The Adventures of MDawg II
Quote: MDawgDay 43 play.
Baccarat.
One of my Best. Sessions. Ever.
(Did take some time.)
+226000
One of your "best sessions"? What, pray tell, was your BEST session?
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigym
Again, MDawg: Are the winnings deposited in an off-shore account or will you be notifying the IRS of your windfall?
tuttigym
link to original post
Offshore account is a non issue. The money was won in a US casino, right?
Of course he has till the end of the year to lose it back, break even, and have zero tax liability.
On the Day 44 session I dumped around -60K, got it back, and then left pretty much immediately.
I haven't even cashed the chips from the Day 43 session yet. To do so would result in temp closure of my credit line at that particular casino (not that I need it, I could just play with my own funds by redepositing them at the cage, but I am and always have been a credit line player). Some casinos don't care and allow me to cash whatever and do not temp close my line. Others will temp close it for a win above about $50K, and some will temp close it for a win anywhere above $5K. Temp closure is 3-7 days.
One factor when it comes to temp closure is that a relatively large line or funds on deposit must be available to justify the private table and higher betting limits. And along with those private tables depending on the game might come better player advantage rules. 😉
There is really no such thing as mid shoe entry at a private Blackjack table, because there is only one player.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: tuttigym
Again, MDawg: Are the winnings deposited in an off-shore account or will you be notifying the IRS of your windfall?
tuttigym
link to original post
Offshore account is a non issue. The money was won in a US casino, right?
So what? $$$ are often unloaded to offshore accounts from various sources. Ever heard of the Caymans or Swiss banking systems?
Why do you continuously answer questions meant for others? Let them answer, and if you have to concur, do so, or if you have an additional comment to that answer, do so. Otherwise,............
tuttigym
Quote: MDawgI haven't even cashed the chips from the Day 43 session yet.
To do so would result in temp closure of my credit line at that particular casino (not that I need it, I could just play with my own funds by redepositing them at the cage,
Wait a minute here, before, talking about your "challenge" verification, you told us that the chip count at the table would be a method of verification of your winnings and that there is an accurate accounting. How can that possibly be the case when you are taking thousands of $$ of chips away in your pocket then playing them again at another session or holding them to deposit at the cage at another time. Man, you are all over the place. I do not see a whole lot of consistency here.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: tuttigym
Again, MDawg: Are the winnings deposited in an off-shore account or will you be notifying the IRS of your windfall?
tuttigym
link to original post
Offshore account is a non issue. The money was won in a US casino, right?
So what? $$$ are often unloaded to offshore accounts from various sources. Ever heard of the Caymans or Swiss banking systems?
Why do you continuously answer questions meant for others? Let them answer, and if you have to concur, do so, or if you have an additional comment to that answer, do so. Otherwise,............
tuttigym
link to original post
I didn't know this was a private conversation.
Private conversations are typically held vis private messaging.
🤪 There is no mechanism to "deposit" chips to the cage at the table 🥴 nor would it be necessary to do so, if it were possible, to ensure any sort of accurate win/loss count.
As far as removing chips during the session (prior to its conclusion): I think we still have a number of people who don't understand that removing chips from the table at any point does not necessarily affect the win/loss tally at a public table and certainly does not affect it whatsoever at a private table.
Quote: MDawgNone of that affects the accuracy of the win loss at a private table with only one player. The rack is counted before and after the session, and provides an exact tally for the win or loss. That's all that matters for purposes of my "Challenge."
link to original post
At the conclusion of one of my sessions whatever MY private table is missing is what I won. As far as what I do with the chips, take them with me, leave them behind by mistake, give them all to the dealer as a tip or have Sharon Stone throw them up in the air, the win/loss tally will not be affected.
Also for example at a public table the other day I saw this player win over 100K on a Baccarat Bank run and he handed his wife four $25K chips and told her to hold on to them. You think the pit boss lost track of that at the tally done at the end? Give me a break. At high limit tables the pit bosses have the tray counted exactly every time a player leaves.
Quote: MDawgDay 43 play.
Baccarat.
One of my Best. Sessions. Ever.
(Did take some time.)
+226000
link to original post
Congratulations on the big win! The way I read the rules of the Side Challenge is this could have happened anytime in the last 43 days. You made this claim on June 28, that would mean this lucky day was on May 16 or later. Would you agree?
That exact number was the win for that day. It represented more than one session, including a dinner break, but most of the win was during a single continuous session.
