60 Winning Hands in a Row
Quote: Mission146I usually find Blackjack boring, but might be willing to play with you if we are in Vegas at the same time.
link to original post
The only stipulation is that I will only play Blackjack at the Longhorn Casino on Boulder Strip.
I think Longhorn may have closed their BJ tables.
Quote: DRichQuote: Mission146I usually find Blackjack boring, but might be willing to play with you if we are in Vegas at the same time.
link to original post
The only stipulation is that I will only play Blackjack at the Longhorn Casino on Boulder Strip.
I think Longhorn may have closed their BJ tables.link to original post
I seriously doubt Mission has lost a hand there in years.
Quote: MDawgIt was right around 800. Figure exactly 800 for calculation purposes. It is precisely because of the small amount of the bet - and getting just under 70K ahead - that makes it remarkable and means that I must have won many in a row. That's why the entire pit crew around my table was in a muddle trying everything to break my streak, including changing decks, changing dealers, and finally - dealing no more than one hand at a time to me before shuffling for each deal.
link to original post
Now it sounds like an LSAT "games" question:
If MDawg won 70K at blackjack betting 800 a hand, and left after losing two hands in a row having not lost more than one in a row along the way, how many hands did he or could he have won in a row?
You spent quite a lot of time posting already, so why not take it further and calculate, but anyway, I was asking the Wizard, not you, to recalculate the odds for both me and the shoeless bandit.
IMHO if they didn't close the table and/or tap you on the shoulder and inform you that you are free to play any games except Blackjack, then they really weren't doing anything to actually stop you.
Quote: MDawgBased on the above post I’d ask that both odds be recalculated based on the shoeless bandit's taking $400. ($400. is the correct starting figure) to $1.5M (I understand he peaked at $1.5M not $1.2M) in one day of play based on a 2500 table limit for the shoeless bandit,
I'm quite sure that they would have taken bets from him over $2,500. As I have heard the story, he was drunk and playing like an idiot. However, even if Mr. Rogers were playing perfect basic strategy, knowing Steve Wynn, who owned the TI at the time, would have gone much higher than $2,500. I won't be doing any math on that until I get realistic assumptions.
Quote:
and also recalculating the odds for my streak, based on my clarifications above:
1. It was not sixty some hands which implies over sixty. As I stated right away, that was a typo – it was “some sixty” which means, under sixty.
2. I cannot swear that there was not a loss along the way – this was some two decades ago.
3. I do know that I flat bet about eight hundred and walked with some seventy grand after losing two hands in a row, so – you calculate how many hands I must have won. Figure exactly 800 for calculation purposes.
4. I definitely did not lose two hands in a row until the end, when I walked.link to original post
1. I need an exact number of hands. My calculator doesn't have a "some" button. We understand the new number is a new approximation.
2. I need a maximum number of losses along the way. I understand they can't be consecutive.
3. I can't comment on this, per our NDA.
4. At least one thing is clear.
We seem to have had that assertion retracted now.Quote: OnceDearI doubt the 60 wins are in question. The absurdity being questioned is the 'in a row'
link to original post
MDawg is the member that once claimed to have won '60 some' hands in a row.
It's been a circuitous walk back, passing through 'some sixty' to tone down the number
Then passing through "I could not swear" to introduce uncertainty.
Now passing through (I paraphrase) 'with no streaks of more than one loss' which slashes the improbability.
So. 'sixty' might not have been sixty.
'In a row' might not have been in a row.
He does remember winning about 70k
So, if only the opening assertion had been "I once had a good session" we could have all cheered his good fortune and carried on with life.
Not attacking MDawg here, but I think he damaged his credibility just a little. It's that same credibility that supports his every assertion, his every session report. I hope he can rebuild his credibility to its former high level.
But on the bright side. Whether we believe him in future, or not, it will not impact his bankroll.
Good luck MDawg. Thanks for the anecdote.
Ignore my question. Nothing can be disclosed.
Quote: ExpectedvalueI have never seen a forum be softer on one member than this one with mdawg. Any other member would be ridiculed. Instead he was given time and time again to walk back. Which facts show he walked back more and more each time. His exact memory with all stories is now questioned in at least this posters mind.
link to original post
Man, this forum was just coming down on me because I said I was driving around town and needed confirmation whether that meant I actually had my foot on the pedal and my hands on the wheel or someone else was "driving me around town"
At any rate we went from sixty hands in a row to winning some sixty hands but not every hand in a row
We should give MDawg some slack. He never comes down hard on anyone who claims to say make $20,000 a week but not every week. We should not hold him to sixty hands but not every hand in a row.
