60 Winning Hands in a Row
Quote: OnceDearI won't appreciate a self check from you.
You don't see my image when you look in the mirror.
Quote: OnceDear
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.
No retraction from me. I saw it happen.
If that's my legacy on this forum so be it.
By the way, I witnessed 18 consecutive yos. Not 18 concurrent yos.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/concurrent-consecutive/
Quote: OnceDearFor the record, I won't appreciate a self check from you.link to original postQuote: 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.
The meaning of a self-check, is that you check yourself, so the phrase "a self-check from you" is meaningless. To say that "I won't appreciate something from you" is a statement of disdain directed at a person rather than at a post and technically qualifies as a mild personal insult.
So, I am issuing a warning to everyone on this thread, including any moderators that participate in the acrimonious banter of this thread: NO PERSONAL INSULTS. Stop showing disdain for other forum members. OD, stop it. MDawg, stop it. AxelWolf, stop it. Just stop it, all of you.
And no, I am not physically behind the wheel.
So yes, it's unbelievable.
But it happened.
I think Mdawg summed it up pretty well when he said (and this is not a quote) if you play enough unbelievable things will happen.
I've played a lot of craps in my almost 70 years. I've also played a lot of video poker so I've seen at least seven dealt royals -- four of which I have photos of.
I know a dealt royal or seven dealt royals dont come close to 18 consecutive yos. But someone who hasnt played much video poker probably has never had or even seen a dealt royal.
Quote: AlanMendelsonFor the record, I agree that someone -- especially a random roller -- throwing 18 yos in a row (that's consecutive) is unbelievable. I wouldn't believe it myself if I hadn't been there and watched the dealers count it as it happened.
link to original post
So yes, it's unbelievable.
But it happened.
I think Mdawg summed it up pretty well when he said (and this is not a quote) if you play enough unbelievable things will happen.
I've played a lot of craps in my almost 70 years. I've also played a lot of video poker so I've seen at least seven dealt royals -- four of which I have photos of.
I know a dealt royal or seven dealt royals dont come close to 18 consecutive yos. But someone who hasnt played much video poker probably has never had or even seen a dealt royal.
I had a dealt four deuces with Joker on Deuces and Joker Wild; the Joker was even in the center. I know I sent a live picture to at least one member here who can corroborate the account. I don’t have the picture anymore, as it was a few years and a phone ago.
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
So big Dawg, does this really mean when you initially said you won 60 hands in a row what you really meant to say was ‘I won a lot of hands, lost some, and won a bunch of money?’
I don't believe you saw a random shooter roll 18 yos in a row.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.
Quote: teliotI don't believe you saw a random shooter roll 18 yos in a row.
link to original post
I don't believe it myself.
But then you also claimed your son got 5 single line Royals in one day and lost money. I called BS over "some" many years at various times. To make sure there wasn't a miss communication on what you claimed, I clarified, as did you. You then wanted to bet 5k and would prove it via w2g. That wasn't enough proof for me since something like that could be faked. Well it turns out that your your son himself said it wasn't true. It wasn't even 4 single line Royals. It was a few Royals and some handpays or whatever... Yeah yeah you backtracked and said you never actually said you seen it and was just going by what he said or something like that blah blah blah.. In all that time from the first time you made that post you had plenty of time to give us the real information but he is the one that had to finally correct you. Some people are stubborn and won't ever admit they may be wrong until their is proof they were wrong.Quote: AlanMendelsonFor the record, I agree that someone -- especially a random roller -- throwing 18 yos in a row (that's consecutive) is unbelievable. I wouldn't believe it myself if I hadn't been there and watched the dealers count it as it happened.
link to original post
So yes, it's unbelievable.
But it happened.
I think Mdawg summed it up pretty well when he said (and this is not a quote) if you play enough unbelievable things will happen.
I've played a lot of craps in my almost 70 years. I've also played a lot of video poker so I've seen at least seven dealt royals -- four of which I have photos of.
