60 Winning Hands in a Row
Quote: MDawg2. 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.
Using my page on the variance in blackjack, I calculate that the average units won, given there was a win, is 1.210677. It's more than one because of blackjacks, doubles, and splits.
Diving 70,000 by 800 we get 87.5 units won. Dividing that by 1.21, we get 72.27 hands won.
However, let's throw in a single loss, per the second point in the list. Note MDawg uses the singular "a loss." To offset it, let's add in another win. To keep the numbers round, let's now say MDawg had 73 wins and 1 loss.
Let's put the loss somewhere between and including hands 2 and 72, for 71 possible locations.
As a reminder, the probability of a win, given the hand was resolved, is 0.463596.
Our new probability is 71*0.463596^73*(1-0.463596) = 1 in 61,973,118,508,716,900,000,000 .
As a basis of comparison, Alan's 18 yo's has a probability of 1 in 39,346,408,075,296,500,000,000. So, congratulations MDawg, this change of circumstances makes you the winner of the biggest fish caught in Wizard Lake. Your probability is 36.5% less than Alan's.
Keep in mind this is for any given starting point and this was 20 years ago. Let's assume MDawg has played 4 hours of blackjack a day, every day, for the last 20 years at a speed of 100 hands per hour. That still gives us a probability of 1 in 21,223,670,722,163,300 of seeing this feat occur in 20 years.
Quote: MDawgBetween December 1992 and the beginning of 1995, Archie Karas turned a $10,000. loan into $40,000,000.
link to original post
Awwww. MDawg's gone down in my estimation $:o(
Quote: WizardUsing my page on the variance in blackjack, I calculate that the average units won, given there was a win, is 1.210677. It's more than one because of blackjacks, doubles, and splits.
link to original post
Diving 70,000 by 800 we get 87.5 units won. Dividing that by 1.21, we get 72.27 hands won.
However, let's throw in a single loss, per the second point in the list. Note MDawg uses the singular "a loss." To offset it, let's add in another win. To keep the numbers round, let's now say MDawg had 73 wins and 1 loss.
Let's put the loss somewhere between hand 2 and 72, for 71 possible locations.
As a reminder, the probability of a win, given the hand was resolved, is 0.463596.
Our new probability is 71*0.463596^73*(1-0.463596) = 1 in 61,812,617,158,651,600,000,000.
Keep in mind this is for any given starting point and this was 20 years ago. Let's assume MDawg has played 4 hours of blackjack a day, every day, for the last 20 years at a speed of 100 hands per hour. That still gives us a probability of 1 in 21,168,704,506,387,500 of seeing this feat occur in 20 years.
Quote: OnceDearIf you tried it 4000 times, you might well have succeeded once. You're not 4000 years old?
Does this also mean one individual out of each 4000 who tried it might well have succeeded?
How many in a row would you say for certain?Quote: MDawg5. I definitely did not lose two hands in a row until the end, when I walked.
Quote: MDawg... “some sixty” which means, under sixty.
link to original post
I do not believe that is so.
I agree with CoachBelly that it means 'about 60'
Quote: Wizardlet's throw in a single loss, per the second point in the list. Note MDawg uses the singular "a loss."
link to original post
But actually I think it was imprecise to assume that "cannot swear that there was not a loss along the way" necessarily means just one loss along the way. Not that I don't appreciate the mathematical effort to calculate this! however - I cannot swear to that there was not more than one loss or a partial loss on a split hand or where I bet more than one hand at once, along the way, however there was no double loss along the way until the end when I stopped.
There is someone elsewhere who claims about 30 Blackjack wins in a row, that one is posting about it this week. So if you disbelieve me do you disbelieve the claim of 30 Blackjack wins in a row? I believe that one is claiming that on a split hand along the way there was a 1 and 1 win/loss but otherwise...30 in a row!
In any case, a momentous session that lived on in the annals of that casino for years as everyone kept talking to me about it regularly, especially when I ran into anyone who was working during that session in my vicinity.
Quote: MDawgHe eventually lost it all, all forty million, in a three week period
Can the odds of turning $10K into $40mil in 2 years be calculated with the information available?
How about the odds of losing 40mil in 3 weeks? Is that calculable with the available information?
Quote: OnceDearI agree with CoachBelly that it means 'about 60'
And under sixty is certainly included within that range, don't you agree?