Quote: FinsRuleIf I hear “some sixty”, I think it’s at least 60. Not less than sixty. Is that just me?
link to original post
Maybe it was a Baker's dozen.
Quote: WizardQuote: MDawgBased on the above post I’d ask that both odds be recalculated based on the shoeless bandit's taking $400. ($400. is the correct starting figure) to $1.5M (I understand he peaked at $1.5M not $1.2M) in one day of play based on a 2500 table limit for the shoeless bandit,
I'm quite sure that they would have taken bets from him over $2,500. As I have heard the story, he was drunk and playing like an idiot. However, even if Mr. Rogers were playing perfect basic strategy, knowing Steve Wynn, who owned the TI at the time, would have gone much higher than $2,500. I won't be doing any math on that until I get realistic assumptions.Quote:
and also recalculating the odds for my streak, based on my clarifications above:
1. It was not sixty some hands which implies over sixty. As I stated right away, that was a typo – it was “some sixty” which means, under sixty.
2. I cannot swear that there was not a loss along the way – this was some two decades ago.
3. I do know that I flat bet about eight hundred and walked with some seventy grand after losing two hands in a row, so – you calculate how many hands I must have won. Figure exactly 800 for calculation purposes.
4. I definitely did not lose two hands in a row until the end, when I walked.link to original post
1. I need an exact number of hands. My calculator doesn't have a "some" button. We understand the new number is a new approximation.
2. I need a maximum number of losses along the way. I understand they can't be consecutive.
3. I can't comment on this, per our NDA.
4. At least one thing is clear.link to original post
Maybe he meant the "sum" button.
There is no some in the title.
To be fair. It was me that titled it.Quote: AxelWolf60 WINNING HANDS IN A ROW
link to original post
There is no some in the title.
Quote: AxelWolfThere is no some in the title.
That's just nitpicking.
Quote: coachbellyYou're just nitpicking.
link to original post
The irony.
Quote: unJonThe irony
Nitpicking welcome from thee, but not from me.
Let’s say you flat bet $1000 on fair coin flips (baccarat is close enough to a coin flip) and you start playing with a bankroll of only one $1000 chip. Your chances of turning $1k into $60k are surprisingly high at 1/60.
However, a successful run like that will take, on average, 1,200 bets. The chance of it happening in less than 70 bets is about 1 in 50 trillion. So you’re about 100,000 times more likely to win the next Powerball jackpot
Quote: Ace2a successful run like that will take, on average, 1,200 bets.
Can you double down, split, re-split, double after split, and get 3:2 if flat-betting baccarat?
What's the most the player can win on one round of blackjack if flat-betting $1000?
The table limit is absolute absent someone's having a substantial credit line or substantial sums on deposit, and it's not as easy as just "hey I won a bunch, lemme deposit it, now raise the limit," and it's rarely done at all except for an established patron. Plus from what I know about the no shoes bandit, he held on to all his chips until he started losing badly, and at that point he cashed out some sixty thousand or so and deposited that into the bank, and ended up withdrawing that after he'd lost everything at Treasure Island and been ejected from T.I., and lost that last sixty at the Sands. The no shoes bandit was very rude, uncouth, and mistrustful of the casino - he would never have deposited all of his chips without cashing them which is the requisite first step in negotiations to get the table limit raised. Anyway, no the table limit was not raised for this guy, he just somehow, kept winning and winning and winning hand after hand...until, after peaking at around $1.5M, he just started losing hand after hand after hand. I know a lot more about this story than just what has been published, as people first hand close to the event told me about it in fairly intimate detail.
I am among the first to concede improbable events but getting table limits raised isn't as easy as all that at Vegas casinos.
At the end of his prodigious run he was broke, left with having to explain how or why he managed to deposit sixty cash into the bank when he was on social security, but - at least - no longer shoeless. (Wynn bought him a pair of athletic shoes.)
If you want to be generous, assume a table limit of 5000 at Blackjack in 1995 at Treasure Island. (I know for certain that the table limit Blackjack at Golden Nugget Vegas at that time was 2500.)
Quote: coachbellyCan you double down, split, re-split, double after split, and get 3:2 if flat-betting baccarat?
link to original post
What's the most the player can win on one round of blackjack if flat-betting $1000?
