Also, one night when I was beating the h out of the house at single deck, won sixty some hands in a row, they kept changing decks (although this had zero effect, I just kept winning every single hand anyway, that night), but it goes to show that even the house thinks that changing the deck lends to eliminating a player win streak.

Does a less or poorly shuffled deck make you win less at Blackjack? Well, one night it made no difference but in general my observation is that it does tend to give more hands to the dealer, at least for a while.

At Baccarat my observation is somewhat the opposite - it is that the less shuffled (within reason) decks tend to "streak" more - more and longer Bank or Player runs. At the casinos where they take the pre shuffled decks right out of the box and hand them over for player cut versus place them into a shuffling machine for ten more minutes of shuffle, I tend to win easier and faster.

All of this is anecdotal evidence only.

....Quote:MDawgone night when I was beating the h out of the house at single deck, won sixty some hands in a row, they kept changing decks (although this had zero effect, I just kept winning every single hand anyway, that night), but it goes to show that even the house thinks that changing the deck lends to eliminating a player win streak

Did I read that right? Did I edit appropriately?Quote:All of this is anecdotal evidence only.

link to original post

That's one h of a streak. one H of an anecdote.

Let's assume probability of losing a hand is 50%,

Then I estimate that night's 60 won hands in a row was roughly a 1 in 1.15292150461e+18 event

1 in 1,150,000,000.000.000,000 give or take a bit.

That would be some 16,000 times less likely than seeing 11 yos in a row at craps and might qualify as 'claim of the decade'.

Someone please sanity check my math. Thanks

Quote:FastEddieI DO NOT Believe you won 60+ hands in a row !

link to original post

FastEddie, I believe that you are allowed to say that.

I believe that if MDawg says he won 60 hands in a row, then there is a higher probability that he made a slight typo or erred in some way than he actually experienced an event that is 16000 times less likely that witnessing 11 yos in a row at craps.

I can barely believe that MDawg even CLAIMED that he won 60 hands in a row. At least not intentionally.

Quote:technicsDoes poorly done hand shuffling favor the House?link to original post

even an automatic shuffler will produce the same exact order of the hand shuffled at some point in time.

the one shoe does not matter to them (because its really all the shoes over time which provide their house "edge") - unless they know someone is counting and then if legally possible they will call for a shuffle

make sure you play some hands yourself on an actual deck of cards and you will usually notice the same patterns you are seeing in the casino as well

Ah. Humblest apologies. I had it in my head that 11 yos in a row was the record for most unlikely event ever claimed here. Actually 18 yos in a row is the record breaker. and this 60 wins in a row of MDawgs, would be a far far more likely event. Walk in the park for anyone pressing into the streak.Quote:OnceDearQuote:FastEddieI DO NOT Believe you won 60+ hands in a row !

link to original post

FastEddie, I believe that you are allowed to say that.

I believe that if MDawg says he won 60 hands in a row, then there is a higher probability that he made a slight typo or erred in some way than he actually experienced an event that is 16000 times less likely that witnessing 11 yos in a row at craps.

I can barely believe that MDawg even CLAIMED that he won 60 hands in a row. At least not intentionally.link to original post

So I withdraw my nomination for 'Claim of the decade'.

I DO believe that someone in this thread will get suspended for implying some sort of insult.Quote:FastEddieI DO NOT believe MDawg will retract his statement !

link to original post

60 Wins in a row at Blackjack. Hmmmmm. OKaaaayyyy.

I wasn't a known player at that time yet, which is why they were so frantic. For years the pit boss and others at that casino kept joking about how I had that particular pit boss that night in a muddle.

Quote:MDawgwon sixty some hands in a row

Hmmm. I'm going to give you a chance to retract that before I pounce all over it.

I don't doubt it for a minute.... Is one possible answer. One of about 1.5e18 possible answers.Quote:FastEddieWhich begs the question “ Once Dear, Do you believe MDawg won 60 plus hands in a row ? ? ? No answer is an answer.

link to original post

I'm recusing myself from any moderation of that aspect of this thread.