I know a dealt royal or seven dealt royals dont come close to 18 consecutive yos. But someone who hasnt played much video poker probably has never had or even seen a dealt royal.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: teliotI don't believe you saw a random shooter roll 18 yos in a row.
link to original post
I don't believe it myself.link to original post
Alan, are you saying that you don’t believe it happened now, or are using ‘don’t believe I saw it’ to mean just how unusual seeing 18 yo’s in a row would be?
It never happened and no one ever seen it happen.Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: teliotI don't believe you saw a random shooter roll 18 yos in a row.
link to original post
I don't believe it myself.link to original post
Alan, are you saying that you don’t believe it happened now, or are using ‘don’t believe I saw it’ to mean just how unusual seeing 18 yo’s in a row would be?link to original post
I'm saying that it may or may not have always been MD complaing but that You, coach or other's may have as well on his behalf. I do not know if that's the case.Quote: Marcusclark66Quote: 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?link to original post
I dont know if there are rules against discussing something from another website but YOU brought it up, so I will respond. I think I'm entitled to do that.
My son gave me the wrong information. He told me he hit five single line royals ($4000) in one night at Caesars Palace but he didnt. He did hit winners in the range of $4000 each and there were one or two royals (you'll have to go to the other forum to check what he wrote... I dont go there anymore).
He did confirm he lost money.
To repeat, my son gave me the wrong info. I didnt observe his play.
I took his word. After all, he's my son and I'm his father.
Edited to add:
I see that Axelwolf deleted his comment from the other website.
Quote: AxelWolfI'm saying that it may or may not have always been MD complaing but that You, coach or other's may have as well on his behalf.
Complaining on MDawg's behalf in what manner?
Are you speculating that I complained via private communication to the Mods, or that I wrote a post, or are they the same thing?
Quote: AxelWolf[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.
Are you willing to take a suspension if the Mods confirm that I have never contacted them via a private message, on behalf of or related to MDawg?
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: teliotI don't believe you saw a random shooter roll 18 yos in a row.
link to original post
I don't believe it myself.link to original post
Alan, are you saying that you don’t believe it happened now, or are using ‘don’t believe I saw it’ to mean just how unusual seeing 18 yo’s in a row would be?link to original post
Of course it was incredibly unusual. However at the time I didnt realize how unusual it was.... If I had known at that time I would have immediately gotten the tape or other confirmation from Caesars.
As I reported before... I later found out Caesars kept tapes only for three days unless they were flagged to be held.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: SOOPOOQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: teliotI don't believe you saw a random shooter roll 18 yos in a row.
link to original post
I don't believe it myself.link to original post
Alan, are you saying that you don’t believe it happened now, or are using ‘don’t believe I saw it’ to mean just how unusual seeing 18 yo’s in a row would be?link to original post
Of course it was incredibly unusual. However at the time I didnt realize how unusual it was.... If I had known at that time I would have immediately gotten the tape or other confirmation from Caesars.
As I reported before... I later found out Caesars kept tapes only for three days unless they were flagged to be held.link to original post
I don't believe casinos will hand out tapes as proof of unusual wins to anyone who asks
Usually has to be a request from an attorney and then they can deny without a court order.
There are privacy concerns as well as security concerns
Quote: AlanMendelsonMy son gave me the wrong information. He told me he hit five single line royals ($4000) in one night at Caesars Palace but he didnt. He did hit winners in the range of $4000 each and there were one or two royals
Reasonable members understand that whether the winners were royals, or AWAK on TDB, or whether or not they were all at Caesars, isn't critical to your message...which is that players can get unusually lucky in one night, and still lose money for the night.
It's bad form to try to discredit you over that.
Quote: coachbellyReasonable members understand that whether the winners were royals, or AWAK on TDB, or whether or not they were all at Caesars, isn't critical to your message...which is that players can get unusually lucky in one night, and still lose money for the night.
link to original post
It's poor form to try to discredit you over that.
Thank you coach. But I've been a target for years and that's why I no longer participate or even visit the other forum where it is said I have a target on my back.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI've been a target for years and that's why I no longer participate or even visit the other forum
You don't have to when Axel is willing to import the drama from over there to here...in an attempt to discredit you.
Quote: coachbellyReasonable members understand that whether the winners were royals, or AWAK on TDB, or whether or not they were all at Caesars, isn't critical to your message...which is that players can get unusually lucky in one night, and still lose money for the night.
link to original post
It's bad form to try to discredit you over that.
