The Adventures of MDawg II
Watching the practice, the cars initially drove cautiously but then built up speed. The Ferrari car was going pretty fast when it was damaged.
This manhole cover popping off is apparently a recurring F1 problem.
Disgrace in Las Vegas: Manhole cover as a deadly danger
I went to sleep and was awakened at around midnight I think it was by the roar of cars, and my wife told me that the practice had resumed. I didn't bother to wake back up for it (didn't even wake up for sex when my wife tried to wake me up for that, shows how tired I was, I will turn down something like that about 0% of the time
(actually I just like that clip, it's not necessarily apposite to our marriage 😅)
), but the people to whom we gave our tickets told us that they were allowed entry both before the accident and after when the practice resumed. They also said that it was pretty exciting even after midnight.
Ferrari tried to appeal whatever penalty was given to it, but somehow the F1 rules didn't allow any exception. Vasseur: Vegas manhole issues that wrecked Sainz's Ferrari F1 car "unacceptable"
Quote: MDawgDuring a recent session I got a couple thou in free play promo chips that would not lose, I mean these suckers whether I laid them all down or part lasted for many hands. One time I won thirteen hands in a row with promo chips, this wasn't like that, but not bad at all.
link to original post
Quote: MDawg
Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.
Some security here. Everybody knows you're in LV now. Breaking your cover?? Or is it just pretend?
tuttigym
Quote: MDawg
When the 1,000-billion Mark note came out, almost no one bothered to collect the change when spending it. By November 1923, one US dollar equaled one trillion Marks.
If you have one I will buy it from you for $20.
Take a look, for example, at Venetian's parking garage today - 6th floor - not even as full as a typical weekend!
Pretty empty in fact.
I noted the same in other casinos' parking lots too yesterday and today, including Wynn and Caesars, really not that full at all.
And the access via Flamingo heading west to Strip to various casinos - moving slowly but, moving - and given that it's just 1 or 2 lanes, not bad at all, certainly not indicative of a blowout event.
But we will watch the F1 race itself from the seats.
After the first practice was over at 9:30pm some other cars were racing around the track, maybe some kind of manufacturer's promotion?
After the qualifiers at midnight, turns out that Sainz's Ferrari would have been in second place, but for a 10-grid place penalty over that manhole cover accident, landing him in 12th place now. The penalty had to do with replacing his damaged power unit component - for excessive usage of a power unit element.
Enjoyable. Pretty exciting over all. The mishaps here and there added to the excitement.
Baccarat
Two very long sessions pretty heavy action at times.
+42000
Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.
And this is the MDawg challenge.
Quote: MDawgWe watched most of the race from out seats then made it back ti our suite just before the finish caught that directly from the room.
Enjoyable. Pretty exciting over all. The mishaps here and there added to the excitement.
link to original post
Without mishaps and crashes nobody would watch car races. Boring.
"When you not lucky you lose all your big bets and you have to go home and wash your feet."
Quote: MDawg
"When you not lucky you lose all your big bets and you have to go home and wash your feet."
No wonder I kept losing, I rarely washed my feet after gambling.
Quote: MDawgTake a look, for example, at Venetian's parking garage today - 6th floor - not even as full as a typical weekend!
Pretty empty in fact.
I noted the same in other casinos' parking lots too yesterday and today, including Wynn and Caesars, really not that full at all.
This is the same 6th floor of Venetian's parking garage yesterday.
Lot more full! I observed basically a lot less people in the various Strip casinos over F1 weekend, than yesterday. Interesting. Arrivals galore, after F1.
Baccarat
Two sessions, in both I was initially ahead and then ending up losing big.
-32000
Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.
And this is the MDawg challenge.
DD Blackjack
Should’ve pressed harder.
+11000
Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.
And this is the MDawg challenge.
DD Blackjack
Was down a fair sum. Got back to even, stopped.
+200
Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.
And this is the MDawg challenge.
DD blackjack
Some back and forth.
+2300
Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.
And this is the MDawg challenge.
Quote: MDawgDay 48 play
DD blackjack
Some back and forth.
+2300
Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.
And this is the MDawg challenge.
link to original post
48 days in a row? What is your total +$$$$$$. I don’t have the patience to go through that many posts!
I don’t like being in the Smokey environment that many days. I assume you always make your table non smoking?
It’s not 48 days in a row per se it’s 48 different days of play. It actually represents more than 48 days in Vegas.
Will be around a while longer but going to be busy this week with some other work so this may be it as far as play for this “round.”