Quote:WizardHmmm. I'm going to give you a chance to retract that before I pounce all over it.

link to original post

It should be "some sixty" hands in a row. If you want to PM me I will tell you my average bet and how much exactly I walked with, and you figure out how many hands in a row I won! I was unstoppable. We can talk about this more when I see you or on the phone. It is truthful.

Looking back, I wonder if the fact that they were constantly changing decks or getting to the point where they would deal only one hand to me and then shuffle was actually what made my streak possible. In any case, yes, it did happen.

And yes, I have posted about this at WOV before.

Quote:FastEddieI DO NOT believe MDawg will retract his statement !

link to original post

The defense rest. Your witness, Mr. Hamilton Berger..

Quote:MDawgI've posted about this many times before.

link to original post

Did you just double down on that claim?

Has your account been hacked? I'm off to check your IP address.

You did post this claim before? Really. I truly cannot believe that such a claim was previously overlooked.

60 some winning hands in a row?

Is there something I'm missing in that assertion? Is the 'some' some sort of qualifier meaning something like 'Give or take 50'

Quote:OnceDear

Someone please sanity check my math. Thankslink to original post

Broadly sane. At that scale, 2 significant figures and the right length number gets you in the neighborhood.

Quote:MDawgQuote:WizardHmmm. I'm going to give you a chance to retract that before I pounce all over it.

link to original post

It should be "some sixty" hands in a row. If you want to PM me I will tell you my average bet and how much exactly I walked with, and you figure out how many hands in a row I won! I was unstoppable. We can talk about this more when I see you or on the phone. It is truthful.link to original post

'Some sixty' means something different if 'sixty some' was a typo.

Are you sure you don't want to further amend it to 'some of sixty'?

If I'd said I ate 'some sixty' donuts this morning, how many donuts did I eat? Approximately?

Quote:FastEddieQuote:FastEddieI DO NOT believe MDawg will retract his statement !

link to original post

The defense rest. Your witness, Mr. Hamilton Berger..link to original post

I am done with this until Supreme Court Justice Shackleford issues his ruling !

Quote:MDawgQuote:WizardHmmm. I'm going to give you a chance to retract that before I pounce all over it.

link to original post

It should be "some sixty" hands in a row. If you want to PM me I will tell you my average bet and how much exactly I walked with, and you figure out how many hands in a row I won! I was unstoppable. We can talk about this more when I see you or on the phone. It is truthful.

Looking back, I wonder if the fact that they were constantly changing decks or getting to the point where they would deal only one hand to me and then shuffle was actually what made my streak possible. In any case, yes, it did happen.

I would not be able to determine the exact consecutive number of hands based on that information. How many shuffles took place in between is not very relevant, compared to the enormity of your claim.

That said, my page on variance in blackjack (which I always have difficulty finding) shows that under liberal Vegas Strip rules, shows the following probability of the net result per hand:

Win: 42.43%

Push: 8.48%

Loss: 49.09%

I'll nicely take out the pushes, for a probability of winning, given the bet was resolved, of 46.36%.

Let me say that yes, I know the odds are a little different for other sets of rules. I am just making an estimate here.

The probability of winning 60 hands in a row, starting at any one point, is 1 in 107,294,826,280,306,000,000.

Let's say you play blackjack for 12 hours at a speed of 100 hands per hour. The probability of seeing 60 hands in a row during those 1,200 hands would be approximately 1200/107,294,826,280,306,000,000 = 1 in 89,412,355,233,588,500. Before somebody jumps down my black, this is just an estimate. It's not exactly right because of overlapping sequences of 60 hands.

As a basis of comparison, the probability of winning the Powerball is 1 in 292,201,338 and the probability of winning Megamillions is 1 in 302,575,350. If you purchased one of each ticket, the probability of winning both would be 1 in 88,412,922,115,818,300. So, it is a little more likely to win both lottery tickets than to see 60 or more winning hands of blackjack in a row in 1200 played.

However, MDawg says he say this 20 years ago. Let's be generous and say MDawg has played blackjack 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for 40 years. That comes to 350,400 hours. The probability of seeing 60 or more wins in a row in that number of hands is 1 in 3,062,066,960,054. Again, the probability of winning the Powerball is 1 in 292,201,338. So, it is 28,874 times more likely to win the Powerball than to see 60 or more wins in a row in blackjack in 40 years of non-stop play.