Reasonable members understand that when I discuss driving people around for players cards whether I personally am doing the driving isn't critical to the message.
It's bad form to try to discredit someone over that.
Quote: darkozReasonable members understand that when I discuss driving people around for players cards whether I personally am doing the driving isn't critical to the message.
That depends on the message. What was the message?
I’ll answer my own question since you will probably reply with.
What is substance. Or something inoculates along those lines .
Quote: ExpectedvalueI’ll answer my own question
Should I wait for your answer before I answer?
Did you not say you were with your son when he was playing? I can't recall exactly what you said regarding that.Quote: AlanMendelsonAxelwolf you really want to discredit me, don't you? So you're bringing up information from another forum and website.
link to original post
I dont know if there are rules against discussing something from another website but YOU brought it up, so I will respond. I think I'm entitled to do that.
My son gave me the wrong information. He told me he hit five single line royals ($4000) in one night at Caesars Palace but he didnt. He did hit winners in the range of $4000 each and there were one or two royals (you'll have to go to the other forum to check what he wrote... I dont go there anymore).
He did confirm he lost money.
To repeat, my son gave me the wrong info. I didnt observe his play.
I took his word. After all, he's my son and I'm his father.
Edited to add:
I see that Axelwolf deleted his comment from the other website.
I'm Not trying to discredit you. I'm trying to discredit outrageous claims and show that just because someone is 100% confident in what they claim there is a good chance it didn't happen. I was willing to take that bet if we could have match up the verification via the casinos or pictures as proof that matched up. Ask yourself how I was so very confident it didn't happen? Heck, I do not think it's impossible, think it's probably happened more than once.
I would tend to believe most things you say, I respect you and your career, sound like you have lead a full successful interesting life, I tend not to believe you when it comes to rediculouse gambling claims. I do not believe you lost 20 hands of BJ in a row, I do no believe you seen 18 yo's in a row. If you are going to attempt to defend other people's outrageous claims, you should know where that's going to lead.
Quote: coachbellyThat depends on the message. What was the message?
link to original post
That depends on your question.
What is the question?
I was not sitting with him when he played; he did not sit with me.
We had our meals together; we shared the same room.
Edited to add:
So what I said about five single line royals was me repeating what he said to me. Later he changed his story that some of the wins were not single line royals but other wins of about $4000 each.
Anything else you want to know?
Quote: darkozWhat is the question?
What's the message that you meant in this post?...
Quote: darkozwhether I personally am doing the driving isn't critical to the message.
Quote: coachbellyWhat's the message that you meant in this post?...
link to original postQuote: darkozwhether I personally am doing the driving isn't critical to the message.
The message in that post is that my driving people or not isn't critical to any message I am delivering.
How could you not understand that?
Quote: darkozThe message in that post is that my driving people or not isn't critical to any message I am delivering.
Sure it is...if you claim to have been driving, after explaining that you do not drive, then your claim of driving is critical to your credibility.
So there are conflicts in your stories, and on that basis I don't believe you.
Here's another dubious statement you made...
Quote: darkozthis forum was just coming down on me because I said I was driving around town
What town was it where you were driving around?
Quote: coachbellySure it is...if you claim to have been driving, after explaining that you do not drive, then your claim of driving is critical to your credibility.
link to original post
So there are conflicts in your stories, and on that basis I don't believe you.
Here's another dubious statement you made...
What town was it where you were driving around?
"Driving" to shuttle people to sign up for players cards could mean having a limo with a chauffeur.
Who is driving makes no difference.
My question is how do you get so much free play without previous play? I've never heard of $100 of free play for new signups. I've heard of $5 and $10. And at Red Rock you can spin a wheel to win a car.
Quote: coachbellySure it is...if you claim to have been driving, after explaining that you do not drive, then your claim of driving is critical to your credibility.
link to original post
So there are conflicts in your stories, and on that basis I don't believe you.
Here's another dubious statement you made...
What town was it where you were driving around?
