigh the same. Is there one?

Quote: AlanMendelson

MIT has done actual studies about gambling. Among the findings: dice are more likely to stop on the table showing the top faces when they were thrown. This flies in the face of those claiming DI doesnt work.

MIT also found that coins will land tails up because the heads side is heavier. So it is with Super Bowl coin tosses.
link to original post

The NFL uses tokens, not coins and I don't see any reason why both sides can't weigh the same. Is there one?

Quote: billryan

Quote: AlanMendelson

MIT has done actual studies about gambling. Among the findings: dice are more likely to stop on the table showing the top faces when they were thrown. This flies in the face of those claiming DI doesnt work.

MIT also found that coins will land tails up because the heads side is heavier. So it is with Super Bowl coin tosses.
link to original post

The NFL uses tokens, not coins and I don't see any reason why both sides can't weigh the same. Is there one?
link to original post

The way coins are designed... and the Super Bowl coins use this same design... heads or obverse sides contain portraits or larger images which have more weight.

If I were still a news reporter I'd buy ten of the official coins (they are sold to the public) and I'd have them analyzed by a lab.

The Highland Mint makes them. The NFL sells them online.

Quote: tuttigym

Perhaps, but I would venture that the vast majority of wagers are NOT 50/50 including the PL as you demonstrate above. And 4th grade arithmetic is totally understandable, extremely simple, and never confusing to the point that it reflects reality at the tables whereas your mathematical gymnastics with algebraic formulas and standard deviations cannot be performed at the tables nor related to actual play.

tuttigym
link to original post

That's right, I almost forgot...stuff like house edge and standard deviation don't actually apply to table games.

The actual results with mainline gamblers usually don't reflect the tiny house edge. I'd say that many big table game players just get blown out consistently. I know why this happens but trying to explain it to those who don't play at that level or observe that level of action regularly is a waste of time.

I am sure someone like Alan who plays table games and observes high rollers regularly understands what I am saying.

The house edge could be eliminated and almost all high rollers would keep playing the way they play and their end results would vary very little, definitely not in line with the elimination of that tiny percentage. The guys who would swoop in to try to take advantage of no house edge games are not high rollers and probably never will be.

Quote: MDawg

The actual results with mainline gamblers usually don't reflect the tiny house edge. I'd say that many big table game players just get blown out consistently. I know why this happens but trying to explain it to those who don't play at that level or observe that level of action regularly is a waste of time.

I am sure someone like Alan who plays table games and observes high rollers understands what I am saying.

The house edge could be eliminated and almost all high rollers would keep playing the way they play and their end results would vary very little, definitely not in line with the elimination of that tiny percentage. The guys who would swoop in to try to take advantage of no house edge games are not high rollers and probably will never be.
link to original post

Yes. I understand it. The house edge on the passline might be 1.4 percent but when you have $5000 on the passline you lose all of it --- not 1.4% of it.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: billryan

Quote: AlanMendelson

MIT has done actual studies about gambling. Among the findings: dice are more likely to stop on the table showing the top faces when they were thrown. This flies in the face of those claiming DI doesnt work.

MIT also found that coins will land tails up because the heads side is heavier. So it is with Super Bowl coin tosses.
link to original post

The NFL uses tokens, not coins and I don't see any reason why both sides can't weigh the same. Is there one?
link to original post

The way coins are designed... and the Super Bowl coins use this same design... heads or obverse sides contain portraits or larger images which have more weight.

If I were still a news reporter I'd buy ten of the official coins (they are sold to the public) and I'd have them analyzed by a lab.

The Highland Mint makes them. The NFL sells them online.
link to original post

As I understood it, the coins are made in such a way that the referee decides which side is heads and it is a game-day decision.
When I first moved to Vegas, I was surprised by how many of these I found. It seemed like every bankrupt collector had a couple of the more limited ones.

Quote: billryan

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: billryan

Quote: AlanMendelson

MIT has done actual studies about gambling. Among the findings: dice are more likely to stop on the table showing the top faces when they were thrown. This flies in the face of those claiming DI doesnt work.