I see the comparison to Alan's 18 yo's in a row as already been made. As a reminder, the probability of that, starting with any one roll, is 1 in 39,346,408,075,296,500,000,000. That is still 367 times more unlikely than starting with any one hand in blackjack, so Alan still hold the record for the biggest claim.

I have said many times that I don't believe Alan and think his memory is not perfect. I suspect he read somewhere that the probability of an 11 is 1 in 18, and the 18 stuck in his head.

Likewise, I think your memory, or your math, is not perfect.

Would you go as far as to say MDawgs stories have officially jumped the shark? Why would we believe all the other stuff he has been claiming?Quote:WizardQuote:MDawgQuote:WizardHmmm. I'm going to give you a chance to retract that before I pounce all over it.

link to original post

It should be "some sixty" hands in a row. If you want to PM me I will tell you my average bet and how much exactly I walked with, and you figure out how many hands in a row I won! I was unstoppable. We can talk about this more when I see you or on the phone. It is truthful.

Looking back, I wonder if the fact that they were constantly changing decks or getting to the point where they would deal only one hand to me and then shuffle was actually what made my streak possible. In any case, yes, it did happen.

I would not be able to determine the exact consecutive number of hands based on that information. How many shuffles took place in between is not very relevant, compared to the enormity of your claim.

That said, my page on variance in blackjack (which I always have difficulty finding) shows that under liberal Vegas Strip rules, shows the following probability of the net result per hand:

Win: 42.43%

Push: 8.48%

Loss: 49.09%

I'll nicely take out the pushes, for a probability of winning, given the bet was resolved, of 46.36%.

Let me say that yes, I know the odds are a little different for other sets of rules. I am just making an estimate here.

The probability of winning 60 hands in a row, starting at any one point, is 1 in 107,294,826,280,306,000,000.

Let's say you play blackjack four hours a day, at 100 hands per hour, for a year, five days a week. The probability of seeing 60 wins in a row is about 1 in 102,885,449,857,828,000. Before somebody jumps down my black, this is just an estimate. It's not exactly right because of overlapping sequences of 60 hands.

As a basis of comparison, the probability of winning the Powerball is 1 in 292,201,338 and the probability of winning Megamillions is 1 in 302,575,350. If you purchased one of each ticket, the probability of winning both would be 1 in 88,412,922,115,818,300. So, it's 16% more likely to win both lotteries, with two tickets, than do what you're claiming.

I see the comparison to Alan's 18 yo's in a row as already been made. As a reminder, the probability of that, starting with any one roll, is 1 in 39,346,408,075,296,500,000,000. That is still 367 times more unlikely than starting with any one hand in blackjack, but they are the same order of magnitude.

I have said many times that I don't believe Alan and think his memory is not perfect. I suspect he read somewhere that the probability of an 11 is 1 in 18, and the 18 stuck in his head.

Likewise, I think your memory, or your math, is not perfect. You are now in the same basket with Alan. May you become good friends.link to original post

As far as MDawg goes...... I REST MY CASE.

Intelligence analysts are trained to deal with information and to assign confidence levels to information when passing them along to others in the community. Many bits of reported information are designated as "low confidence" or "very low confidence" without directly disparaging the source of the information or claiming that we are certain or uncertain of its truthfulness. Without any corroborating evidence, I would simply designate this story of "60 BJ wins in a row" as a very low confidence report.

There's no need to make a 3-ring circus about this. Let's just move on.

Move on? Didn't He triple down on this? If he cuts it down to 50 in a row, perhaps some idiot will believe it. It amazes me how people spout off ridiculous numbers when it comes to gambling events without actually thinking of the incredible odds. I'm no math guru, but any experienced gambler who's being honest should know when something is completely ridiculous and close to IMPOSSIBLE to have had happened. I say it's impossible, not because of the odds, but because of other factors as well.Quote:gordonm888I will also state that I do not believe a story involving "60 BJ wins in a row" as being "believable with high confidence." Perhaps the language used in telling the anecdote is loose or the memory is faulty or confused. But as Wizard has posted, the odds against that occurring are astronomical. Obviously if this has indeed occurred then there should be pit dealers and security personnel that would recall this, because it would have been a highly memorable event.