Depends on the rules. In theory, the most important rules would be twofold:
1.) Can you double after splitting?
2.) How many total hands can you split to?
If the answers are, "Yes," and, "Four," then a player could theoretically win $8,000 in one hand.
For blackjack we can use a statistically similar bet that has a 0.426 chance of winning a payoff of 4 to 3. House edge 0.6%, standard deviation 1.15
In this case, the chance of turning 1 unit into 75 units before going bankrupt is about 1 in 129. The average bets required to do so is 1,385. The chance of doing it in less than 70 bets is 1 in 2 x 10^15…in other words zero
a. 3:2
b. Crapola rules otherwise - as I recall not even allowed to double other than on 10 or 11.
The point being that this was an epic, monster run that was talked about for years afterwards and for which I became famous at that casino.
I am not surprised that there are some here who are amazed. Everyone present when I won like that definitely was, too.
Quote: Ace2The average bets required to do so is 1,385.
Does the chance of doing so in less than 70 bets change if the first round results in an $8K win?
Quote: Ace2the chance of turning 1 unit into 75 units before going bankrupt is about 1 in 129.
You moved the goalposts twice in less than an hour, perhaps you can understand how decades could affect one's memory.
Quote: Ace2Your chances of turning $1k into $60k are surprisingly high at 1/60.
I had not read previous posts closely, so my first analysis was for multiplying a bankroll times 60 playing baccarat. Upon a slightly closer reading (this is a long thread), I see that the scenario is turning $800 into $60,000 (75 times) playing blackjack. I used 0.426 * 4/3 because it makes the calculation much simpler and will still give an accurate answer.
You’re welcome
70K/$800=87.5 hands in a row!!! The last half hand was you running away from the table coz you thought you needed to get outta there in a hurry with 70K?Quote: MDawglink to original post
The point being that this was an epic, monster run that was talked about for years afterwards and for which I became famous at that casino.
I am not surprised that there are some here who are amazed. Everyone present when I won like that definitely was, too.
Dieter: am I trolling or having fun?
May be a quiz-worthy q.
didn't you also predict/time and bet some crazy amount of ties in baccarat or something like that? Please post the original story here for us.Quote: MDawg
Quote: Ace2You’re welcome
Hypercriticism? The first post in the thread clearly states the scenario is blackjack.
That's not easy to miss.
I'm welcome? Sounds snarky. I'm welcome for what?
I didn't ask you to analyze your own scenario, and you haven't answered any of my questions.
Is that because I didn't ask you about what to eat and not eat?
It seems to me that your replies in this thread are meant to discredit another member.
Isn't that what you're participation in this thread is about?
Quote: WellbushDieter: am I trolling or having fun?
link to original post
I do not presume to guess.
You’d be wrong. MDawg asked for a calculation and Ace2 ran it with some transparent assumptions.Quote: coachbellyHypercriticism? The first post in the thread clearly states the scenario is blackjack.
link to original post
That's not easy to miss.
I'm welcome? Sounds snarky. I'm welcome for what?
I didn't ask you to analyze your own scenario, and you haven't answered any of my questions.
Is that because I didn't ask you about what to eat and not eat?
It seems to me that your replies in this thread are meant to discredit another member.
Isn't that what you're participation in this thread is about?
Quote: MDawgQuote: 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
Based on the above post I’d ask that both odds be recalculated based on the shoeless bandit's taking $400. ($400. is the correct starting figure) to $1.5M (I understand he peaked at $1.5M not $1.2M) in one day or perhaps just a few days of play based on a 2500 table limit for the shoeless bandit,
and also recalculating the odds for my streak, based on my clarifications above:
1. It was not sixty some hands which implies over sixty. As I stated right away, that was a typo – it was “some sixty” which means, under sixty.
2. I cannot swear that there was not a loss along the way – this was some two decades ago.
3. I do know that I flat bet about eight hundred and walked with some seventy grand after losing two hands in a row, so – you calculate how many hands I must have won. Figure exactly 800 for calculation purposes.
4. I recall occasionally playing two hands at once, but never more than two.
5. I definitely did not lose two hands in a row until the end, when I walked.
6. SINGLE DECK Blackjack.
a. 3:2
b. Crapola rules otherwise - as I recall not even allowed to double other than on 10 or 11.
If MDawg won 70K at blackjack betting 800 a hand, and left after losing two hands in a row having not lost more than one in a row along the way, how many hands did he or could he have won in a row?link to original post
Quote: unJonAce2 ran it with some transparent assumptions.