MIT also found that coins will land tails up because the heads side is heavier. So it is with Super Bowl coin tosses.
link to original post

The NFL uses tokens, not coins and I don't see any reason why both sides can't weigh the same. Is there one?
link to original post

The way coins are designed... and the Super Bowl coins use this same design... heads or obverse sides contain portraits or larger images which have more weight.

If I were still a news reporter I'd buy ten of the official coins (they are sold to the public) and I'd have them analyzed by a lab.

The Highland Mint makes them. The NFL sells them online.
link to original post

As I understood it, the coins are made in such a way that the referee decides which side is heads and it is a game-day decision.
When I first moved to Vegas, I was surprised by how many of these I found. It seemed like every bankrupt collector had a couple of the more limited ones.
link to original post

The Super Bowl coins are clearly marked with a heads and tails (obverse / reverse) on NFL.com and the obv/rev designations have never changed.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Years ago I interviewed a gaming author who said 99% of Vegas visitors are ahead at some point during their stay, but 99% leave without a profit. I believe that.

I would imagine that is close to the truth as well. If I go to Vegas, sit down at a quarter JoB, and hit two pair on my first hand, I'd be up $1.25 for the trip (Or hopefully up 25c plus a drink!), but "quitting while I'm ahead" at this point wouldn't make much sense to me.

Quote:

Quitting when ahead violates nothing about math.

True, but I think we need to define "quitting when ahead." While I can stop gambling while I am ahead for a given trip (which has happened on my last 3 Vegas trips! Woot!), I know I'll be back. So, in reality, I have quit nothing.

"Quitting while ahead" for the night or the trip can often be a good thing. It preserves your bankroll, and in many cases, shows self-mastery. But I don't think this is an overall winning strategy. The more trips I take to the casino, the less likely it will be that I am "ahead" overall. After 30+ years of recreational casino gambling, I can pretty much guarantee that I will never have the opportunity to quit while I am ahead for the rest of my life.

Oddly, enough, I believe Mrs. Joeman may actually be ahead, lifetime, in casinos. We haven't kept records, but she doesn't gamble much at all and had never set foot in a casino before we were married. On our trip last December, she hit an $1100+ royal, using MyVegas freeplay, no less! Without my influence, I think she would be content to never play in a casino again, thus truly "quitting while she is ahead!"

Quote: Ace2

That's right, I almost forgot...stuff like house edge and standard deviation don't actually apply to table games.
link to original post

So when you are belly up to the table and chips are flying all over the place and the action is fast and furious, you personally are contemplating HE/SD? Or are you placing bets and trying to keep up with the action? You have played enough to witness the real house edge which is players making unsustainable overall play, losing, and trying to "catch up." Then there comes the occasional "hot" shooter which makes it all go away. So while you continue to tout the unrealistic "math" with those unrealistic HE/HA numbers and the unrealistic standard deviations, I will continue to tout my very appropriate and real 4th grade arithmetic that is useful, simple, and understandable.

tuttigym

Joeman if that first hand at video poker was on a $500 machine and you were paid $1000 or $1500 for three of a kind, would you quit then?

If Mr Mdawg plays only two hands at $5000 per hand and wins both hands and quits for the day, is he not a winner?

Ace2, I'm not exactly sure who or what you're arguing against... No one here is taking up a position contrary to the fact that mathematics and the house edge are inviolable.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Joeman if that first hand at video poker was on a $500 machine and you were paid $1000 or $1500 for three of a kind, would you quit then?

Interesting question. $500 is usually around my daily bankroll. If I did throw caution to the wind and make that play (and win), I'd probably continue to play, but back down at my usual stakes. There is also a chance I would play one more $500 hand (or four $125 hands) to see if I could hit a bigger payout.

Quote:

If Mr Mdawg plays only two hands at $5000 per hand and wins both hands and quits for the day, is he not a winner?

He is certainly a winner for that day. Whether that makes him a lifetime winner, who knows (aside from MDawg himself, and possibly his accountant)?