You taking me up on the Challenge Wizard? 🥹
Quote: AlanMendelsonI didn't know this was a private conversation.
Private conversations are typically held vis private messaging.
For me, common courtesy would dictate that any question asked of a specific party be answered by that party. I am quite confident that if someone were to butt in front of you in a line waiting to get a dinner table, you would take exception. Answering my question of another party is butting in line, and I take exception.
tuttigym
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.
This Side Challenge remains good for the duration of this particular Vegas trip.
link to original post
This side challenge interests the pedant in me......
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doubt
"Doubt."
Does MDawg mean "To call into question"? To do so might imply a potentially insulting accusation of dishonesty.
Does MDawg mean "To lack confidence in"? I think it's reasonable and not insulting for one anonymous forum member to "lack confidence in" any report of an unwitnessed event being reported by another anonymous member.
Not that I'M implying any doubt, nor lack of accuracy in those reports.
I perceive a tri-state set of outcomes from the challenge. Four state if we count a failure to agree terms
.
Mdawg fails to prove the report is true, Challenger fails to prove the report is untrue. NOT mutually exclusive outcomes. Indeed For Mdawg to prove something true might be possible, but for the challenger to prove untruth seems impossible.
E.g MDawg COULD prove he has $226,000 on his person. But he might choose not to prove it if the onus is on the challenger to disprove. Nobody could prove he doesn't without strip searching him. And if strip searching was out of scope, we would have an impasse.
Back to the challenge.
What if the reported won amount is out by a dollar?
For MDawg to win, does the challenger have to prove that the session report is not entirely accurate?
Or does MDawg have to prove that the session report IS accurate, to the satisfaction of the challenger?
Or to the satisfaction of Wizard? What if Wizard expresses satisfaction, but the challenger doesn't.?
What if Wizard's determination is indeterminate? Would that be a failure of MDawg to prove, or a failure of Challenger to disprove? And who bags to 'winnings' then?
Meanwhile, I reserve the right to doubt anything I wish to doubt. Without having to throw down any colour of flag or commit any funds to anybody.
I'm not aware of any challenger. I'm just expressing interest in how the challenge should be interpreted.Quote: MDawgIs Wizard the Challenger or OnceDear?
link to original post
Quote: tuttigymQuote: AlanMendelsonI didn't know this was a private conversation.
Private conversations are typically held vis private messaging.
For me, common courtesy would dictate that any question asked of a specific party be answered by that party. I am quite confident that if someone were to butt in front of you in a line waiting to get a dinner table, you would take exception. Answering my question of another party is butting in line, and I take exception.
tuttigym
link to original post
Is this a forum or an extension of your private messaging?
Obviously I'm wrong. This is an extension of your private messaging.
So I will now stop reading everything you post. I never want to cross your line again.
An even bigger not session but trip win, from many years ago, derived from under a couple thousand dollars.
It just goes to prove that sometimes when you're winning, you don't need much money. But when you're losing, sometimes there's not enough money to stem the loss. In other words, when you're on a losing streak better to NOT have much in front of you or available to you.
Quote: MDawgWhat's remarkable about the Day 43 win is that it all came from 25000. Yes, I had more than that available to me but it all derived from that single chip.
An even bigger not session but trip win, from many years ago, derived from under a couple thousand dollars.
It just goes to prove that sometimes when you're winning, you don't need much money. But when you're losing, sometimes there's not enough money to stem the loss. In other words, when you're on a losing streak better to NOT have much in front of you or available to you.
link to original post
I have trouble visualizing this achievement. This is why watching someone win $600 on YouTube is more interesting.
Your descriptions have become trite.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MDawgWhat's remarkable about the Day 43 win is that it all came from 25000. Yes, I had more than that available to me but it all derived from that single chip.
An even bigger not session but trip win, from many years ago, derived from under a couple thousand dollars.
It just goes to prove that sometimes when you're winning, you don't need much money. But when you're losing, sometimes there's not enough money to stem the loss. In other words, when you're on a losing streak better to NOT have much in front of you or available to you.
link to original post
I have trouble visualizing this achievement. This is why watching someone win $600 on YouTube is more interesting.
Your descriptions have become trite.
link to original post
To be interesting a narrative has to flow with beginning middle and end.
During my Golden Nugget vs. Darkoz tale you kept asking to get to the conclusion because you were anxious to find out how it ended.
This is the opposite. You are being given the ending with no beginning or middle.
"Today I won thousands.".
Or as my Grandpa used to do when I asked him to tell me a bedtime story and he was being lazy, it would go like this:
"Once upon a time... The end!"