Quote: coachbellyCan the odds of turning $10K into $40mil in 2 years be calculated with the information available?
link to original post
How about the odds of losing 40mil in 3 weeks? Is that calculable with the available information?
I suppose it would depend on the table limits?
But I am adamant that the no shoes bandit had no special limits and took $400. to $1.5M in a matter of a few days - so, given let's say a 5000 limit, what are the odds for that? even assuming that he might've occasionally played more than one hand at a time.
How many was anyone/everyone? That could have been very few perhaps 1-3.Quote: MDawgThe some $70K I got up to would beg to differ! More than a chance, a reality.
link to original post
But actually I think it was imprecise to assume that "there was not a loss along the way" necessarily means just one loss along the way. I cannot swear to that there was not more than one loss or a partial loss on a split hand or where I bet more than one hand at once, along the way, however there was no double loss along the way until the end when I stopped.
There is someone elsewhere who claims about 30 Blackjack wins in a row, that one is posting about it this week. So if you disbelieve me do you disbelieve the claim of 30 Blackjack wins in a row? I believe that one is claiming that on a split hand along the way there was a 1 and 1 win/loss but otherwise...30 in a row!
In any case, a momentous session that lived on in the annals of that casino for years as everyone kept talking to me about it regularly, especially when I ran into anyone who was working that night in my vicinity.
Indeed, but for a teensy weensy caveat.Quote: coachbellyDoes this also mean one individual out of each 4000 who tried it might well have succeeded?
link to original post
My rule of thumb gives a best case scenario where there is either no house edge, or where very little is exposed to the house edge. E.g, maximum bet placed every hand, such as parlaying aggressively, will give us minimum exposure to the house edge, and our best chance of success. But by making smaller wagers, even of tens of thousands of dollars each, the total action exposed to the house edge will increase massively and the probability of success will plummet.
to that, people would just say: "it didn't happen!" 🤷😊Quote: WizardUsing my page on the variance in blackjack, I calculate that the average units won, given there was a win, is 1.210677. It's more than one because of blackjacks, doubles, and splits.
link to original post
Diving 70,000 by 800 we get 87.5 units won. Dividing that by 1.21, we get 72.27 hands won.
However, let's throw in a single loss, per the second point in the list. Note MDawg uses the singular "a loss." To offset it, let's add in another win. To keep the numbers round, let's now say MDawg had 73 wins and 1 loss.
Let's put the loss somewhere between and including hands 2 and 72, for 71 possible locations.
As a reminder, the probability of a win, given the hand was resolved, is 0.463596.
Our new probability is 71*0.463596^73*(1-0.463596) = 1 in 61,973,118,508,716,900,000,000 .
As a basis of comparison, Alan's 18 yo's has a probability of 1 in 39,346,408,075,296,500,000,000. So, congratulations MDawg, this change of circumstances makes you the winner of the biggest fish caught in Wizard Lake. Your probability is 36.5% less than Alan's.
Keep in mind this is for any given starting point and this was 20 years ago. Let's assume MDawg has played 4 hours of blackjack a day, every day, for the last 20 years at a speed of 100 hands per hour. That still gives us a probability of 1 in 21,223,670,722,163,300 of seeing this feat occur in 20 years.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.Quote: MDawg
There is someone elsewhere who claims about 30 Blackjack wins in a row, that one is posting about it this week. So if you disbelieve me do you disbelieve the claim of 30 Blackjack wins in a row?
Quote: OnceDearIndeed, but for a teensy weensy caveat.
Are you dismissing the possibility that Karas made some smaller wagers during his run, that all of his play did not fall under your "best case scenario" caveat?
Quote: MDawglink 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.
Why is everyone playing the get people Suspended game rather than just talking? I'm not talking about you specifically as if you are the only one, but his post didn't misquote anything as he very clearly asked you for a clarification on the story. In fact, he requested that you repost the original story, I would assume, precisely because he did not want to misquote you.
Anyway, why don't we all go back to letting the Mods decide what a Suspension worthy offense is or is not. I guess people can always PM them regarding such things, as well, rumor has it that they get no shortage of PM's from multiple people.
.Quote: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.
After I paid off the marker, my winnings remained
Again, that is a partial quote as it is the relevant portion to my comment and there should be no need to recreate the entire post.