He ran with it, but disregarded the clarifications that you quoted.
The "transparent assumptions" expose his motives.
Welcome back Wellbush.Quote: Wellbushlink to original post
Dieter: am I trolling or having fun?
May be a quiz-worthy q.
There's a few in this thread that might ask the same question of themselves. Just be conscious that this thread is somewhat controversial and there are sensitive souls taking part. The thread is a minefield which we enter at our peril. So take care, please.
You mean this one?Quote: AxelWolfdidn't you also predict/time and bet some crazy amount of ties in baccarat or something like that? Please post the original story here for us.
link to original post
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/23/
Quote: MDawg"It's uncanny." he explained. "He's hitting something like 80% of his tie bets."
I have a system for predicting the ties. I bet them rarely, but when I do, I usually win. In my life I have bet a couple of $3000. tie bets (paying off $24,000.) and hit them both. 2/2. I have also bet a few $2000. and $1500. tie bets, and hit them all too. Of course, my average with smaller tie bets is not 100%, but when I am running hot (get me some antifreeze!), I will hit the majority of my tie bets.
Bolding is mine.
Quote: OnceDearYou mean this one?Quote: AxelWolfdidn't you also predict/time and bet some crazy amount of ties in baccarat or something like that? Please post the original story here for us.
link to original post
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/23/Quote: MDawg"It's uncanny." he explained. "He's hitting something like 80% of his tie bets."
I have a system for predicting the ties. I bet them rarely, but when I do, I usually win. In my life I have bet a couple of $3000. tie bets (paying off $24,000.) and hit them both. 2/2. I have also bet a few $2000. and $1500. tie bets, and hit them all too. Of course, my average with smaller tie bets is not 100%, but when I am running hot (get me some antifreeze!), I will hit the majority of my tie bets.
Bolding is mine.link to original post
The line "It's uncanny." he explained. "He's hitting something like 80% of his tie bets." refers to one particular session, and refers to what a pit boss said about me at one particular session, and quoting it to imply that I claim to hit 80% of my tie bets, or to imply that I usually hit 80% of my tie bets, is misquoting me - worse in my opinion than the misquoting that just landed EvenBob in WOV prison for a month. Especially consider that I often refer to myself in the third person "MDawg does this" "He does that" it is especially not right to provide that particular line, boldfaced no less, as representative of my tie betting as depicted in that particular post.
To quote that particular post more accurately the words when I am running hot should have been boldfaced. Otherwise, the selective quoting and boldfacing is misrepresentative and seems to imply that I claim to hit ties the majority of the time.
I acknowledge that I should have made clear the attribution of the "it's uncanny" phrase which was a quote of a pit boss.Quote: MDawgQuote: OnceDear
Quote: MDawg"It's uncanny." he explained. "He's hitting something like 80% of his tie bets."
I have a system for predicting the ties. I bet them rarely, but when I do, I usually win. In my life I have bet a couple of $3000. tie bets (paying off $24,000.) and hit them both. 2/2. I have also bet a few $2000. and $1500. tie bets, and hit them all too. Of course, my average with smaller tie bets is not 100%, but when I am running hot (get me some antifreeze!), I will hit the majority of my tie bets.
Bolding is mine.link to original post
The line "It's uncanny." he explained. "He's hitting something like 80% of his tie bets." refers to one particular session, and refers to what a pit boss said about me at one particular session, and quoting it to imply that I claim to hit 80% of my tie bets, or to imply that I usually hit 80% of my tie bets, is misquoting me - worse in my opinion than the misquoting that just landed EvenBob in WOV prison for a month.
To quote that particular post more accurately the words when I am running hot should have been boldfaced. Otherwise, the selective quoting and boldfacing is misrepresentative.link to original post
This was unintended and I apologise. I don't apologise for the bolding. The quote was from a very long post and the paragraph before should have been quoted like this.
Quote: MDawg
Tie bets - don't even get me started. The main pit boss at my table was advising any players who came up to bet the tie whenever I did.
"It's uncanny." he explained. "He's hitting something like 80% of his tie bets."
I have a system for predicting the ties. I bet them rarely, but when I do, I usually win. In my life I have bet a couple of $3000. tie bets (paying off $24,000.) and hit them both. 2/2. I have also bet a few $2000. and $1500. tie bets, and hit them all too. Of course, my average with smaller tie bets is not 100%, but when I am running hot (get me some antifreeze!), I will hit the majority of my tie bets.link to original post
I'm going to have Dieter and Gordon adjudicate on any penalty due to me, and I will not give any suggestion.