According to the challenge the wizard has the final say who is right or wrong so I wonder who will win lol.Quote: MDawgThanks! and, Yes correct. This was a big win and the crew was still talking about it the day after I went back into that pit. One of them even recollected the exact amount from the main session because while I was pushing towards it I kept counting and recounting my chips and remarking about how I wanted to hit a certain exact number, which I eventually did.
That exact number was the win for that day. It represented more than one session, including a dinner break, but most of the win was during a single continuous session.
You taking me up on the Challenge Wizard? 🥹
link to original post
No disrespect but according to the rules of YOUR challenge this would be a no brainer. Congratulations on the big win. Quite a roller coaster lately for you
Baccarat.
Messed up, I got back to even from around a minus 50K loss, kept playing after a break and dumped quite a lot.
This would be the end of trip might just ride comps for a while and enjoy. Don't want to start dumping again it's no fun. Big wins sometimes lead to big expectations that may lead to big losses.
Not happy about this mess up.
-85000
Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.
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.
This Side Challenge remains good for the duration of this particular Vegas trip.
Just takes up a lot of energy for something where I don't really need the money and I'm just putting it away. It does detract from real life for something that is meant to be just a side hobby entertainment that happens to be profitable.
Whether it's time to take a long break or a short one, it is time to take...a break!
🙃
Quote: MDawgThanks! and, Yes correct. This was a big win and the crew was still talking about it the day after I went back into that pit. One of them even recollected the exact amount from the main session because while I was pushing towards it I kept counting and recounting my chips and remarking about how I wanted to hit a certain exact number, which I eventually did.
That exact number was the win for that day. It represented more than one session, including a dinner break, but most of the win was during a single continuous session.
You taking me up on the Challenge Wizard? 🥹
link to original post
Hypothetically speaking, if you were challenged on the this particular day, what would you submit as evidence? I assume the net win at least all happened at the same casino.
Quote: MDawgI was in a bit of a rush earlier so it didn't occur to me that probably the Wizard was just clarifying something as to when this win must have occurred, as obviously he can't be the judge of a wager in which he is involved.
link to original post
Not necessarily true. My friends trust me to be the arbiter of many bets between us. We often have a myriad of (very small!) bets going on the golf course. Yesterday, for example, I owed Andy $.50. As per our usual rules there is no payment made if the sum is less than $1. I had to make an 8 foot putt on the last hole or I would have had to pay him a $1.
Quote: Wizard
Hypothetically speaking, if you were challenged on the this particular day, what would you submit as evidence?
link to original post
that is no problem at all - no worries
his wife can corroborate the details of his big win
after she corroborates - then you hand over $10K and the matter is settled
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: Wizard
Hypothetically speaking, if you were challenged on the this particular day, what would you submit as evidence?
link to original post
that is no problem at all - no worries
his wife can corroborate the details of his big win
after she corroborates - then you hand over $10K and the matter is settled
.
link to original post
I thought he was just going to submit pictures of expensive watches that have inlaid gold and just maybe, maybe tell time!
Quote: darkozQuote: lilredroosterQuote: Wizard
Hypothetically speaking, if you were challenged on the this particular day, what would you submit as evidence?
link to original post
that is no problem at all - no worries
his wife can corroborate the details of his big win
after she corroborates - then you hand over $10K and the matter is settled
.
link to original post
I thought he was just going to submit pictures of expensive watches that have inlaid gold and just maybe, maybe tell time!
link to original post
even better - some pictures of him taking off for Reno maybe in his private jet - with his facial features hidden of course
don't I remember reading that he owns a private jet_______????______I thought I read that somewhere in this thread
I want to see some pics
.
Quote: darkozQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MDawgWhat's remarkable about the Day 43 win is that it all came from 25000. Yes, I had more than that available to me but it all derived from that single chip.
An even bigger not session but trip win, from many years ago, derived from under a couple thousand dollars.
It just goes to prove that sometimes when you're winning, you don't need much money. But when you're losing, sometimes there's not enough money to stem the loss. In other words, when you're on a losing streak better to NOT have much in front of you or available to you.
link to original post
I have trouble visualizing this achievement. This is why watching someone win $600 on YouTube is more interesting.
Your descriptions have become trite.
link to original post
To be interesting a narrative has to flow with beginning middle and end.
During my Golden Nugget vs. Darkoz tale you kept asking to get to the conclusion because you were anxious to find out how it ended.