Downtown
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: 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
So big Dawg, does this really mean when you initially said you won 60 hands in a row what you really meant to say was ‘I won a lot of hands, lost some, and won a bunch of money?’link to original post
SooPoo I clarified pretty carefully with my repeated posts of:
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.
Quote: coachbellySure it is...if you claim to have been driving, after explaining that you do not drive, then your claim of driving is critical to your credibility.
link to original post
So there are conflicts in your stories, and on that basis I don't believe you.
Here's another dubious statement you made...
What town was it where you were driving around?
Coachbelly, I see that you are trying to discredit darkoz' reports on largely unrelated grounds.
You should know better.
It's fair to say you're flying even if you're not piloting the plane.
Driving yourself, riding a bus, or arriving by pogostick doesn't change the play.
Quote: MDawglink to original post
SooPoo I clarified pretty carefully with my repeated posts of:
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.
A few curiosities remain. I'll understand if commenting will burn your some 20 year old play.
Approximate session length (time)? Buy-In amount? Walking with $70k... total, or buy-in + $70k?
I recall a few hours of play. I walked with some $70K ahead. It was under $70K because I lost the last two hands but I peaked right around $70K.
There were occasionally one or two other players at the table, but also periods when I was alone.
The casino was concentrating on my winning because I was the unstoppable winner at the table, so they got to where they would deal to me once only, then shuffle each time, whether I was alone or with another player or players. Didn't matter I kept winning and the dealer would occasionally turn and comment to the pit boss about how I just won even after a shuffle or deck change. The fact that they were so rattled even though I wasn't really betting that much per hand was because I kept winning and winning and winning.
Quote: MDawglink to original post
Also, one night when I was beating the h out of the house at single deck, . . .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.
Quote: MDawgI've posted about this many times before. It was the night the casino was trying everything to break up my streak, got to where they changed decks constantly, changed dealers, eventually they would shuffle after each hand. Nothing worked, I just kept winning. I then lost two hands, and left. Sadly I wasn't even betting that much so I ended up winning just under 70K. That happens sometimes. You are having such a good time winning you forget to bet.
link to original post
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.
And, original post from May 2019:
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.
link to original post
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.
Quote: MDawgI had a lot of chips with me that I had already won at a different table game, but I didn't need them as the first bet I placed just kept going. I pretty much just flat bet $800. although occasionally I believe I did two hands at $800. The two hands play as I recall was not the norm, mostly I played just one hand.
I recall a few hours of play. I walked with some $70K ahead. It was under $70K because I lost the last two hands but I peaked right around $70K.
There were occasionally one or two other players at the table, but also periods when I was alone.
The casino was concentrating on my winning because I was the unstoppable winner at the table, so they got to where they would deal to me once only, then shuffle each time, whether I was alone or with another player or players. Didn't matter I kept winning and the dealer would occasionally turn and comment to the pit boss about how I just won even after a shuffle or deck change. The fact that they were so rattled even though I wasn't really betting that much per hand was because I kept winning and winning and winning.Quote: MDawglink to original post
Also, one night when I was beating the h out of the house at single deck, . . .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.link to original postQuote: MDawgI've posted about this many times before. It was the night the casino was trying everything to break up my streak, got to where they changed decks constantly, changed dealers, eventually they would shuffle after each hand. Nothing worked, I just kept winning. I then lost two hands, and left. Sadly I wasn't even betting that much so I ended up winning just under 70K. That happens sometimes. You are having such a good time winning you forget to bet.
link to original post
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.
It doesn't sound so much that they were rattled but were making certain you weren't counting cards.
Hence, the dealer saying to the pitboss you still won even after a shuffle.
Seems like once they confirmed you were just getting Lucky they allowed you to keep playing.
Quote: coachbellySure it is...if you claim to have been driving, after explaining that you do not drive, then your claim of driving is critical to your credibility.
link to original post
So there are conflicts in your stories, and on that basis I don't believe you.
Here's another dubious statement you made...
What town was it where you were driving around?
Coachbelly, all you seem to do in this forum is use a cross-examination technique that is used by lawyers to discredit an opposition witness during a deposition (or more rarely, on a witness stand.) Your technique is to drill in to details of a statement in a post that are unrelated to the immediate issue and ask dozens of questions that have no other purpose than to try to undermine the credibility of the person posting.