The math guys have already figured out the odds of seeing sixty winning blackjacks in a row.
Somewhere else the math guys here figured out the odds of winning 25% of tie bets, I believe it was.
Somewhere else the math guys here figured out the odds of having (what was it?) 49 out of fifty winning days straight (in a comped room at the same location nonetheless)
There may be a few other one's I am missing.
What I would like to know is what are the combinatorial odds that all of these billion and trillion to one events not only happens, but happens to the same specific gambler?
Actually I was just thinking about how people at the casinos keep flocking to me begging to ask to play at my private table, or have me play with them at their public tables. So, it's not just WOV people who recognize the extraordinary it's people who cross paths with MDawg too, who recognize that there is something going on here that is extraordinary. But then, that's the nature of the extraordinary to be extraordinary, no? which means not usual, which means defying the usual odds. I bring up the actions of those who cross paths with me at the casinos because they too recognize the unusual.
Just the other day in response to some post I posted a picture of a Bacc shoe showing I believe it was 16 banks in a row and another where the Player ran past 1 only thrice the entire shoe, and mentioned a shoe I saw where the Bank never ran more than 1. I was reading WOV and found some thread where a Bacc dealer claimed that in all his years of dealing he had rarely seen streaks of 10 or more and was therefore advising to bet against the Bank or Player every time it went more than 8, or some such nonsense - point being that this dealer claimed to almost never see streaks of 10 or more, and yet when I play Bacc I see such streaks every week.
So, what's going on? people are living very un-extraordinary lives? or am I just in the right place at the right time regularly? or is it more right to just admit that extraordinary things do happen!
Someone here recently said something to the effect of that looking in a rear view mirror events may seem extraordinary but that doesn't mean they didn't happen!
Quote: MDawgGlancing at the above - no, the no shoes bandit was not allowed to bet more than table limit. Still, he somehow took $400. to $1.5M in a matter of days (perhaps just one day) from what I have been told, and have read.
link to original post
The table limit is absolute absent someone's having a substantial credit line or substantial sums on deposit, and it's not as easy as just "hey I won a bunch, lemme deposit it, now raise the limit," and it's rarely done at all except for an established patron. Plus from what I know about the no shoes bandit, he held on to all his chips until he started losing badly, and at that point he cashed out some sixty thousand or so and deposited that into the bank, and ended up withdrawing that after he'd lost everything at Treasure Island and been ejected from T.I., and lost that last sixty at the Sands. The no shoes bandit was very rude, uncouth, and mistrustful of the casino - he would never have deposited all of his chips without cashing them which is the requisite first step in negotiations to get the table limit raised. Anyway, no the table limit was not raised for this guy, he just somehow, kept winning and winning and winning hand after hand...until, after peaking at around $1.5M, he just started losing hand after hand after hand. I know a lot more about this story than just what has been published, as people first hand close to the event told me about it in fairly intimate detail.
I am among the first to concede improbable events but getting table limits raised isn't as easy as all that at Vegas casinos.
At the end of his prodigious run he was broke, left with having to explain how or why he managed to deposit sixty cash into the bank when he was on social security, but - at least - no longer shoeless. (Wynn bought him a pair of athletic shoes.)
If you want to be generous, assume a table limit of 5000 at Blackjack in 1995 at Treasure Island. (I know for certain that the table limit Blackjack at Golden Nugget Vegas at that time was 2500.)
Let me add to this. Nowadays, where the stated public limit is $15,000. at Blackjack on the Strip, it is very very hard to get a private table no matter how many millions you have in credit or on deposit, for more than $25K a hand at Blackjack. Special limits of $50K, $100K, $150K are routine at Baccarat, not at Blackjack - limits of about $50K or more at Blackjack simply do not exist even today in Vegas.
So, besides the fact that I know that the no shoes bandit was not playing special limits, back then in 1995, there almost definitely simply were no special limits for Blackjack for anyone in Vegas above $25K a hand in 1995.
So, again, figuring a table limit of 2500 or 5000, what are the odds that the no shoes bandit took $400. to $1.5M at Blackjack in a matter of days or possibly even in one day? You could allow more than one 5000 hand at a time, yes, but that's about it. What are the odds?