Intelligence analysts are trained to deal with information and to assign confidence levels to information when passing them along to others in the community. Many bits of reported information are designated as "low confidence" or "very low confidence" without directly disparaging the source of the information or claiming that we are certain or uncertain of its truthfulness. Without any corroborating evidence, I would simply designate this story of "60 BJ wins in a row" as a very low confidence report.

There's no need to make a 3-ring circus about this. Let's just move on.link to original post

Since the original thread had got so completely sidetracked by MDawgs claim of winning '60 some' or 'some 60' consecutive blackjack hands, I have, with Wizard's permission, split the thread.

Be aware that that splitting involved my editing links in many of the posts. So you will see 'Last edited by an un-named administrator' in many posts. Only links were edited.

I extend my apologies to Technics and Heatmap for accidentally dragging one post into this thread.

Thread temporarily closed! Please Do not open other threads on this topic.

The Wizard, OnceDear, Dieter, and I are all monitoring this thread closely, as well as other threads.

Quote:MDawgThe slight advantage to advantage play over the course of as few hands as Johnson played especially given the flat betting can't explain entirely his huge winning streaks. Just plain luck and leaving while ahead before the lucky streak ended, actually make more sense, in his case.

Just as if you're getting 12s and 13s all night you'll lose no matter what the count is, if you're getting 20s or hitting to 21 all night you'll win no matter what the count too.

One night I was playing a single deck and almost every hand I was winning, either getting blackjacks, twenties or hitting to twenty one no matter how crappy my first two cards were. The house tried everything to break my streak, changing dealers, changing decks, shuffling after each deal, nothing worked I just kept winning up to a peak of just under $70K. I wasn't even betting that much around $800. per hand but I just couldn't lose that night. If Johnson had a run like that or even close to a run like that easy to see how he'd win millions in one session.

I've seen a BJ player go from his last five thousand dollar chip to practically draining the dealer's tray, or Baccarat players go from ten grand up to a million. But more often than not they keep playing, and lose it all. Ever heard of the no shoes bandit (speaking of the homeless)? Look it up. Walking after a winning streak is key. If everyone in Vegas stopped playing after losing half his winnings Vegas would go dark by the end of the year. Ask any pit boss, they've seen it all: "Why do people lose?" - "Because they won't quit while ahead."

That Canadian mattress maker in Theroux's documentary, he was ahead $50K at roulette right after arrival, but in an Owning Mahoney-esque statement, declared that he hadn't flown six hours just to play twenty minutes. Not hard to see how or why the mattress millionaire ended up selling off his companies to pay gambling debts, eventually fired as an officer of his former companies, and finally, a broke Uber driver. The house advantage isn't what did him in so quickly - it was his inability to stop when ahead, making it so that he never had any winning sessions.

You just can't undervalue the value of quitting while ahead.link to original post

I believe I posted about it at least one other time too, though.

That was quite a night and the casino staff talked about it for years to come. If you take the average bet mentioned and the total win, you'll arrive at how many hands I won. I recall had some pushes along the way. Also, in either the above post or maybe that thread, or maybe in an entirely different post I mentioned why I left - it was because I lost a couple hands. The reason I recall the streak so profoundly is I simply could not lose! and when I finally did, I was so shocked that I up and left. Having a grip of money in front of me based on such a small average bet factored into my decision to leave too. Plus it was getting late in the night and I have never been much of a late night player.

Have you ever had a monster streak where you are up a lot and say to yourself, when this ends, I am leaving? I say that to myself and in fact do leave when such streaks end, all the time. That night was such a night, but to the utmost.

I don't see that there is anything more to add, but I'll discuss the exact circumstances and more, privately with the Wizard sometime probably.

Quote:gordonm888This thread has been re-opened.

The Wizard, OnceDear, Dieter, and I are all monitoring this thread closely, as well as other threads.link to original post

LOL. And I've been monitoring the wolfman and Frankenstein, who came to party with me after I took a good beating betting football yesterday. Wolfman says "hi" to the mods. Frankenstein has some issue with his vocal cords, but he's been plucking petals off flowers and tossing them in my toilet, then flushing it. He seems to be scrawling "Dawg" in magic marker on the flower petals.