This is the opposite. You are being given the ending with no beginning or middle.
"Today I won thousands.".
Or as my Grandpa used to do when I asked him to tell me a bedtime story and he was being lazy, it would go like this:
"Once upon a time... The end!"
link to original post
Imagine a parallel "Law Forum" and the fictitious "Adventures of MDawg III." Day 1: Bench trial: "I gave my opening and closing statements. The judge thought it was brilliant and awarded my client a judgement of $250,000.
Riveting?
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: darkozQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MDawgWhat's remarkable about the Day 43 win is that it all came from 25000. Yes, I had more than that available to me but it all derived from that single chip.
An even bigger not session but trip win, from many years ago, derived from under a couple thousand dollars.
It just goes to prove that sometimes when you're winning, you don't need much money. But when you're losing, sometimes there's not enough money to stem the loss. In other words, when you're on a losing streak better to NOT have much in front of you or available to you.
link to original post
I have trouble visualizing this achievement. This is why watching someone win $600 on YouTube is more interesting.
Your descriptions have become trite.
link to original post
To be interesting a narrative has to flow with beginning middle and end.
During my Golden Nugget vs. Darkoz tale you kept asking to get to the conclusion because you were anxious to find out how it ended.
This is the opposite. You are being given the ending with no beginning or middle.
"Today I won thousands.".
Or as my Grandpa used to do when I asked him to tell me a bedtime story and he was being lazy, it would go like this:
"Once upon a time... The end!"
link to original post
Imagine a parallel "Law Forum" and the fictitious "Adventures of MDawg III." Day 1: Bench trial: "I gave my opening and closing statements. The judge thought it was brilliant and awarded my client a judgement of $250,000.
Riveting?
tuttigym
link to original post
Day four:. "The judge, jury and even the defense all congratulated me and mentioned that I never lose a case. I asked the judge for concessions and he always gives me anything I want."
Day seven:. "I finally lost a case but it's okay because I ran across the courtroom Hall to family court and won two cases there. +1"
rumors are spreading around LV right now
they're saying the day of his big win he tipped 3 different dealers a total of $15K
and he tipped 4 different waitresses a total of $10K
.
Quote: MDawglet's work out how to verify the Session to your satisfaction
link to original post
I suspect this would be impossible as any records could be manipulated or created after the event. Unless of course you do what Youtubers do which is to broadcast your sessions live.
Because I think your "challenge" is meaningless I think it should be removed.
Unless of course you have a solution?
Quote: WizardQuote: MDawgThanks! and, Yes correct. This was a big win and the crew was still talking about it the day after I went back into that pit. One of them even recollected the exact amount from the main session because while I was pushing towards it I kept counting and recounting my chips and remarking about how I wanted to hit a certain exact number, which I eventually did.
That exact number was the win for that day. It represented more than one session, including a dinner break, but most of the win was during a single continuous session.
You taking me up on the Challenge Wizard? 🥹
link to original post
Hypothetically speaking, if you were challenged on the this particular day, what would you submit as evidence? I assume the net win at least all happened at the same casino.
link to original post
As stated, "let's work out how to verify the Session to your satisfaction."
Quote: MDawg
As stated, "let's work out how to verify the Session to your satisfaction."
link to original post
How about this? A forensic audit of your federal and state income taxes as well as bank deposits making sure that all wins and losses are accounted and all taxes due on those net wins were paid.
I believe in a previous post you stated that (1) you have paid all your taxes, and (2) your bank deposits in excess of $10k were reported to the IRS by your bank.
Of course, the cost of the audit will be bourn by MDawg.
tuttigym
I think Tuttigym is just somehow obsessed with that MDawg must pay taxes on all his wins! which has little to do with verifying the exact amount of a single day's win at a casino.
Clearly, the degree of ridiculousness in some of the suggestions today is commensurate with the experience any of these posters have with high end table play.
There are though at least a couple of table game players at this forum. Their experience with their tracked results should allow them to present a simple way to verify a session's results soon after the session. And that's the key, the results are much easier verified soon after the session than after some time has passed.
The problem is that the ones who opine that there is no way to verify, might be the ones who have little or no experience with any of this.
Quote: MDawg
The problem is that the ones who opine that there is no way to verify, might be the ones who have little or no experience with any of this.
I think a lot of us that opine do believe it could be verified, just not after the fact without all evidence collected in a real time manner.
