60 Winning Hands in a Row
Quote: WellbushOnceDear seems to be suggesting that MD has seriously walked back his claim re 60 winning hands in-a-row. I don't think MD has walked back his claim much at all. Just saying 🤷
link to original post
When it comes to MDawg walking back his claims he takes a turn to the left, then a jump to the right, puts his hands on his hips...
Quote: MDawgI don't mind clarifying if I'm uncertain. You on the other hand....
link to original post
You do the Hokey Pokey and you shake it all around.
That's what it's all about.
For some, it is a voyage of exploration; for others it's an opportunity to be exploited.
Alas, there are some whose boundless desire for attention infects their actions and confuses onlookers.
"How could that be?" some mutter; "He seems so credible."
Just another of life's unresolved mysteries...
As always when judging, rely on your instincts; if it seems to good to be true, it almost certainly isn't.
Quote: MrVWe all come at life differently.
For some, it is a voyage of exploration; for others it's an opportunity to be exploited.
Alas, there are some whose boundless desire for attention infects their actions and confuses onlookers.
"How could that be?" some mutter; "He seems so credible."
Just another of life's unresolved mysteries...
As always when judging, rely on your instincts; if it seems to good to be true, it almost certainly isn't.
link to original post
After reading this forum, I realized I am the unluckiest and dumbest guy in here. It has really been eye opening and humbling.
be wary of fear perpetually clouding judgementQuote: MrVAs always when judging, rely on your instincts; if it seems to good to be true, it almost certainly isn't.
link to original post
after reading this forum, I believe MD has given a reasonably honest summary of a good run.Quote: mwalz9After reading this forum, I realized I am the unluckiest and dumbest guy in here. It has really been eye opening and humbling.
link to original post
I think there are quite a few posters who are overly critical of MD's wins. If someone promotes their exploits, does that automatically mean the stated exploits are seriously stretched?
Quote: Wellbushbe wary of fear perpetually clouding judgementQuote: MrVAs always when judging, rely on your instincts; if it seems to good to be true, it almost certainly isn't.
link to original post
link to original post
Remember that most gut feelings are just gas.
Quote: Wellbushbe wary of fear perpetually clouding judgement.
"Fear?"
There is nothing to "fear" when weighing the merit of another's claims.
We filter claims and use our knowledge base / experience to evaluate the strength / veracity of a claim; "fear" is MIA from the equation.
Save your platitudes for platipuses.
joke of the day 😊Quote: DieterQuote: Wellbushbe wary of fear perpetually clouding judgementQuote: MrVAs always when judging, rely on your instincts; if it seems to good to be true, it almost certainly isn't.
link to original post
link to original post
Remember that most gut feelings are just gas.
link to original post
Quote: Wellbushjoke of the day 😊
link to original post
Stop Thumbtacking
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/big-wins/36485-60-winning-hands-in-a-row/7/#post826890
unfortunately, I think you're gonna get a certain math-like proportion of the general population here, very unsupportive of winning gamblers. Hence, don't gauge your winning ways by how people respond to your posts here.Quote: MDawgPeople who don't get out much aren't going to see much. As well we might have some confirmation bias going on here - if my experience at table games is limited or revolves around losing I'm going to think it's harder to win. Doesn't change what happened, just affects the likelihood of acceptance of it.
In any case, what happened actually happened and the chips I pocketed as a result of the streak were quite real.
link to original post
Quote: Wellbushunfortunately, I think you're gonna get a certain math-like proportion of the general population here, very unsupportive of winning gamblers. Hence, don't gauge your winning ways by how people respond to your posts here.Quote: MDawgPeople who don't get out much aren't going to see much. As well we might have some confirmation bias going on here - if my experience at table games is limited or revolves around losing I'm going to think it's harder to win. Doesn't change what happened, just affects the likelihood of acceptance of it.
In any case, what happened actually happened and the chips I pocketed as a result of the streak were quite real.
link to original post
link to original post
Have you thought of reading some of the non system threads here?
You know, like sometimes "60 some" would have been better written as "some 60."
I'm not strictly thumbtacking to boost the thread. Just congratulating a comical post. If that's not allowed, please state it so.Quote: OnceDearQuote: Wellbushjoke of the day 😊
link to original post
Stop Thumbtacking
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/big-wins/36485-60-winning-hands-in-a-row/7/#post826890
link to original post
I was referring to winning gamblers who don't fit the non-system profileQuote: Mission146Quote: Wellbushunfortunately, I think you're gonna get a certain math-like proportion of the general population here, very unsupportive of winning gamblers. Hence, don't gauge your winning ways by how people respond to your posts here.Quote: MDawgPeople who don't get out much aren't going to see much. As well we might have some confirmation bias going on here - if my experience at table games is limited or revolves around losing I'm going to think it's harder to win. Doesn't change what happened, just affects the likelihood of acceptance of it.