You first start off by saying that you bet the Tie rarely, but when you do, you usually win. Later on, you clarify that you win the majority of them when you are, "Running hot," so these statements are not contradictory---but taken together, are confusing. Would you say that you have won on more than 50% of the tie bets that you have ever made, or only specifically when you are, "Running Hot?" If the latter and you were forced to estimate a percentage won, what would that percentage be? Finally, if you care to answer, roughly how many Tie Bets would you approximate that you have ever made?
Quote: WellbushIncidentally, not so long ago I read on a forum that a well known gambler some years ago, lost 47 bj hands in a row. If that's true, maybe someone can win 40 odd bj hands in a row?
link to original post
Given our past discussions, I think it would be a good idea if you focus only on the possibility of losing so many hands in a row, given your previously posted defenses of betting systems.
I'm not following your logic here 146. Just saying 🤷Quote: Mission146Quote: WellbushIncidentally, not so long ago I read on a forum that a well known gambler some years ago, lost 47 bj hands in a row. If that's true, maybe someone can win 40 odd bj hands in a row?
link to original post
Given our past discussions, I think it would be a good idea if you focus only on the possibility of losing so many hands in a row, given your previously posted defenses of betting systems.link to original post
Quote: Mission146Why is everyone playing the get people Suspended game rather than just talking? I'm not talking about you specifically as if you are the only one, but his post didn't misquote anything as he very clearly asked you for a clarification on the story. In fact, he requested that you repost the original story, I would assume, precisely because he did not want to misquote you.
Axel asked for a clarification on the story.
My understanding is that MDawg's complaint is about the Mod's misleading quote replying to AW's request.
A majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.Quote: WellbushIs there paranoia around people thinking people are trying to get people suspended?
The wizard recently thanked MDawg for ratting out Buzz. Information(hearsay, and speculation a good guess ) from a discussion on another forum. I don't think that person would have posted their guess had they knew MDawg was going to run and tattle.
I don't even think I'm MDawg was even around back when the Buzz thing went down has or had any real feud with Buzz. For the life of me, I can't figure out why MD felt the need to rat him out.
Keep up the good work guys, eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here. It's going to be full betting systems guys and Nathan types. And with all the competition around even those types will be hard to come by.
So in my book, if 18 yos in a row is dismissed ANYTHING Mdawg says falls into the range of being possible.
You would be correct. I think it's fairly obvious to any logical person that neither of these things has actually happened.Quote: AlanMendelsonI just want you all to know that my report of seeing a random shooter roll 18 yos in a row still has higher odds of anything Mdawg is claiming.
link to original post
So in my book, if 18 yos in a row is dismissed ANYTHING Mdawg says falls into the range of being possible.
Guys, GUYS,Quote: AxelWolfYou would be correct. I think it's fairly obvious to any logical person that neither of these things has actually happened.link to original postQuote: AlanMendelsonI just want you all to know that my report of seeing a random shooter roll 18 yos in a row still has higher odds of anything Mdawg is claiming.
link to original post
So in my book, if 18 yos in a row is dismissed ANYTHING Mdawg says falls into the range of being possible.
You might not have spotted it but MDawg has effectively withdrawn his claim by dismantling it bit by bit.
Quote: WellbushI'm not following your logic here 146. Just saying 🤷link to original postQuote: Mission146Quote: WellbushIncidentally, not so long ago I read on a forum that a well known gambler some years ago, lost 47 bj hands in a row. If that's true, maybe someone can win 40 odd bj hands in a row?
link to original post
Given our past discussions, I think it would be a good idea if you focus only on the possibility of losing so many hands in a row, given your previously posted defenses of betting systems.link to original post
If losing an individual trial is more likely than winning, then whatever the longest winning streak you have ever heard of is, a losing streak of that number will be the more likely result.
Maybe I'm too new to the scene around here to come to your conclusion AW? Don't know what more to say.Quote: AxelWolfA majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.
link to original post
The wizard recently thanked MDawg for ratting out Buzz. Information(hearsay, and speculation a good guess ) from a discussion on another forum. I don't think that person would have posted their guess had they knew MDawg was going to run and tattle.
I don't even think I'm MDawg was even around back when the Buzz thing went down has or had any real feud with Buzz. For the life of me, I can't figure out why MD felt the need to rat him out.