I give much credit to kewlJ, who has often stated that claims unchecked almost always ramp up and escalate into the bizarre. I never really framed absurd claims in this manner, and I appreciate kewlJ providing insight and language that is both prescient in this case and useful.

I do remember explaining that when handicappers claimed 101-8 ATS records in USA Today, that I felt obligated to step in and publicly say it was ridiculous because if I didn't do it, who would and what was next? 300-10 ATS records? 500-14 ATS records? I believe when I compared those scamdicapper claims to MDawg, I was suspended.

So who was wrong? The suspendee or the suspender?

You mods are a trip. Sometimes when people report their conversations with the wolfman, who by the way won 60 consecutive blackjack hands, you really should point out that they're mentally disturbed, lying, or both.

Quote:MDawgCourtesy of OnceDear who had the skill to find my prior post, here it is:

Happy to oblige. You invoice for search fees is in the mail. $:o)

Just to eliminate any doubt.

Mdawg,

In the historic thread, you mentioned winning many hands in a monster streak, but never claimed a continuous streak of 60 winning hands.

Giving some allowance for some arbitrary number of tie hands which might have been in that streak. Are you still asserting that you experienced 60 winning hands in a row, not interrupted by a single loss?

Best offer to you : Are you asserting 60 NON-losing hands in a row?

Yeah or Nay? You assert it happened or you don't.

But, I do know how little I was betting and how much I won. There were double downs and blackjacks along the way, but as I recall most of the hands were regular wins. You do the math on how many hands in a row I won to get some 70K betting only about eight hunny a hand. It was a lot of wins in a row.

The entire pit was in a muddle over the continuity of my wins, which is why they kept changing dealers (superstition), changing decks, even got to the point of shuffling after every single deal to me. Nothing stopped my streak. They talked about it for years to come, almost every time I went to that casino someone would mention about how I had so and so (pit boss) in a panic that night.

You know the story of the "no shoes bandit," right? cashed his social security check and took it to about a million and a half, at Blackjack, before losing it all? I have met more than one person who was present personally during that event and described it to me in detail. I am sure the no shoes bandit won a lot of hands in a row, especially initially, to get far enough ahead to start winning the seriously big big deng. What are the odds of taking $600. to a million and a half at blackjack in just a day or so? Come to think of it, what are the odds of losing a million and a half at a regular blackjack table in just a day (assuming correct play)? Streaks happen.

In the event that, "Some sixty," consecutive Blackjack wins in a row can happen (disregarding pushes) as MDawg is claiming to have happened, AND the probability of losing an individual hand is greater than the probability of winning one (which it is) that means that MDawg was personally involved in an event that is LESS probable than losing, "Some sixty," hands in a row.

Therefore, if WellBush accepts anything even close to this account as true, then any negative progression betting system he can come up with (as we already know) can fail.

We have the real life proof account here, if MDawg is to be believed, except in reverse...because this event is actually less likely than losing some sixty hands in a row.

Quote:MDawgThis happened some two decades ago. Could I swear it was 60 in a row? No. Which is why I say "some sixty."

But, I do know how little I was betting and how much I won. There were double downs and blackjacks along the way, but most of the hands were regular wins. You do the math on how many hands in a row I won to get some 70K betting only about eight hunny a hand. It was a lot of wins in a row.

I doubt the 60 wins are in question. The absurdity being questioned is the 'in a row'

I/We might accept that you played some 60 or so hands and won almost all of them, putting you maybe 60 hands ahead. If you were not counting hands and had maybe 65 hands with maybe only 3 or 4 individual losses amongst them, And that you back calculated the 60 from a reference to your final profit, then that would be plausible. Unlikely but plausible.

It is absolutely forgivable for your recall to be flawed after 2 decades. No shame in that.

It is absolutely unbelievable that 60 wins in a row occured.

As an intelligent guy, you can do the maths. I invite you to accept that your recollection was flawed.

I'M NOT calling you a liar, not even implying such. I invite you to look to your report as an impartial observer and recognise that it was likely to being a flawed memory.

60 wins in a row a 1 in >1000000000000000000 event! C'mon!

Stay safe.