MDawg has effectively retracted the "some sixty" or "sixty some" in a row claim. We have dealt with that.Quote: darkozHere is what I would like to know.
link to original post
The math guys have already figured out the odds of seeing sixty winning blackjacks in a row.
Somewhere else the math guys here figured out the odds of winning 25% of tie bets, I believe it was.
Somewhere else the math guys here figured out the odds of having (what was it?) 49 out of fifty winning days straight (in a comped room at the same location nonetheless)
There may be a few other one's I am missing.
What I would like to know is what are the combinatorial odds that all of these billion and trillion to one events not only happens, but happens to the same specific gambler?
I don't currently recall seeing the 25% of tie bets claimed
To be perfectly fair, the wizard has acknowledged that a very high percentage of winning sessions is not unreasonable, with a large bankroll at risk for a modest win goal.
So we really find ourselves left with just this one remarkable event, which Darkoz might have missed and which has been barely discussed...
Quote: MDawg over on WizardOfOddsI once saw 49 consecutive baccarat hands with 48 Player wins, not counting ties. What is the probability of that per shoe?
Wizard had replied
Quote: wizardThe probability of any 49 consecutive hands, not counting ties, having 48 Player wins is 1 in 21,922,409,835,345. However, there are 25.1874 possible starting points for these 49 hands, to make estimate. Thus, the probability of seeing the aforementioned event in a shoe is 1 in 870,371,922,467. This is not a hard and fast answer, but what I feel is a very good estimate.
Quote: OnceDearMDawg has effectively retracted the "some sixty" or "sixty some" in a row claim. We have dealt with that.Quote: darkozHere is what I would like to know.
link to original post
The math guys have already figured out the odds of seeing sixty winning blackjacks in a row.
Somewhere else the math guys here figured out the odds of winning 25% of tie bets, I believe it was.
Somewhere else the math guys here figured out the odds of having (what was it?) 49 out of fifty winning days straight (in a comped room at the same location nonetheless)
There may be a few other one's I am missing.
What I would like to know is what are the combinatorial odds that all of these billion and trillion to one events not only happens, but happens to the same specific gambler?
I don't currently recall seeing the 25% of tie bets claimed
To be perfectly fair, the wizard has acknowledged that a very high percentage of winning sessions is not unreasonable, with a large bankroll at risk for a modest win goal.
So we really find ourselves left with just this one remarkable event, which Darkoz might have missed and which has been barely discussed...
Wizard had repliedlink to original post
The 25% of the tie bet assertion happened. Odds of occurrence got calculated in thread at time.
Quote: MDawgWhat are the odds that a formerly homeless person would ever make $20K in any week?
link to original post
This comparison is totally off the rails.
While I certainly have achieved much in terms of representing a success story, it's certainly not overnight or unrealistic.
2011 homeless
2012 making ten dollar daily freeplay and starting to multi-card. Now bus traveling for comps primarily to the Sands. Sleeping on the bus all day and night (multiple trips per day) so technically still homeless.
2013 putting together several observations about how comps systems work and how to take advantage. Starting to make enough now to pay rent on an apartment. (My friends would keep asking me for months when I was buying some furniture. The only thing I moved in with was a new bed which after sleeping upright on subway and bus for years was what I really looked forward too )
2014 putting together crews and expanding outward to new locations. Finally living comfortable.
The rest was just slow expansion. I didn't even start making $20,000 a week until the last few years.
So to compare the past decade of my going from homeless to success with winning 25% of tie bets and sixty (some) straight blackjack hands is just ridiculous and non-comparable.
Quote: darkozI didn't even start making $20,000 a week until the last few years.
link to original post
You're still saying that. The meaning of that line is clear, in plain English. That you can't see or acknowledge that is unfathomable.
That phrase "$20,000 a week" is a straight inaccuracy given your admission that you do not make $20,000. a week.
Quote: MDawgQuote: darkozI didn't even start making $20,000 a week until the last few years.
link to original post
You're still saying that. The meaning of that line is clear, in plain English. That you can't see or acknowledge that is unfathomable.
That phrase "$20,000 a week" is a straight inaccuracy given your admission that you do not make $20,000. a week.link to original post
I have always been upfront with saying I make$20,000 a week just not every week.
"Some" sixty hands? What the hell does that mean?
1. It was not sixty some hands which implies over sixty. As I stated right away, that was a typo – it was “some sixty” which means, under sixty.