In any case, what happened actually happened and the chips I pocketed as a result of the streak were quite real.
link to original post
link to original post
Have you thought of reading some of the non system threads here?
link to original post
Quote: WellbushI was referring to winning gamblers who don't fit the non-system profileQuote: Mission146Quote: Wellbushunfortunately, I think you're gonna get a certain math-like proportion of the general population here, very unsupportive of winning gamblers. Hence, don't gauge your winning ways by how people respond to your posts here.Quote: MDawgPeople who don't get out much aren't going to see much. As well we might have some confirmation bias going on here - if my experience at table games is limited or revolves around losing I'm going to think it's harder to win. Doesn't change what happened, just affects the likelihood of acceptance of it.
In any case, what happened actually happened and the chips I pocketed as a result of the streak were quite real.
link to original post
link to original post
Have you thought of reading some of the non system threads here?
link to original post
link to original post
Yeah, nobody says that there absolutely are not any gamblers who play negative expectation games (with or without a system) who are currently ahead for life.
I don't know what your recent post directly to me is asking for. Either respond to my post or don't; you don't need my go-ahead.
Quote: WellbushMy original post was replying to MDawg🤷
link to original post
I meant your direct response to my, "Historical post," (as you like to call it) from yesterday. It might have been in the other thread as there is no real difference between the two threads.
Also, it's hard to tell when we are both included in the quote.
I'm not in the business of reading mind's. If you want me to answer a post, it can't be about another post in another thread unless you stipulate that. I'll try and make sense of it now by having a look at the other post. I'm not on my computer, so it's not easy toggling between the two on my phone.Quote: Mission146Quote: WellbushMy original post was replying to MDawg🤷
link to original post
I meant your direct response to my, "Historical post," (as you like to call it) from yesterday. It might have been in the other thread as there is no real difference between the two threads.
Also, it's hard to tell when we are both included in the quote.
link to original post
Quote: WellbushI'm not in the business of reading mind's. If you want me to answer a post, it can't be about another post in another thread unless you stipulate that. I'll try and make sense of it now by having a look at the other post. I'm not on my computer, so it's not easy toggling between the two on my phone.Quote: Mission146Quote: WellbushMy original post was replying to MDawg🤷
link to original post
I meant your direct response to my, "Historical post," (as you like to call it) from yesterday. It might have been in the other thread as there is no real difference between the two threads.
Also, it's hard to tell when we are both included in the quote.
link to original post
link to original post
I'm not scrolling back several pages to see if it's the same thread when both threads are effectively the same. I should also clarify that I don't, "Want you to answer a post;" I don't care if you answer it or not. My point was that you don't need me to give you the go ahead to answer it...just answer it or do not.
Quote: Mission146Quote: WellbushI'm not in the business of reading mind's. If you want me to answer a post, it can't be about another post in another thread unless you stipulate that. I'll try and make sense of it now by having a look at the other post. I'm not on my computer, so it's not easy toggling between the two on my phone.Quote: Mission146Quote: WellbushMy original post was replying to MDawg🤷
link to original post
I meant your direct response to my, "Historical post," (as you like to call it) from yesterday. It might have been in the other thread as there is no real difference between the two threads.
Also, it's hard to tell when we are both included in the quote.
link to original post
link to original post
I'm not scrolling back several pages to see if it's the same thread when both threads are effectively the same. I should also clarify that I don't, "Want you to answer a post;" I don't care if you answer it or not. My point was that you don't need me to give you the go ahead to answer it...just answer it or do not.
link to original post
Is this conversation supposed to be a Monty Python skit?
Quote: darkoz
Is this conversation supposed to be a Monty Python skit?
link to original post
Doubtful. I've never watched, but my understanding is that Monty Python skits are well-written and generally funny.
Quote: Mission146Quote: darkoz
Is this conversation supposed to be a Monty Python skit?
link to original post
Doubtful. I've never watched, but my understanding is that Monty Python skits are well-written and generally funny.
link to original post
Monty Python humor usually stems from two or more characters arguing incessantly back and forth usually about hard to understand information or improbable events.
An argument over the flight speed and characteristics of Swallows (a type of bird) including whether they can achieve flight carrying coconuts.
An argument with a Knight in armor that just because he is missing two arms and a leg that it constitutes more than a flesh wound.
An argument that men can't have babies even though they should have the freedom to enjoy that right.
The list goes on.
Quote: darkoz
Monty Python humor usually stems from two or more characters arguing incessantly back and forth usually about hard to understand information or improbable events.