Joeman it's all about winning one bet at a time and one day at a time.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: MDawg

The actual results with mainline gamblers usually don't reflect the tiny house edge. I'd say that many big table game players just get blown out consistently. I know why this happens but trying to explain it to those who don't play at that level or observe that level of action regularly is a waste of time.

I am sure someone like Alan who plays table games and observes high rollers understands what I am saying.

The house edge could be eliminated and almost all high rollers would keep playing the way they play and their end results would vary very little, definitely not in line with the elimination of that tiny percentage. The guys who would swoop in to try to take advantage of no house edge games are not high rollers and probably will never be.
link to original post

Yes. I understand it. The house edge on the passline might be 1.4 percent but when you have $5000 on the passline you lose all of it --- not 1.4% of it.
link to original post

That's true but does anyone go to Vegas, make one bet for $5000, and then go home? Most of us make hundreds of bets per day, to which house edge and standard deviation do apply

Quote: tuttigym

So when you are belly up to the table and chips are flying all over the place and the action is fast and furious, you personally are contemplating HE/SD?
link to original post

No, but before I go to Vegas, I do calculate the HE/SD on my level of play. This is how you size your bet amount and bankroll. SD is the important factor since HE is just a small fraction of it

The difference is I'm more of a long term thinker and you aren't thinking past the next roll

Quote: Ace2

That's true but does anyone go to Vegas, make one bet for $5000, and then go home?
link to original post

That one guy sold everything he owned, went to Vegas, bet like $150,000 on one spin of Roulette, won, then left.

Stuff like that probably happens all the time, though maybe not at that level. A friend of mine went to Vegas, walked up to a Roulette table literally within minutes of getting to the hotel, made ONE bet for $20 or $25 on a number straight up, WON, then cashed out and didn't gamble again for the rest of the trip.

Quote: MDawg

How hard is it to get ahead 1000000 with a 1000 bankroll playing standard table limits (it happens, but rarely)?

How hard is it to get ahead 10000 with a 1000000 bankroll playing special table limits (can happen almost every session)?
link to original post

If you agree with the above, then you may also understand that it gets statistically less likely to break even the more one is in the hole.

And therein lies one of the obstacles a lot of players, especially many of the high rollers I observe, face at the tables. As they get in the hole, they adopt a "break even or bust" attitude and are unwilling to walk with what might be a nice session win, because they want it all back at once. And then as they get more and more in the hole, the odds of coming back entirely diminish, both because of the ever increasing sum that needs to be recouped, and because the bankroll is diminishing while the max bet remains the same. And even if they replenish their bankrolls, they come back on the next trip determined to win back every penny they lost in the prior trip(s).

If players always just played to see "what might be" every session, then yes I could see the house edge becoming an issue. But if a player is determined to keep playing the chances that a bust out will happen increase with greater exposure as losses are chased. And it is these repeated massive bust outs, these black holes that players fall into, that give the casino a nice pile of cash. The big Bacc player with a $20M line who keeps dumping $20M trip after trip bolsters the casino's bottom line significantly more than the Bacc player who sits there flat betting only Bank and possibly dropping the house edge. In short, if you believe that it is possible to refuse to get up off the table until you've lost it all then you have to accept that it is possible to get off the table when you're ahead. You just can't explain these Bacc players who dump their entire big bankrolls every single trip because of the house edge. Those same players could be playing a Bacc table with 2.8% or whatever commission on the Bank and they'd still get blown out trip after trip.

Conversely, a player like me wins trip after trip and if you reduced the commission to 2.8% I wouldn't take home any more or less, I might just get to my session goals an insignificant amount of time faster is all.

And as well, the difference between a random coin toss and a Bacc table is that if I walk up to a Bacc table that has a 10 or more run in it, guaranteed I am walking ahead a very solid amount. Guaranteed. I wouldn't waste my time with a coin toss, but - if You set up a Bacc table for me with a good run in it I will bet you my entire Vegas bankroll which is staggering - that I will walk from that table with a lot. Conversely, you set up a Bacc table with a crappy random no runs in it situation, and I guarantee I will leave that table without losing too much especially compared to what I will take on the good table.