And yes I make my tables non smoking always but as well I have been lucky there hasn’t been much smoking anywhere near me lately.
Actually I haven’t experienced much nearby smoke in some time or else I’d have played a lot less.
The ones on the west side of Koval, the paddock, will remain.
What about all those lights? They won't leave those up for another year will they? Their supporting posts are blocking the sidewalks.
F1 teardown to take 6 to 8 weeks.
Venetian too allows access only to checked in VIP guests.
At Wynn, your Chairman's card gets you access or your RFB Tower Suites room key. Wynn/Encore is the only VIP that has decent food and butler service whenever VIP is open.
Now, closing in on exactly five years of play since the big long hiatus I took, looking back I definitely didn't stick to my initial intention which was to play just enough for comps. I started with all $50K lines, and then around two years ago or so I increased them to the levels where I could get private tables, and raised them even more after that.
I still don't like the ups and downs. I actually haven't even played in several days, which I take breaks like that every now and then in Vegas, but I don't plan to play again this week. Been seeing different parts of Vegas and its environs with the wife lately.
I can't imagine playing small again, don't think I could do it. So, for me the choice would be to either just stop playing entirely, or keep playing big. I'd be fine with either scenario.
Quote: MDawgMuch earlier this year I posted about how the ups and downs were starting to get to me, and that I was thinking of easing back on the play or even stopping. Then I had a big win trip and of course, that idea went out the window.
Now, closing in on exactly five years of play since the big long hiatus I took, looking back I definitely didn't stick to my initial intention which was to play just enough for comps. I started with all $50K lines, and then around two years ago or so I increased them to the levels where I could get private tables, and raised them even more after that.
I still don't like the ups and downs. I actually haven't even played in several days, which I take breaks like that every now and then in Vegas, but I don't plan to play again this week. Been seeing different parts of Vegas and its environs with the wife lately.
I can't imagine playing small again, don't think I could do it. So, for me the choice would be to either just stop playing entirely, or keep playing big. I'd be fine with either scenario.
link to original post
It seems to me from your trip reports, stock chatter, watches, etc…. that you don’t need the money from gambling for…. anything, actually….
So gamble only if and when it feels right.
Others here make their living solely by different kinds of casino plays. I’d give them different advice.
I’m the opposite of you. I can gamble VERY SMALL and still enjoy it. I often joke with my buddy after winning $100 or losing $200 in a 3 hour session that I made or lost more than that in 10 seconds in the stock market that day.
Have you thought about buying a condo in Vegas? If you like Vegas that much why not?
Baccarat I am tracking something else, but more looking for those advantage hands, so the over all intensity is less because there are many hands where I probably don't know any more about the outcome than anyone else.
Anyway for some time now, there are days when I go to play and think about how great this is, and other days when I go in thinking how much I hate it. I don't know if that makes sense, but it comes down to that this isn't all I can do. I suppose if this were my living then I'd never consider easing up or stopping. Certainly if I didn't win consistently I would have stopped years ago.
Let's say someone is playing blackjack with a 0.19 house edge.
100 - 5000 table min/max. Varying bets - no flat betting, but let's not assume any card counting so that higher bets might come anytime. No specific strategy, no regular martingale, just, as they said about Dan Mahowny, "pretty big bets on impulse. No consistent pattern." Player will bet $5000. without any compunction.
Bankroll is $50,000. goal is to win $250,000. and player will not stop a session until he either wins $250,000. or loses $50,000.
Over time, will this person simply lose the house edge, or more?
We don't have to consider necessarily a very long term, let's just say even, a few dozen sessions.
Quote: MDawgI've had this discussion with the Wizard recently.
Let's say someone is playing blackjack with a 0.19 house edge.
100 - 5000 table min/max. Varying bets - no flat betting, but let's not assume any card counting so that higher bets might come anytime. No specific strategy, no regular martingale, just, as they said about Dan Mahowny, "pretty big bets on impulse. No consistent pattern." Player will bet $5000. without any compunction.
Bankroll is $50,000. goal is to win $250,000. and player will not stop a session until he either wins $250,000. or loses $50,000.
Over time, will this person simply lose the house edge, or more?
We don't have to consider necessarily a very long term, let's just say even, a few dozen sessions.
link to original post
The player’s results will ‘tend’ towards the house edge multiplied by the total amount of money put in action. And will of course have a ‘variance’ associated with the game and its specific rules.