An argument over the flight speed and characteristics of Swallows (a type of bird) including whether they can achieve flight carrying coconuts.
An argument with a Knight in armor that just because he is missing two arms and a leg that it constitutes more than a flesh wound.
An argument that men can't have babies even though they should have the freedom to enjoy that right.
The list goes on.
link to original post
https://montycasinos.com/montypython/scripts/argument.php.html
Quote: Mission146Quote: darkoz
Is this conversation supposed to be a Monty Python skit?
link to original post
Doubtful. I've never watched, but my understanding is that Monty Python skits are well-written and generally funny.
link to original post
The one about defending yourself against fresh fruit is pretty good, as is the killer joke. I'd skip the cheese shop and the parrot sketch in the opening salvo.
My 3 year old claims that the flying circus where there are no sketches between the opening and closing credits is their best work.
if you think both threads are pretty much the same 146 (I don't), and you think it's my job to work out which thread and post you're referring to, then I won't be responding to posts of yours that give no reference. I can't read minds.Quote: Mission146Quote: WellbushI'm not in the business of reading mind's. If you want me to answer a post, it can't be about another post in another thread unless you stipulate that. I'll try and make sense of it now by having a look at the other post. I'm not on my computer, so it's not easy toggling between the two on my phone.Quote: Mission146Quote: WellbushMy original post was replying to MDawg🤷
link to original post
I meant your direct response to my, "Historical post," (as you like to call it) from yesterday. It might have been in the other thread as there is no real difference between the two threads.
Also, it's hard to tell when we are both included in the quote.
link to original post
link to original post
I'm not scrolling back several pages to see if it's the same thread when both threads are effectively the same. I should also clarify that I don't, "Want you to answer a post;" I don't care if you answer it or not. My point was that you don't need me to give you the go ahead to answer it...just answer it or do not.
link to original post
Quote: MDawgAt a recent Blackjack tournament I lost 13/15 hands, and the two wins were not consecutive. On one win I got a BlackJack. On another I won with a 20.
link to original post
I find this hard to believe.
Quote: mwalz9Quote: MDawgAt a recent Blackjack tournament I lost 13/15 hands, and the two wins were not consecutive. On one win I got a BlackJack. On another I won with a 20.
link to original post
I find this hard to believe.
link to original post
But,
"The marathon session lasted 12 hours and contained all the ebb and flow of a typical blackjack game. Until, that is, Johnson was able to string together a streak of astronomical odds — taking more than 40 hands in row, according to a source."
https://nypost.com/2011/06/12/the-taking-of-atlantic-city/
Quote: MDawgThis happened some two decades ago. Could I swear it was 60 in a row? No. Which is why I say "some sixty."
But, I do know how little I was betting and how much I won. There were double downs and blackjacks along the way, but as I recall most of the hands were regular wins. You do the math on how many hands in a row I won to get some 70K betting only about eight hunny a hand. It was a lot of wins in a row.
link to original post
Quote: Mission146I'm going to take MDawg at face value on this one and would highly encourage everyone to direct WellBush to this thread.
In the event that, "Some sixty," consecutive Blackjack wins in a row can happen (disregarding pushes) as MDawg is claiming to have happened, AND the probability of losing an individual hand is greater than the probability of winning one (which it is) that means that MDawg was personally involved in an event that is LESS probable than losing, "Some sixty," hands in a row.
Therefore, if WellBush accepts anything even close to this account as true, then any negative progression betting system he can come up with (as we already know) can fail.
We have the real life proof account here, if MDawg is to be believed, except in reverse...because this event is actually less likely than losing some sixty hands in a row.
link to original post
Quote: MDawgWell, what I remember is that I kept winning and winning and then when I finally lost two hands in a row I left. Which is why I recall no losses along the way....
Plus all the commotion over my streak to the point where they would deal only one hand to me and then immediately shuffle, every single time. And that they kept talking about it for years. It was quite a night. I mean, when I got a 16 and dealer had ten up I was already tucking my cards as the 5 came my way, I already knew what was coming. It was like that. There was a small crowd around me talking about how lucky I was. I didn't even consider it all that extraordinary at the time, as it was pretty much near the beginning of my gaming days. If I had realized how extraordinary it was I would have bet a lot more, which is what people were saying around me, that I should be betting maximum. Instead, I was just flat betting about eight hunny a hand. And got to about 70K ahead before I lost the two hands and left.
Again, could I swear to that I did not lose a single hand along the way? No.
I know there were pushes along the way.
link to original post
Quote: MDawgWell, what I remember is that I kept winning and winning and then when I finally lost two hands in a row I left. Which is why I recall no losses along the way....