Plus all the commotion over my streak to the point where they would deal only one hand to me and then immediately shuffle, every single time. And that they kept talking about it for years. It was quite a night. I mean, when I got a 16 and dealer had ten up I was already tucking my cards as the 5 came my way, I already knew what was coming. It was like that. There was a small crowd around me talking about how lucky I was. I didn't even consider it all that extraordinary at the time, as it was pretty much near the beginning of my gaming days. If I had realized how extraordinary it was I would have bet a lot more, which is what people were saying around me, that I should be betting maximum. Instead, I was just flat betting about eight hunny a hand. And got to about 70K ahead before I lost the two hands and left.

Again, could I swear to that I did not lose a single hand along the way? No.

I know there were pushes along the way.

Quote:MDawgThis happened some two decades ago. Could I swear it was 60 in a row? No. Which is why I say "some sixty."

But, I do know how little I was betting and how much I won. There were double downs and blackjacks along the way, but most of the hands were regular wins. You do the math on how many hands in a row I won to get some 70K betting only about eight hunny a hand. It was a lot of wins in a row.

The entire pit was in a muddle over the continuity of my wins, which is why they kept changing dealers (superstition), changing decks, even got to the point of shuffling after every single deal to me. Nothing stopped my streak. They talked about it for years to come, almost every time I went to that casino someone would mentioned about how I had so and so (pit boss) in a panic that night.link to original post

"some two decades ago" Does that mean you could be off by a decade or 2? That's incredible considering that would be when you only first started gambling in casinos?

I think one would remember 40-60 wins very clearly no matter how long ago it was if it were to actually have happened. At some point during a winning streak, one takes mental note and then actually starts counting precisely, it may be off by a few depending on when the official counting started.

For me, I probably start to pay attention when I hit 7 coin flips in a row, or perhaps 6 or 8.

If anything over 20 in a row came up I would start to look around for the hidden camera show or assume some type of shenanigans.

perhaps you didn't get 60, but would you say it was definitely at least 45 in a row?

Should we assume everything you say should have the word some attached to it? "Some 70K betting only about eight hunny a hand." could mean between 0-70k betting between $1-$800 a hand.

If you are talking about AOS it was 30.Quote:JimRockfordI recall that a few years back, a regular poster was nearly run out of here because he claimed 33 consecutive blackjack losses.

link to original post

So you consider pushes a win?Quote:MDawg

I know there were pushes along the way.

This is all making perfect sense now. Whatever large amounts you claim to be winning in your trip reports could actually mean you pushed/broke even.

Quote:AxelWolfSo you consider pushes a win?

I believe this would be consistent with the mythology that many dealers perpetuate.

I am just being real here. Witnesses to accidents sometimes give completely conflicting accounts, and I have had personal experiences where I have realized how my memories of an event many years in my past were not accurate in some important particulars. I'm not an expert on this kind of subject, but like many others on this forum, I do feel I am an expert on gaming probabilities.

Quote:MDawgWell, what I remember is that I kept winning and winning and then when I finally lost two hands in a row I left. Which is why I recall no losses along the way....

So it's possible that you were up 60 hands (taking blackjacks and splits/doubles into account) before you lost two in a row? That sounds more feasible than "won 60-some hands in a row."

Quote:redietzYou mods are a trip. Sometimes when people report their conversations with the wolfman, who by the way won 60 consecutive blackjack hands, you really should point out that they're mentally disturbed, lying, or both.

link to original post

Personal insult. Based, in part, on past history -- seven days.

Quote:ThatDonGuySo it's possible that you were up 60 hands (taking blackjacks and splits/doubles into account) before you lost two in a row? That sounds more feasible than "won 60-some hands in a row."

link to original post

Possible, yes. If I understand what you are saying?

I very much recall how shocked I was that I lost two in a row, plus it was so late at night by then that I was really hungry and tired, and I just left, which is why I don't recall any losses before that although - again, I could not swear to that I did not lose a single hand along the way, nor to the exact numbers, which is why I said "some."