The way you worded the question…. The great majority of time the player will lose his entire $50k. Without knowing how he varies his bets it’s just going to be a guess. My guess is 10% of the time he quintuples his money, 90% he loses it all.
My point in making the post is that over the term of an average let's even say year or two, for the average player, playing that way he will be blown out far more times than will achieve his goal. Actually, many players play exactly like that as they get in the hole and try to win it all back in one session, unwilling to stop even with a partial recovery of their losses.
So this is an example of where the long term results and the shorter results will diverge.
Yes, over millions of sessions the house edge will be what the player should lose, but trying to win $250K every time with a max bet of $5000. and not necessarily betting that every hand, more often than not the player will lose everything.
You could extrapolate this even further, and make the goal whatever the player has lost so far. So after ten blowouts the goal could become $500K or nothing, for each session, and so on. And I see this sort of thing all the time, big players who have lost vast sums over the years or during that trip and as soon as they get on a roll think they'll get back to even in one session, and end up dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars ahead because they think they're going to get to a half million or million that session.
You could try this simulation with no house edge and just a coin toss and still over the shorter term the player would probably lose a lot more than expected via a 50-50 result, especially if the goal for each session increased but the bankroll remained constant or even dropped, and the max bet remained the same.
The risk of ruin is pretty high if the goal is unrealistic given the bankroll and max bet, especially if the player is unwilling to stop unless the goal is achieved or the bankroll is lost.
Quote: MDawgThe post I made does not concern MY play. It is a simulation based on the player who plays with no edge.
My point in making the post is that over the term of an average let's even say year or two, for the average player, playing that way he will be blown out far more times than will achieve his goal. Actually, many players play exactly like that as they get in the hole and try to win it all back in one session, unwilling to stop even with a partial recovery of their losses.
So this is an example of where the long term results and the shorter results will diverge.
Yes, over millions of sessions the house edge will be what the player should lose, but trying to win $250K every time with a max bet of $5000. and not necessarily betting that every hand, more often than not the player will lose everything.
You could extrapolate this even further, and make the goal whatever the player has lost so far. So after ten blowouts the goal could become $500K or nothing, for each session, and so on. And I see this sort of thing all the time, big players who have lost vast sums over the years or during that trip and as soon as they get on a roll think they'll get back to even in one session, and end up dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars ahead because they think they're going to get to a half million or million that session.
You could try this simulation with no house edge and just a coin toss and still over the shorter term the player would probably lose a lot more than expected via a 50-50 result, especially if the goal for each session increased but the bankroll remained constant or even dropped, and the max bet remained the same.
The risk of ruin is pretty high if the goal is unrealistic given the bankroll and max bet, especially if the player is unwilling to stop unless the goal is achieved or the bankroll is lost.
link to original post
If you are coin flipping with flat bets and even payouts, then your chance of busting is exactly 20%. You don't need to do sims to see this. That is the only percentage that gets you to zero house edge.
The only thing that changes with spreading the bets and playing a BJ game where you can win or lose up to 8 units per hand is that you will go way over the $250K target sometimes, and other times you will have to go into your pocket sometimes to double up or split hands. On those occasions, you will usually lose more than $50K.
I just did a sim of 100,000 sessions and the win percentage drops to 16.7% because the overages can be large especially if a big bet is out and has to be doubled. The house edge averages about 0.3% for the BJ rules that I simulated. Nothing about your setup changes the HE.
Repeat after me: Betting systems don't change the house edge over the long term or the short term.
The long term results and the shorter results DO NOT diverge. The house edge is what it is.
You seem really confused about the essential math of the situation. This is especially clear in your coin-flip example. If a player is playing a zero-EV coin flip game trying to quintuple up, then the player not tend to lose more on average if they tilt and start throwing out big bets.
You're simulating 100,000 sessions. In five years I haven't had anywhere near 100,000 sessions and I have probably played more than anyone you've ever even heard of in Vegas.
No one is saying that the house edge changes.
Rather, that the real world results over the course of a year or two will almost assuredly be that the player will keep getting blown out.
The bankroll remains $50,000. The max bet 5000. The player does not max bet every hand. The initial goal is $250,000, all or nothing, but after each blowout the goal increases by $50,000. After ten blowouts now the goal is $750,000. with the same $50K bankroll and same max bet. You might think this sort of thing is just a simulation but it is not. I see this sort of thing all the time in high limit, with players who have dumped hundreds of thousands telling me they need to get back to even and won't stop until they are even. Then I see the same player a year later, and now he's saying he needs to win back two million or so, and hasn't even increased his bankroll by much. Keeps trying to win it all back in one session or trip. Keeps losing more and more, blowout after blowout.