Keep up the good work guys, eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here. It's going to be full betting systems guys and Nathan types. And with all the competition around even those types will be hard to come by.
That's what I was implying...47 losses, 40 wins.Quote: Mission146Quote: WellbushI'm not following your logic here 146. Just saying 🤷link to original postQuote: Mission146Quote: WellbushIncidentally, not so long ago I read on a forum that a well known gambler some years ago, lost 47 bj hands in a row. If that's true, maybe someone can win 40 odd bj hands in a row?
link to original post
Given our past discussions, I think it would be a good idea if you focus only on the possibility of losing so many hands in a row, given your previously posted defenses of betting systems.link to original post
If losing an individual trial is more likely than winning, then whatever the longest winning streak you have ever heard of is, a losing streak of that number will be the more likely result.link to original post
It's also starting to get into the realm of 60 wins, but I wasn't there to verify any of these claims. As I previously mentioned after the Wizard's last post here, most people would say the statistics virtually guarantee MDawg's claim didn't happen.
Quote: AxelWolfA majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.
link to original post
The wizard recently thanked MDawg for ratting out Buzz. Information(hearsay, and speculation a good guess ) from a discussion on another forum. I don't think that person would have posted their guess had they knew MDawg was going to run and tattle.
I don't even think I'm MDawg was even around back when the Buzz thing went down has or had any real feud with Buzz. For the life of me, I can't figure out why MD felt the need to rat him out.
Keep up the good work guys, eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here. It's going to be full betting systems guys and Nathan types. And with all the competition around even those types will be hard to come by.
If anything, two speculations made as if they were fact.
(1) A majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.
(2) eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here.
I added the boldface.
I'd say all speculation, and that the first speculation is suspension worthy even, because the accusation is stated as fact - not speculation.
Quote: OnceDearYou might not have spotted it but MDawg has effectively withdrawn his claim by dismantling it bit by bit.
link to original post
I think that's what he attempted to do, but the story now suggests he had 72 wins in 73 hands played, not counting ties. That is even more unlikely than before.
Quote: MDawgQuote: AxelWolfA majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.
link to original post
The wizard recently thanked MDawg for ratting out Buzz. Information(hearsay, and speculation a good guess ) from a discussion on another forum. I don't think that person would have posted their guess had they knew MDawg was going to run and tattle.
I don't even think I'm MDawg was even around back when the Buzz thing went down has or had any real feud with Buzz. For the life of me, I can't figure out why MD felt the need to rat him out.
Keep up the good work guys, eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here. It's going to be full betting systems guys and Nathan types. And with all the competition around even those types will be hard to come by.
If anything, two speculations made as if they were fact.
(1) A majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.
(2) eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here.
I added the boldface.
I'd say all speculation, and that the first speculation is suspension worthy even, because the accusation is stated as fact - not speculation.link to original post
2) eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here.
There already is. There already is……..
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.
Especially given the above clarifications, it's wrong to keep referring to MDawg as the one who claimed over sixty winning Blackjacks in a row.
I mean, even if DarkOz continues to refuse to back down from the "I make $20,000. a week" imprecision, it would be wrong to refer to him constantly with that quote. Nor do I or would I keep referring to Alan as the one who saw 18 11's in a row. I also stopped referring to AxelWolf's imprecision about what a CTR is. Eventually, just let it go and concentrate on the content at hand.
Quote: WizardQuote: OnceDearYou might not have spotted it but MDawg has effectively withdrawn his claim by dismantling it bit by bit.
link to original post
I think that's what he attempted to do, but the story now suggests he had 72 wins in 73 hands played, not counting ties. That is even more unlikely than before.link to original post
I already addressed that, below. "It was imprecise to assume that 'cannot swear that there was not a loss along the way' necessarily means just one loss along the way."
Quote: MDawgThe some $70K I got up to would beg to differ! More than a chance, a reality.
Quote: Wizardlet's throw in a single loss, per the second point in the list. Note MDawg uses the singular "a loss."
link to original post
But actually I think it was imprecise to assume that "cannot swear that there was not a loss along the way" necessarily means just one loss along the way. Not that I don't appreciate the mathematical effort to calculate this! however - I cannot swear to that there was not more than one loss or a partial loss on a split hand or where I bet more than one hand at once, along the way, however there was no double loss along the way until the end when I stopped.