2. I cannot swear that there was not a loss along the way – this was some two decades ago.
3. I do know that I flat bet about eight hundred and walked with some seventy grand after losing two hands in a row, so – you calculate how many hands I must have won. Figure exactly 800 for calculation purposes.
4. I recall occasionally playing two hands at once, but never more than two.
5. I definitely did not lose two hands in a row until the end, when I walked.
6. SINGLE DECK Blackjack.
a. 3:2
b. Crapola rules otherwise - as I recall not even allowed to double other than on 10 or 11.
In other words, you keep misrepresenting what I have said, and keep misrepresenting your alleged income. The plain English of "$20,000 a week" is what it is. For you to use that phrase whatsoever is misrepresentative. The correct way might be to say, "I have made as much as $20,000. in a week."
Quote: MDawgYou also keep saying "sixty (some) straight blackjack hands" when the truth is clarified as below:
link to original post
1. It was not sixty some hands which implies over sixty. As I stated right away, that was a typo – it was “some sixty” which means, under sixty.
2. I cannot swear that there was not a loss along the way – this was some two decades ago.
3. I do know that I flat bet about eight hundred and walked with some seventy grand after losing two hands in a row, so – you calculate how many hands I must have won. Figure exactly 800 for calculation purposes.
4. I recall occasionally playing two hands at once, but never more than two.
5. I definitely did not lose two hands in a row until the end, when I walked.
6. SINGLE DECK Blackjack.
a. 3:2
b. Crapola rules otherwise - as I recall not even allowed to double other than on 10 or 11.
In other words, you keep misrepresenting what I have said, and keep misrepresenting your alleged income.
That's still not comparable to going from homeless to running a big AP operation in a decade in terms of odds or veracity.
Certainly I have conquered the odds but not billion or trillion to one odds
If I'm understanding the logic of the probability calculations for gambling correctly, I assume that the results are for reasonably even distributions, too.Quote: MDawgI think one problem with a lot of the odds people calculate is that they don't include the factor of how many hands / shoes / etc. a given person plays or has played. Those reduce the odds and make it more likely that the event was viewed or experienced by the given person. I mean, what are the odds that I could turn $10,000. into $40,000,000. in Vegas in two years? I imagine the odds would be different for a lifetime gambler who gambles all the time and was playing constantly during those two years, versus someone who just shows up and decides to play a few hands of cards a few days a year.
link to original post
Whereas in the real world, cards can stick together and all sorts of other unusual real world variations can interfere. Hence there may be more unusual results happening in the real world 'more often' than what the calculations expect?
But I'm not an expert, so I defer to those.
Quote: MDawgI think one problem with a lot of the odds people calculate is that they don't include the factor of how many hands / shoes / etc. a given person plays or has played. Those reduce the odds and make it more likely that the event was viewed or experienced by the given person.
Factoring in hands experienced is easy.
If you observe 1 stream of events in your lifetime and see a 1 in 1,000,000,000 event, then the probability was 1 in 1000000000,
But if you watch 1,000,000,000 such streams of events from the beginning, then it's even money.
But are you that old, that you have really seen so many streams of events?
Quote: MDawgI mean, what are the odds that I could turn $10,000. into $40,000,000. in Vegas in two years? I imagine the odds would be different for a lifetime gambler who gambles all the time and was playing constantly during those two years, versus someone who just shows up and decides to play a few hands of cards a few days a year.
link to original post
Now.......
Please tell us. Did You, MDawg, turn $10,000 into $40,000,000 in Vegas in two years?
For the elimination of doubt, By playing casino games with no other bankroll at risk?
Quote:what are the odds that I could turn $10,000. into $40,000,000.
That's one I can answer, but only if you are NOT playing with an advantage.
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/7/#post1370
Odds of turning 10,000 into 40,000,000 in vegas in two years? Presumably in one attempt and with no additional Bankroll at risk.
P<= 10000/40010000
P<=0.0002499
or expressed as '1 in 4001 or worse.'
If you tried it 4000 times, you might well have succeeded once. You're not 4000 years old?
Quote: darkoz"Some" sixty hands? What the hell does that mean?
What is the issue with the use of some in this manner?
The word "some" is used to indicate an approximation.
The use is described in the dictionary.
some
/səm/
determiner
determiner: some
1.
an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
2.
used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
"I was talking to some journalist the other day"
3.
(used with a number) approximately.
"some thirty different languages are spoken"
He eventually lost it all, all forty million, in a three week period, later in 1995.