Lots of times I walk up to public Bacc tables and look at the screen and question the player at the table with something like, "That looks like a tough shoe," and invariably the player will comment about having lost a lot on that shoe. So, bad shoes do tend to kick players' arses pretty universally. On the other hand if I walk up to a table and there is a sixteen Bank run on it and the player didn't win a gang of loot, then I know that player will never be able to win at Baccarat.

Quote: TigerWu

Quote: Ace2

That's true but does anyone go to Vegas, make one bet for $5000, and then go home?
link to original post

That one guy sold everything he owned, went to Vegas, bet like $150,000 on one spin of Roulette, won, then left.

Stuff like that probably happens all the time, though maybe not at that level. A friend of mine went to Vegas, walked up to a Roulette table literally within minutes of getting to the hotel, made ONE bet for $20 or $25 on a number straight up, WON, then cashed out and didn't gamble again for the rest of the trip.
link to original post

Won and done sounds like a great system.
I heartily applaud those who can enact it.

Most of us, I think, don't have $5,000 for one bet.

We might have $1,000 or $2,000 and hope to make small bets that would add up to a $5000.

If I had the money to make a $5000 bet, I just might take one win and then enjoy the rest of the weekend.

I have quit for the weekend after hitting a royal.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Most of us, I think, don't have $5,000 for one bet.

We might have $1,000 or $2,000 and hope to make small bets that would add up to a $5000.

If I had the money to make a $5000 bet, I just might take one win and then enjoy the rest of the weekend.

I have quit for the weekend after hitting a royal.
link to original post

Maybe you just need to prioritize better. Don't worry about rent/mortgage, food, gas, etc. Take every last dollar in your name and make one bet. It doesn't matter if it is $5000 or more, be a gambler and get that excitement.

Alan, between Baccarat and Craps one reason I prefer Baccarat is that once the shoe is cut whatever comes from it is set. If there is a sixteen Bank run in it, it will come my way. Nothing may change that.

Quote: MDawg

Alan, between Baccarat and Craps one reason I prefer Baccarat is that once the shoe is cut whatever comes from it is set. If there is a sixteen Bank run in it, it will come my way. Nothing may change that.
link to original post

Absolutely true. I only wish I had ESP to know which cards were coming next.

You don't need ESP. Win a hand, press. Win another hand, press more. The more you win in a row the more you get. In a streaky game like Baccarat if you can't win a grip off a long run you'll never get anywhere. And as long as you win two in a row you will at least break even. You don't press all the time, but there are ways to know when to bet more. I have total control over the cards at my private tables.

Quote: MDawg

Win a hand, press. Win another hand, press more. The more you win in a row the more you get. In a streaky game like Baccarat if you can't win a grip off a long run you'll never get anywhere.

And your detractors continue to insist that you've never explained your playing strategy, and that you've been hiding something, or have been lying.

As well, the Wizard himself has posted at this forum either in agreement with the figure posted by someone else or his own independent percentage figure of what percentage of Vegas visitors are ahead at some point during their trips. I recall that figure posted as being around 90%.

Still looking for the more recent post where the around 90% figure was offered, but here, the Wizard "hazards a guess" that the figure [apparently from the UNLV Gaming Dept.] "would be higher than 70%."

Okay, here 'tis:

Quote: MDawg

You don't need ESP. Win a hand, press. Win another hand, press more. The more you win in a row the more you get. In a streaky game like Baccarat if you can't win a grip off a long run you'll never get anywhere. And as long as you win two in a row you will at least break even. You don't press all the time, but there are ways to know when to bet more. I have total control over the cards at my private tables.
link to original post

First off, I find this thread interesting, entertaining etc, and I believe that you are posting accurate info for the day /session reports.

But I was interested in how do you know when to "press"? (I would understand if you don't want to answer this question, especially if you have already answered it or similar questions before).