Nobody in this forum gives a flying flippity-flop whether DarkOz's statement could be interpreted as whether he was driving a car, rather than riding in a car. Or, are you kidding?, what town he was in. We have years of history interacting with DarkOz and we don't need your cross-examination of DarkOz on issues of no importance within his posts in order to form an opinion about DarkOz's credibility.
I have a question for you, Coachbelly. What have you contributed to this forum? I have been reading through the greater than 1,000 posts that you have made in this forum, and so far I have found approximately one post of yours that had content that other people might find useful and/or interesting.
My question again is: Coachbelly, explain to me what you have contributed to this forum. Point to actual posts you have made that you are proud of. And I request that you answer me with a declarative statement and not with a question - and certainly not with a question about some underlying assumption of mine or the meaning of the word "contributed" in my request.
Mostly flat betting $800 a hand you won 70k, you stopped once you lost 2 in a row?Quote: MDawgThey were just trying to break up the winning streak. I was more or less flat betting, other than when I'd double up hands.
link to original post
Quote: gordonm888Quote: coachbellySure it is...if you claim to have been driving, after explaining that you do not drive, then your claim of driving is critical to your credibility.
link to original post
So there are conflicts in your stories, and on that basis I don't believe you.
Here's another dubious statement you made...
What town was it where you were driving around?
Coachbelly, all you seem to do in this forum is use a cross-examination technique that is used by lawyers to discredit an opposition witness during a deposition (or more rarely, on a witness stand.) Your technique is to drill in to details of a statement in a post that are unrelated to the immediate issue and ask dozens of questions that have no other purpose than to try to undermine the credibility of the person posting.
Nobody in this forum gives a flying flippity-flop whether DarkOz's statement could be interpreted as whether he was driving a car, rather than riding in a car. Or, are you kidding?, what town he was in. We have years of history interacting with DarkOz and we don't need your cross-examination of DarkOz on issues of no importance within his posts in order to form an opinion about DarkOz's credibility.
I have a question for you, Coachbelly. What have you contributed to this forum? I have been reading through the greater than 1,000 posts that you have made in this forum, and so far I have found approximately one post of yours that had content that other people might find useful and/or interesting.
My question again is: Coachbelly, explain to me what you have contributed to this forum. Point to actual posts you have made that you are proud of. And I request that you answer me with a declarative statement and not with a question - and certainly not with a question about some underlying assumption of mine or the meaning of the word "contributed" in my request.link to original post
This is a tough post for me to write. And if it crosses some line on rules, then fine, give me a suspension.
I agree with a lot of the substance of Gordon’s posts. I find coachbelly’s posts to generally be irritating and thread derailing. I get particularly sad when I see folk like Mission146 engage at length and at face value with the questioning.
But!
Gordon is a moderator here now. He’s green. And his posts come with the imprimatur of the Wiz and authority.
So I do not think this post from Gordon is appropriate. It feels like bullying when it comes from a moderator. Same thing in a recent attack by Gordon on billryan.
Maybe people should just take the Wiz’s advice. If you don’t want to see posts from certain people, then block or ignore them.
If Gordon the moderator thinks coachbelly should be suspended or nuked for violating some forum rule, then do it.
Otherwise, I think mods should uphold this site’s core value of free speech.
1. Reached bankroll N + 2
or
2. Lost two hands in a row.
Simplifying Assumptions:
1. No pushes (this shouldn't affect the answer?)
2. Probability of winning a blackjack hand is 50% (actually lower, but increasing it only increases the probability of getting to N + 2)
3. No doubles or splits (affects bankroll, but not the lose two hands condition) Edit: Or Blackjacks
I believe that the probability of getting to N + 2 is (2/3)^N. Via induction: Since we only win or lose 1 per round, we must pass through (i+2) to get to (i+3). So, consider the probability of reaching (i+3) after reaching (i+2). After one hand, we either win, and are done at i + 3 with probability (1/2) or we lose and drop to i + 1 with probability 1/2. At i + 1, we either win with probability 1/2*1/2 and are back at i + 2, or we lose (for the second hand in a row) and are done at i with probability 1/2*1/2. So, we have that p(reaching i+3 from i+2) = (1/2+1/4(p(reaching i+3 from i +2))). So, p(reaching i+3 from i+2) = 2/3. From the induction hypothesis, we know p(reaching i+2) = (2/3)^i, so p(reaching i+3) = 2/3(2/3)^i = (2/3)^(i+1).