There is someone elsewhere who claims about 30 Blackjack wins in a row, that one is posting about it this week. So if you disbelieve me do you disbelieve the claim of 30 Blackjack wins in a row? I believe that one is claiming that on a split hand along the way there was a 1 and 1 win/loss but otherwise...30 in a row!
In any case, a momentous session that lived on in the annals of that casino for years as everyone kept talking to me about it regularly, especially when I ran into anyone who was working during that session in my vicinity.link to original post
Well done. I hope you made good use of the win.Quote: Commish27 years ago I went to Casino Rama in Canada for the first and only time. I was a $25 BJ player. I won a few hands at 25 and then went to 50. I won a few hands and went to 75. I won a few hands and went to 125. Went on raising no more than 75. I had splits and double downs. I won every hand until I got to $900. I won $12,000. I have never seen anything like it.
link to original post
Quote: Commish27 years ago I went to Casino Rama in Canada for the first and only time. I was a $25 BJ player. I won a few hands at 25 and then went to 50. I won a few hands and went to 75. I won a few hands and went to 125. Went on raising no more than 75. I had splits and double downs. I won every hand until I got to $900. I won $12,000. I have never seen anything like it.
link to original post
My very first day playing Blackjack... My very first post here £100 + £150 bonus to >£6000 chasing wagering requirements, then down to £6000 cashout
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/big-wins/18436-my-big-win-day-at-online-live-dealer-blackjack/
I upgraded my car
I believe you believe your experience, MD. I'm not gonna argue about it, but I may be sceptical, given the Wizard's calculations. Put it this way, if you ignore your situation, and the Wizard came up to you with the exact same calculation for some other gambler's claim, would you believe it? That about sums up those of us looking at your claim. It may have indeed happened, but can you blame us for being highly sceptical, with the numbers the Wizard has produced?Quote: MDawgOver all, given that 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.
Especially given the above clarifications, it's wrong to keep referring to MDawg as the one who claimed over sixty winning Blackjacks in a row.
I mean, even if DarkOz continues to refuse to back down from the "I make $20,000. a week" imprecision, it would be wrong to refer to him constantly with that quote. Nor do I or would I keep referring to Alan as the one who saw 18 11's in a row. I also stopped referring to AxelWolf's imprecision about what a CTR is. Eventually, just let it go and concentrate on the content at hand.
Now that that's been said, I suspect you had a highly favourable run. I'm not really disputing that. There may have been the odd losses along the way, a few splits not going perfect, a few splits and doubles 'did' go real perfect, etc. I'm more of the view that the general trend went up for a good period of time, rather than a near perfect straight run. The math is just too overwhelming to think for that amount of hands it was near perfect.
Maybe it's a bit like what happened to me when I was in year 7 at school. I had a basketball. I thought "what if I turn away from the basketball hoop (about 6 feet away) and not look. If I loop the ball over my head and just hope the ball goes in." Low and behold, I did it on the very first attempt. The ball didn't even touch the sides of the hoop! And I had never thought to attempt such a stunt before, and it was an extraordinary experience for me. And I didn't think other people would even think to do such a thing. I was just too young to realise other people do try to do it, too.
But.... I was the only person who saw it! Ooohhh! It's kinda great and kinda deflating afterwards. No-one really cares!
But I think there are a lot of people who care that overall, you do so well at gambling. I know I do.
Quote: MDawglink to original post
[context deleted for brevity only]... it's wrong to keep referring to MDawg as the one who claimed over sixty winning Blackjacks in a row.
I mean, even if DarkOz continues to refuse to back down from the "I make $20,000. a week" imprecision, it would be wrong to refer to him constantly with that quote. Nor do I or would I keep referring to Alan as the one who saw 18 11's in a row. I also stopped referring to AxelWolf's imprecision about what a CTR is. Eventually, just let it go and concentrate on the content at hand.
I think MDawg meant 'sixty winning HANDS in a row'
Notwithstanding that, I agree that after MDawg effectively, if somewhat reluctantly, backpedaled his claim, we should desist in referring to MDawg as the one who claims it.
He did claim it. He did retract it. Let's not be churlish. Let's move on. In the fulness of MDawg's posting history, and by his own description, I think we can refer to MDawg as the exceptional guy that makes some incredible claims. Is that fair MDawg?