But I know that when I play at a private table (or even a public high limit one), that the tally of win/loss at the end is accurate, and I know this from personal experience not conjecture, which most if not all of you of you are just conjecturing or recollecting something from the distant past. Yes, sometimes at public tables with multiple players the pit bosses get things wrong, but you'd be surprised how often they get it right, correct right down to including exactly what was dropped into the dealer toke box or handed to the cocktail waitress off the table. Pit bosses really do have counted the entire rack at least at high limit tables as soon as a player has left.
And at a private table, it would be hard not to tally accurately since it is so easy to just count the rack before and after the session.
The other day I heard a pit boss talking to another at my table about how had given a roulette player a 300 average bet even though that player was laying thousands in chips across the table for each spin. Apparently the way the player was doing it was making it so that only 300 was at actual risk per spin. These pit bosses don't miss as much as people think.
Advantage Players have to hide under the radar and deceiving pitbosses are par for the course. We know it can be done and regularly.
Which leads to the conundrum. How can a majority of people who know pitbosses are fallible and easily misled agree to utilize a pitbosses report with someone who mistakenly believes pitbosses are infallible.
now you may be able to explain something that I don't get at the moment, but it sounds to me that the pit boss owed the player consideration for those thousands of dollars in average bet .... not $300.Quote: MDawgsnip....
The other day I heard a pit boss talking to another at my table about how had given a roulette player a 300 average bet even though that player was laying thousands in chips across the table for each spin. Apparently the way the player was doing it was making it so that only 300 was at actual risk per spin. These pit bosses don't miss as much as people think.
link to original post
This site is a wonderful place to learn about gambling. We frequently see members who haven't learned a thing, however. In this case the thing to have learned is that the total EV of multiple bets is the sum of the EV of each bet. Once learning that, you then know that pit bosses who do these things are probably wrong to do them.
But I'll await an explanation.
All you know is slots, if we are to believe what you are posting. Nothing about table games in any of your "alleged AP" posts.
You throw some general concepts out there, such as, "APs want to deceive table game pit bosses," but when these concepts are examined, where do they lead? as it relates to win or loss accuracy. Do you really think that a blackjack player's taking a chip off the table matters whatsoever as far as whether or not the player is detected for counting cards?
Quote: odiousgambitnow you may be able to explain something that I don't get at the moment, but it sounds to me that the pit boss owed the player consideration for those thousands of dollars in average bet .... not $300.Quote: MDawgsnip....
The other day I heard a pit boss talking to another at my table about how had given a roulette player a 300 average bet even though that player was laying thousands in chips across the table for each spin. Apparently the way the player was doing it was making it so that only 300 was at actual risk per spin. These pit bosses don't miss as much as people think.
link to original post
This site is a wonderful place to learn about gambling. We frequently see members who haven't learned a thing, however. In this case the thing to have learned is that the total EV of multiple bets is the sum of the EV of each bet. Once learning that, you then know that pit bosses who do these things are probably wrong to do them.
But I'll await an explanation.
link to original post
I'm just repeating what the pit boss recorded. That pit boss did comment that the player didn't agree with the determination. It's obvious what the pit boss was getting at, and I think that pit boss was right to do what did.
For example if I bet 100 on Bank and 100 on Player repeatedly (assuming the casino would allow me to do that), the pit boss would not put down an average bet of 200 per hand for me, such bets would be the near equivalent of a Baccarat "free hand." I suppose what the casino considers "at risk" is different from what you are getting at, as far as house edge loss over time.
who are you addressing?Quote: MDawgWhy would the pit bosses tracking play accurately or not as far as win or loss matter to a table game advantage player? And what table game would such an advantage player be playing? Of course such an advantage player would need to be playing above board with a player card in order to even care about how accurately he was being tracked.
All you know is slots, if we are to believe what you are posting. Nothing about table games in any of your "alleged AP" posts.
You throw some general concepts out there, such as, "APs want to deceive table game pit bosses," but when these concepts are examined, where do they lead? as it relates to win or loss accuracy. Do you really think that a blackjack player's taking a chip off the table matters whatsoever as far as whether or not the player is detected for counting cards?
link to original post
Quote: MDawgQuote: odiousgambitnow you may be able to explain something that I don't get at the moment, but it sounds to me that the pit boss owed the player consideration for those thousands of dollars in average bet .... not $300.Quote: MDawgsnip....