Quote: SOOPOOThe way you worded the question…. The great majority of time the player will lose his entire $50k. Without knowing how he varies his bets it’s just going to be a guess. My guess is 10% of the time he quintuples his money, 90% he loses it all.
link to original post
Yes I'd agree, at least 90% of the time blowout, more if you assume a rising goal where each prior blowout is added to the all or nothing goal.
Quote: MDawgIf the bankroll and max bet remain constant. The player plays the same way, sometimes betting max bet, not always. And the goal for each session increases, with a determined end result of either achieving that goal or losing it all, then most of what you just wrote above is wrong as far as real world results.
You're simulating 100,000 sessions. In five years I haven't had anywhere near 100,000 sessions and I have probably played more than anyone you've ever even heard of in Vegas.
No one is saying that the house edge changes.
Rather, that the real world results over the course of a year or two will almost assuredly be that the player will keep getting blown out.
The bankroll remains $50,000. The max bet 5000. The player does not max bet every hand. The initial goal is $250,000, all or nothing, but after each blowout the goal increases by $50,000. After ten blowouts now the goal is $750,000. with the same $50K bankroll and same max bet. You might think this sort of thing is just a simulation but it is not. I see this sort of thing all the time in high limit, with players who have dumped hundreds of thousands telling me they need to get back to even and won't stop until they are even. Then I see the same player a year later, and now he's saying he needs to win back two million or so, and hasn't even increased his bankroll by much. Keeps trying to win it all back in one session or trip. Keeps losing more and more, blowout after blowout.Quote: SOOPOOThe way you worded the question…. The great majority of time the player will lose his entire $50k. Without knowing how he varies his bets it’s just going to be a guess. My guess is 10% of the time he quintuples his money, 90% he loses it all.
link to original post
Yes I'd agree, at least 90% of the time blowout, more if you assume a rising goal where each prior blowout is added to the all or nothing goal.
link to original post
Real world experience says they lose it all even more…. partly due to tipping. A win on a big bet often results in a tip. I’ve never seen the casino tip the player after a big loss.
Tipping losses are rarely (never?) figured into these calculations.
Quote: SOOPOO
Real world experience says they lose it all even more…. partly due to tipping. A win on a big bet often results in a tip. I’ve never seen the casino tip the player after a big loss.
Tipping losses are rarely (never?) figured into these calculations.
link to original post
Isn't a comp the casino tipping the player?
Quote: SOOPOOReal world experience says they lose it all even more…. partly due to tipping. A win on a big bet often results in a tip. I’ve never seen the casino tip the player after a big loss.
Tipping losses are rarely (never?) figured into these calculations.
link to original post
"Real world experience says they lose it all even more" this is definitely true. And if a player gets blown out enough times he doesn't stick around long enough to experience the eventual "evening out" of loss of only the house edge. But the main problem is this "all or nothing" attitude that so many players have. I need to win it all (not 25%, not 50%, not even 90% but ALL) back NOW or I'll lose it all trying.
And then as they get blown out they add the amount of the blow out to the ever increasing "want it all back NOW" goal.
Quote: DieterQuote: SOOPOO
Real world experience says they lose it all even more…. partly due to tipping. A win on a big bet often results in a tip. I’ve never seen the casino tip the player after a big loss.
Tipping losses are rarely (never?) figured into these calculations.
link to original post
Isn't a comp the casino tipping the player?
link to original post
Yes. But not relevant to the discussion. The guy coming with $50k to turn it into $250k is not using comps to do so. But I’ll bet they give him a free dinner once his $50k is in the dealers tray.
Quote: ChumpChangeHe should get 10% or maybe even 20% back as a loss rebate. So he'd get back $5K or $10K. What do you do with that? Pay back a marker a bit? Can you use comps to partial pay a marker?
link to original post
Humor me. When was the last time YOU got any casino losses back as a loss rebate? What makes you think Mr. Hypothetical has a loss rebate deal?
Anyway, if the loss rebate is CASH, then he can use it.. like…. CASH. If it’s in free play, then he can’t. If it’s promo chips, then he can’t. If it’s in Walmart gift cards, then he can’t.
If by comps you mean like free meals and hotel rooms, do YOU think he can pay off a marker with those?