Alan did claim to have witnessed 18 concurrent Yos. He still does cling to that claim and I don't believe he ever retracted it. He owns it.
No need to forget it, if Alan wants to pin his credibility to that claim, then it's his badge to wear. But generally we are not churlish about that until we need an example of an unbelievable claim.
MDawg might reasonably let it drop about DarkOz's $20K calculation. That's been clarified. Good olive branch.
MDawg might reasonably let it drop about AW's CTR imprecision. Good olive branch.
And if we could just get Coachbelly to drop the pedantry about DarkOz 'Driving' we could all get back to enjoying each-other's company.
Stay safe
OD
At least you didn't deny what I call...RATTING OUT BUZZ, And for what seems like no good reason.Quote: MDawgQuote: AxelWolfA majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.
link to original post
The wizard recently thanked MDawg for ratting out Buzz. Information(hearsay, and speculation a good guess ) from a discussion on another forum. I don't think that person would have posted their guess had they knew MDawg was going to run and tattle.
I don't even think I'm MDawg was even around back when the Buzz thing went down has or had any real feud with Buzz. For the life of me, I can't figure out why MD felt the need to rat him out.
Keep up the good work guys, eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here. It's going to be full betting systems guys and Nathan types. And with all the competition around even those types will be hard to come by.
If anything, two speculations made as if they were fact.
(1) A majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.
(2) eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here.
I added the boldface.
I'd say all speculation, and that the first speculation is suspension worthy even, because the accusation is stated as fact - not speculation.link to original post
I'm not sure if you can prove it's just speculation, you can only prove whether it's true or not. For all you know, I have access to everyone's private messages. Unlikely, obviously... I think it's more likely than a few claims that you have made.
I think my speculations are quite accurate if you consider the fact that the Wizard has said, he doesn't really read most of the threads. If you haven't noticed it doesn't seem like OD is big on suspending people unless it's necessary.
I'm willing to take a one-month suspension if you're willing to allow/insist that Mike and the other Mods divulge publicly how many private communications you have made pointing out posts or complaints you have made that have ultimately ended up in a suspension. And it turns out to not be the case.
They can also factor in CB, MC or anyone for that matter someone was complaining write a post that was related to you.
If we find out that what I'm saying is true, then I only ask that you take a week off. Sounds fair to me.
Just so there's no technicality, I meant to say Communications, not Commissions.
Quote: AxelWolfAt least you didn't deny what I call...RATTING OUT BUZZ, And for what seems like no good reason.Quote: MDawgQuote: AxelWolfA majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.
link to original post
The wizard recently thanked MDawg for ratting out Buzz. Information(hearsay, and speculation a good guess ) from a discussion on another forum. I don't think that person would have posted their guess had they knew MDawg was going to run and tattle.
I don't even think I'm MDawg was even around back when the Buzz thing went down has or had any real feud with Buzz. For the life of me, I can't figure out why MD felt the need to rat him out.
Keep up the good work guys, eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here. It's going to be full betting systems guys and Nathan types. And with all the competition around even those types will be hard to come by.
If anything, two speculations made as if they were fact.
(1) A majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.
(2) eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here.
I added the boldface.
I'd say all speculation, and that the first speculation is suspension worthy even, because the accusation is stated as fact - not speculation.link to original post
I'm not sure if you can prove it's just speculation, you can only prove whether it's true or not. For all you know, I have access to everyone's private messages. Unlikely, obviously... I think it's more likely than a few claims that you have made.
I think my speculations are quite accurate if you consider the fact that the Wizard has said, he doesn't really read most of the threads. If you haven't noticed it doesn't seem like OD is big on suspending people unless it's necessary.
I'm willing to take a one-month suspension if you're willing to allow/insist that Mike and the other Mods divulge how many private communications you have made pointing out posts or complaints you have made that have ultimately ended up in a suspension.
They can also factor in CB, MC or anyone for that matter someone was complaining write a post that was related to you.
If we find out that what I'm saying is true, then I only ask that you take a week off. Sounds fair to me.
Just so there's no technicality, I meant to say Communications, not Commissions.link to original post
Not trying to be insulting or anything of the nature.
But Axel, why so personal with you and a never ending, ‘attack other members’ type of personality? Of course all IMO.