Say we want N = 60, then the probability of reaching a bankroll of 62 before two losses is (2/3)^60 ~= 2.72e-11. I leave it to the forum to determine how believable this number is, I just wanted to calculate it.
Quote: gordonm888Coachbelly, explain to me what you have contributed to this forum.
I endeavor to establish clarity, and promote spirited discussion and debate.
If I encounter a post containing conflicting information or something I don't understand, I will ask questions until the inconsitency is acknowledged, or the information's clarity and veracity is established to my satisfaction.
Several valued members are willing to engage me at length and at face value with the questioning.
I am satisfied and proud of my contributions in that regard.
I'm not interested in guessing song titles, puzzles or in what you ate today.
That's you, not me.
Quote: gordonm888I request that you answer me with a declarative statement
You're another Mod that's in desperate need of a self-check.
I suggest you take the Wizard's and unJon's advice.
Quite a story 👍Quote: TomGKonik, whom I respect quite a lot, reported about a player winning "More than 50 hands". He isn't exactly clear if it is really consecutive wins, or if there is an occasional loss in there. He also provides a theory for why Wiz's (or any similar) analysis shouldn't apply:
link to original post
https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/cheatin-man-7728
(that whole series from him that went on for several years is worth checking out).
If he's definitely saying it was less than 60 hands in a row, does this mean it could have been 40 or 50 hands in a row? Or, does it mean closer to 60 than 50?
Thanks,Quote: WellbushMD states 'some' sixty hands in a row were used to win approx $70K. He says this means less than 60 hands in a row. If someone were to say "'some' 60 hands in a row" in Australia, that would mean about 60. Not specifically more or less 60. Does that say something? (I'm not trying to dispute MD here, but just asking a q).
link to original post
I already repeatedly flagged that inconsistency, but was ignored. Where's CoachBelly when we need him? $:o)
In English English, 'Some sixty' means 'about 60'. Not specifically less than sixty.
Academic, anyway. The whole anecdote has been backpedalled. Not smoothly, but effectively enough.
MDawg did not win 60 hands in a row. He may not have won anywhere near 60 hands in a row.
Quote: OnceDearThanks,Quote: WellbushMD states 'some' sixty hands in a row were used to win approx $70K. He says this means less than 60 hands in a row. If someone were to say "'some' 60 hands in a row" in Australia, that would mean about 60. Not specifically more or less 60. Does that say something? (I'm not trying to dispute MD here, but just asking a q).
link to original post
I already repeatedly flagged that inconsistency, but was ignored. Where's CoachBelly when we need him? $:o)
In English English, 'Some sixty' means 'about 60'. Not specifically less than sixty.
Academic, anyway. The whole anecdote has been backpedalled. Not smoothly, but effectively enough.
MDawg did not win 60 hands in a row. He may not have won anywhere near 60 hands in a row.link to original post
The anecdote was backpedaled over roadkilll!
MDawg now says less than sixty is what he meant while Wizard points out the amount of his wagering and the amount of his win means he won more than sixty, approximately "some" 70+.
Oh and he also denies the casino was suspicious of card counting because he was primarily flat betting so any suggestion his wagers were up and down is shot as well.
So, yeah, his claim of being sixty was backpedaled over roadkilll.
Quote: WellbushIf someone were to say "'some' 60 hands in a row" in Australia, that would mean about 60. Not specifically more or less 60.
link to original post
I read it to mean "60 hands, more or less", which I understand to generally mean plus or minus 10%.
I have no idea why people are so hung up about a recollection of a card game from almost 20 years ago.
I think one can get ideas and have an appreciation of what may be possible, when raising historical feats. Even if they aren't quantifiably certain.Quote: DieterI have no idea why people are so hung up about a recollection of a card game from almost 20 years ago.
link to original post