Quote:MDawgWhat are the odds of taking $600. to a million and a half at blackjack in just a day or so? Come to think of it, what are the odds of losing a million and a half at a regular blackjack table in just a day (assuming correct play)? Streaks happen.

link to original post

Let's simplify the question and use the pass bet in craps. If the shoeless man won just 11 bets in a row, he could parlay that $600 to $1,228,800. The probability of that is just 1 in 2,395. What you are claiming has a probability of 1 in 107,294,826,280,306,000,000.

Quote:MDawgQuote:ThatDonGuySo it's possible that you were up 60 hands (taking blackjacks and splits/doubles into account) before you lost two in a row? That sounds more feasible than "won 60-some hands in a row."

link to original post

Possible, yes.

I very much recall how shocked I was that I lost two in a row, plus it was so late at night by then that I was really hungry and tired, and I just left, which is why I don't recall any losses before that although - again, I could not swear to that I did not lose a single hand along the way, nor to the exact numbers, which is why I said "some."link to original post

Notwithstanding that use of the word 'some' could modify the 60 but not mitigate the 'in a row', I think we are done here.

We have our token suspension. We have (IMHO) MDawg walking back his assertion a little.

I think it's 'honours even'

An assertion has been debated in a civil manner. Thank's to all, even the suspended one.

Let's hope no more controversy or suspensions in this thread.

Quote:WizardQuote:MDawgWhat are the odds of taking $600. to a million and a half at blackjack in just a day or so? Come to think of it, what are the odds of losing a million and a half at a regular blackjack table in just a day (assuming correct play)? Streaks happen.

link to original post

Let's simplify the question and use the pass bet in craps. If the shoeless man won just 11 bets in a row, he could parlay that $600 to $1,228,800. The probability of that is just 1 in 2,395. What you are claiming has a probability of 1 in 107,294,826,280,306,000,000.link to original post

From what I understand the shoeless bandit took a day to get to a million and a half (or so), so it wasn't on a parlay. And --- hold on a second. At the time the shoeless bandit was playing Blackjack, table max was, I believe 5000 (maybe even only 2500). The shoeless bandit win was in the mid 1990s or so, at Treasure Island. So, how do you figure 11 hands got him to $1.2M ?

Plus I guess it was not even six hundred but just $400. with which the shoeless bandit started.

Man, I wish I had read what you posted a few days ago. In that it would have gotten me thinking more about pressing and parlays. The other day I put five grand on a bet, and won. Then I left it up, and won again. After that I didn't care and left it up until I lost. I won 4/5 hands at 5000 not the greatest streak, but not bad. I didn't press, not those particular hands, because five grand seemed sufficient, at least at that moment. But had I thought about the 11 hand to 1.2M you mention, I might've been roused to greed.

Quote:OnceDearI doubt the 60 wins are in question. The absurdity being questioned is the 'in a row'

I/We might accept that you played some 60 or so hands and won almost all of them, putting you maybe 60 hands ahead. If you were not counting hands and had maybe 65 hands with maybe only 3 or 4 individual losses amongst them, And that you back calculated the 60 from a reference to your final profit, then that would be plausible. Unlikely but plausible.

It is absolutely forgivable for your recall to be flawed after 2 decades. No shame in that.

It is absolutely unbelievable that 60 wins in a row occured.

As an intelligent guy, you can do the maths. I invite you to accept that your recollection was flawed.

I'M NOT calling you a liar, not even implying such. I invite you to look to your report as an impartial observer and recognise that it was likely to being a flawed memory.

60 wins in a row a 1 in >1000000000000000000 event! C'mon!

Stay safe.link to original post

I really take offense to oncedear and his nornal great job at the forum. Why do you give that dawg such leeway. He said it stands. Now you wanna let him back track. SCREW THIS. I was suspended for trying to work out my challenge and Clarify the rules and was held in stone. This 60 hands is bullshit. He knows it the forum knows it you know it the entire mdawg this is just ahhhhhh. Now he gets what he loves and his thread front and center again . We should hid any thread he makes in my opinon

lately and everyone knows why.

Quote:Expectedvalue

I really take offense to oncedear and his nornal great job at the forum. Why do you give that dawg such leeway.link to original post

There was some chatter within recent memory about "nobody comes here to see the mods moderate" and "maybe lighten up". I'm not attributing those comments to anyone in particular; they should be considered my summary.

I think that particular trial placement can be considered ended.