Thanks and sincerely with respect,
Marcus Clark
Personal entertainment, human nature to call out things that they consider BS( for me anyway, it might just be a personality thing, I don't know.). It's a slap in the face for people who are actually communicating things that are true. It might actually help someone avoid losing their ass who is thinking they can beat -EV games.Quote: Marcusclark66Quote: AxelWolfAt least you didn't deny what I call...RATTING OUT BUZZ, And for what seems like no good reason.Quote: MDawgQuote: AxelWolfA majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.
link to original post
The wizard recently thanked MDawg for ratting out Buzz. Information(hearsay, and speculation a good guess ) from a discussion on another forum. I don't think that person would have posted their guess had they knew MDawg was going to run and tattle.
I don't even think I'm MDawg was even around back when the Buzz thing went down has or had any real feud with Buzz. For the life of me, I can't figure out why MD felt the need to rat him out.
Keep up the good work guys, eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here. It's going to be full betting systems guys and Nathan types. And with all the competition around even those types will be hard to come by.
If anything, two speculations made as if they were fact.
(1) A majority of suspensions that have happened related to MDawg and his supporters in the last few years have been a direct result of private commissions being sent.
(2) eventually, there will be very few non-sock-puppet legit posters around here.
I added the boldface.
I'd say all speculation, and that the first speculation is suspension worthy even, because the accusation is stated as fact - not speculation.link to original post
I'm not sure if you can prove it's just speculation, you can only prove whether it's true or not. For all you know, I have access to everyone's private messages. Unlikely, obviously... I think it's more likely than a few claims that you have made.
I think my speculations are quite accurate if you consider the fact that the Wizard has said, he doesn't really read most of the threads. If you haven't noticed it doesn't seem like OD is big on suspending people unless it's necessary.
I'm willing to take a one-month suspension if you're willing to allow/insist that Mike and the other Mods divulge how many private communications you have made pointing out posts or complaints you have made that have ultimately ended up in a suspension.
They can also factor in CB, MC or anyone for that matter someone was complaining write a post that was related to you.
If we find out that what I'm saying is true, then I only ask that you take a week off. Sounds fair to me.
Just so there's no technicality, I meant to say Communications, not Commissions.link to original post
Not trying to be insulting or anything of the nature.
But Axel, why so personal with you and a never ending, ‘attack other members’’ type of personality? Of course all IMO.
Thanks and sincerely with respect,
Marcus Clarklink to original post
Quote: AxelWolfThey can also factor in CB, MC or anyone for that matter someone was complaining write a post that was related to you.
I don't understand the above statement in general, and specifically what does the bold part mean?
Can you explain, clarify or re-phrase your quote above?
Quote: coachbellyQuote: AxelWolfThey can also factor in CB, MC or anyone for that matter someone was complaining write a post that was related to you.
I don't understand the above statement in general, and specifically what does the bold part mean?
Can you explain, clarify or re-phrase your quote above?link to original post
He called you and I out.
Clearly a case of taunting!
Of course IMO, but possibly a Mod or Admin can confirm or deny that?
Quote: Marcusclark66He called you and I out.
Clearly a case of taunting!
Maybe so, but what he wrote is not clear to me.
It seems he made a mistake in the phasing, I can't figure out what he meant to say.
Quote: MDawgMDawg has experienced and written about some incredible things. But he is also one of the few members here who has gone ahead and clarified / retracted where clarification / retraction was due. Thank you.
link to original post
Mdawg, I'm curious. What's with referring to yourself in the third person? (Illeism)
Is it that you prefer to see your name in print, rather than the little word 'I'? Is it an SEO thing? Is it your legalistic training? Comic effect? Humility? Narcissism?
OnceDear does not wish to offend MDawg, but ... Illism can suggest certain character traits.
Quote: wikileaks
...But sometimes people who talk about themselves in the third person can in fact be displaying an air of haughtiness and grandeur.
Quote: OnceDearAnd if we could just get Coachbelly to drop the pedantry about DarkOz 'Driving' we could all get back to enjoying each-other's company.
For the record, four other members have written about DO's "driving" since my last post on the subject.
You really need a self-check.
For the record, I won't appreciate a self check from you.Quote: coachbellyFor the record, four other members have written about DO's "driving" since my last post on the subject.
link to original post
You really need a self-check.