Also, my other (more important) question is, what hypothetical^^^ odds would be the cut off point for you to start or stop playing baccarat, mainly because you wouldn't be able to win enough in the "streaks"?

^^^: For example you may be able to work out from your play (past results) that $1.85 for banker and $1.90 for player would the minimum odds you would need to still make a profit (or at least "break-even").

----
Lastly, I haven't read all your session reports, so I don't even know if you are winning at the tables, but I hope you are (if not before than at least after you add any casino incentives/bonuses).

Whenever quitting when ahead is mentioned I see a comment like this:

"My personal opinion is that you can't quit your way to an advantage because mathematically the losing sessions will outweigh the winners."

Folks, for the umpteenth time, quitting when ahead has nothing to do about changing any mathematical advantage or disadvantage.

It's only about taking the money and putting it in your pocket

The math of the game doesnt change.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Whenever quitting when ahead is mentioned I see a comment like this:

"My personal opinion is that you can't quit your way to an advantage because mathematically the losing sessions will outweigh the winners."

Folks, for the umpteenth time, quitting when ahead has nothing to do about changing any mathematical advantage or disadvantage.

It's only about taking the money and putting it in your pocket

The math of the game doesnt change.
link to original post

IF it is a losing game and if the math doesn't change.....it will still be a losing game no matter whether you quit when you are ahead or not. Like you said Alan it DOESN'T change the math.

If you go to the casino and don't ever get ahead, when do you quit?

Quote: AlanMendelson

Whenever quitting when ahead is mentioned I see a comment like this:

"My personal opinion is that you can't quit your way to an advantage because mathematically the losing sessions will outweigh the winners."

Folks, for the umpteenth time, quitting when ahead has nothing to do about changing any mathematical advantage or disadvantage.

It's only about taking the money and putting it in your pocket

The math of the game doesnt change.

Also for the upteenth time: If someone makes 1,000,000 bets with a house edge of x, his loss will be VERY close to x * 1,000,000 * bet amount. If someone plays 1,000 sessions and plays each session until he reaches a certain profit level or 1,000 bets, whichever comes first, his loss will be VERY close x * 1,000,000 * bet amount. No matter how he plays, he will lose x in the long run

And many regular players will make a million or more bets during their lifetime, so this is not just theoretical

Quote: vegas

Quote: AlanMendelson

Whenever quitting when ahead is mentioned I see a comment like this:

"My personal opinion is that you can't quit your way to an advantage because mathematically the losing sessions will outweigh the winners."

Folks, for the umpteenth time, quitting when ahead has nothing to do about changing any mathematical advantage or disadvantage.

It's only about taking the money and putting it in your pocket

The math of the game doesnt change.
link to original post

IF it is a losing game and if the math doesn't change.....it will still be a losing game no matter whether you quit when you are ahead or not. Like you said Alan it DOESN'T change the math.

If you go to the casino and don't ever get ahead, when do you quit?
link to original post

You quit when you want to.

Quote: Ace2

Quote: AlanMendelson

Whenever quitting when ahead is mentioned I see a comment like this:

"My personal opinion is that you can't quit your way to an advantage because mathematically the losing sessions will outweigh the winners."

Folks, for the umpteenth time, quitting when ahead has nothing to do about changing any mathematical advantage or disadvantage.

It's only about taking the money and putting it in your pocket

The math of the game doesnt change.

Also for the upteenth time: If someone makes 1,000,000 bets with a house edge of x, his loss will be VERY close to x * 1,000,000 * bet amount. If someone plays 1,000 sessions and plays each session until he reaches a certain profit level or 1,000 bets, whichever comes first, his loss will be VERY close x * 1,000,000 * bet amount. No matter how he plays, he will lose x in the long run

And many regular players will make a million or more bets during their lifetime, so this is not just theoretical
link to original post

Okay. That's exactly how casinos look at it and why they tolerate winners. The casinos have an overall edge.

And some people will win and many people will lose.

That's the bottom line.

Are we done now with quitting when ahead, stop losses, loss limits, win goals, etc.?