The other day I heard a pit boss talking to another at my table about how had given a roulette player a 300 average bet even though that player was laying thousands in chips across the table for each spin. Apparently the way the player was doing it was making it so that only 300 was at actual risk per spin. These pit bosses don't miss as much as people think.
link to original post
This site is a wonderful place to learn about gambling. We frequently see members who haven't learned a thing, however. In this case the thing to have learned is that the total EV of multiple bets is the sum of the EV of each bet. Once learning that, you then know that pit bosses who do these things are probably wrong to do them.
But I'll await an explanation.
link to original post
I'm just repeating what the pit boss recorded. That pit boss did comment that the player didn't agree with the determination. It's obvious what the pit boss was getting at, and I think that pit boss was right to do what did.
For example if I bet 100 on Bank and 100 on Player repeatedly (assuming the casino would allow me to do that), the pit boss would not put down an average bet of 200 per hand for me, such bets would be the near equivalent of a Baccarat "free hand." I suppose what the casino considers "at risk" is different from what you are getting at, as far as house edge loss over time.
link to original post
The Theo of a player betting $100 on player and $100 on banker on the same hand is equivalent to the Theo of a player making $200 wagers on player or banker on alternating hands.
It might additionally have something to do with tournaments. I've seen tournament winners not be allowed to "rinse" their winning promo chips by placing them on Bank and Player. I assume that the casino wants those chips in action so that there is a chance that they might be lost completely.
And all this gets back to what I have said many times. I haven't seen high rollers get killed by the house edge due to grinding, mostly I've seen them get wiped out by losing their entire bankrolls repeatedly, including when they keep chasing losses - they get deeper in the hole and start tossing down more and more to try to recoup quickly, refusing to leave before they win everything back, such that it becomes statistically less and less probable to achieve the ever growing goal. Trying to win an ever rising goal with less bankroll and the same max bet is a losing proposition usually.
The odds of winning back 20K with a 100K bankroll are not bad.
What are the odds of winning back 100K with a 5K bankroll?
Say the player has been wiped out, so is down -100K.
Next session the player has 100K again and is determined to win back the 100K.
But, somehow, ends up losing it all again.
Next session the player has 100K again and is determined to win back now 200K.
This sort of thing I see all the time, where players keep chasing cumulative losses with the same or even less bankroll, and the same max bet, unwilling to walk away unless they win it all back in one session. They get ahead for that particular session, sometimes even a good sum, but because unwilling to stop before completely even, end up dumping it all, again and again.
As an extreme example, on a coin toss if you are determined to flip for a dollar and parlay the winnings each time until you win $1,000,000. and unwilling to stop until you get that goal, you'll more probably just keep dumping dollars into the tosses than ever win that million.
but these things are just misunderstanding their own game. If they had a table where one player bet Banker bet all the time, and one player bet Player bet all the time, no other players, they couldn't stop that. I guess the same pit boss groans "oh no the table is losing money" when he sees that. If so he doesn't get it. Those two bets do not cancel each other and the players fully deserve to be comped.Quote: MDawg[snip] Casinos (most of them anyway) don't allow people to bet Bank and Player simultaneously, maybe for the same reason that they won't give a player a higher average bet for action not at risk of total loss.
link to original post
I mean, if a Bacc player shows up with $10M I suppose the casino wants a chance to win it all versus that the player will sit there all weekend just betting 50K each side. When you think about the hold on that level of action it does make sense that the slow grind will benefit the casino, but first of all, high rollers aren't interested in that sort of grind, and secondly the casino just doesn't look at it that way.
It's similar when playing through the wagering requirements at an online casino. They disallow low variance bets on roulette, such as covering more than 2/3 of numbers. Mathematically it's unsound of them to care.Quote: unJonI’m not disagreeing with anything you are saying. One should question the rationality of a casino that’s disallows a player/banker bet given the guaranteed positive EV and very low variance.
link to original post
Quote: MDawgWhy would the pit bosses tracking play accurately or not as far as win or loss matter to a table game advantage player? And what table game would such an advantage player be playing? Of course such an advantage player would need to be playing above board with a player card in order to even care about how accurately he was being tracked.
All you know is slots, if we are to believe what you are posting. Nothing about table games in any of your "alleged AP" posts.
You throw some general concepts out there, such as, "APs want to deceive table game pit bosses," but when these concepts are examined, where do they lead? as it relates to win or loss accuracy. Do you really think that a blackjack player's taking a chip off the table matters whatsoever as far as whether or not the player is detected for counting cards?
link to original post
You make a common mistake that because I concentrate on slots, then all I know is slots.
Sorry, you are wrong.
I can't explain table game AP tactics to you. You don't seem to get them and seem to refuse they even exist.