Plus all the commotion over my streak to the point where they would deal only one hand to me and then immediately shuffle, every single time. And that they kept talking about it for years. It was quite a night. I mean, when I got a 16 and dealer had ten up I was already tucking my cards as the 5 came my way, I already knew what was coming. It was like that. There was a small crowd around me talking about how lucky I was. I didn't even consider it all that extraordinary at the time, as it was pretty much near the beginning of my gaming days. If I had realized how extraordinary it was I would have bet a lot more, which is what people were saying around me, that I should be betting maximum. Instead, I was just flat betting about eight hunny a hand. And got to about 70K ahead before I lost the two hands and left.
Again, could I swear to that I did not lose a single hand along the way? No.
I know there were pushes along the way.
link to original post
I think this topic is going to heat up again in conjunction with the Mdawg results thread.
Can I get you on record to say there were at least 50 hands and no more than one was a loser? I am looking to get a firm claim that can be mathematically analyzed. You may also wish to walk back your original claim with something to the effect of "Once I went on an incredible winning steak that I roughly estimate to be about 60 hands with very few losing hands."
Quote: MDawgWhen I used to play hand shuffled doubledeck Blackjack I'd feel as though the cards were "stuck" for a while after the decks were changed. By stuck I mean, not contributing to much wins for me no matter what the count.
Also, one night when I was beating the h out of the house at single deck, won sixty some hands in a row, they kept changing decks (although this had zero effect, I just kept winning every single hand anyway,
Mike, I think this first paragraph of the first post in this thread is what needs to be analyzed, not the walkback posts later.
The phrase ‘some 60 hands in a row’ can reasonably be interpreted as maybe 58, maybe 62. It ABSOLUTELY cannot be interpreted as winning 18, lose one, win 15, lose 1, win 23, lose 1. The ‘in a row’ part is NOT MODIFIED by the word ‘some’. The number 60 CAN be modified by the word ‘some’. And while discussing Blackjack, since there are splits the exact number of ‘hands’ can be murky. What if you split to three hands and win two of them? Etc….
As an attorney I’m sure MDawg himself, if being honest, would agree with me.
Quote: SOOPOOMike, I think this first paragraph of the first post in this thread is what needs to be analyzed, not the walkback posts later.
The phrase ‘some 60 hands in a row’ can reasonably be interpreted as maybe 58, maybe 62. It ABSOLUTELY cannot be interpreted as winning 18, lose one, win 15, lose 1, win 23, lose 1. The ‘in a row’ part is NOT MODIFIED by the word ‘some’. The number 60 CAN be modified by the word ‘some’. And while discussing Blackjack, since there are splits the exact number of ‘hands’ can be murky. What if you split to three hands and win two of them? Etc….
As an attorney I’m sure MDawg himself, if being honest, would agree with me.
link to original post
I agree. We got an acknowledgement that the 60 ignored ties, then the "some", then maybe there was a loss somewhere in the streak. I have invited MDawg to admit this was a Magic Grits kind of moment where maybe he remembered the event incorrectly. Nobody likes to admit they are wrong, but when you are, it's the right thing to do.
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T24lHnB7N8
Secondly, I believe that the posts I made within the thread, dating to September 2021, already make clear that I am not certain of the number of hands I won in a row
Quote: MDawgCould I swear it was 60 in a row? No.
link to original post
Quote: MDawgAgain, could I swear to that I did not lose a single hand along the way? No.
I know there were pushes along the way.
link to original post
It has been agreed that there is no need for me to comment further.
However, in that I had some more written anyway, I will go ahead and post those thoughts too.
During the session, the main reason I was more or less flat betting only around $800. (which was roughly a third of the maximum bet at that casino at that time), is because the house kept doing things to make sure I wasn’t counting – to the point where they were eventually shuffling after every single hand. So I didn’t have any reason to expect to keep winning hand over hand – but I did!
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.
Sadly I wasn't even betting that much so I ended up winning just under 70K.
link to original post
If someone wants to calculate how many hands I most likely won out of say 60 hands played, in order to win just under $70K, flat betting around $800. per hand, including likely blackjacks and double downs, that would probably give an idea of around how many I won in a row.
The reason too that I would say that there were not many losing hands along the way in that streak, is at the end of it, I lost two hands in a row, and blinked – then just got up and left. Of course part of the reason I left was because I realized that what had just happened was beyond exceptional. Another reason was that I had a massive stack of chips in front of me, at that point in my gaming career, more than I had ever won in one session. And thirdly, because losing two hands in a row is something that had not yet happened during the streak.
The reason it’s difficult to say exactly how many hands I won in a row, or even exactly how many hands I played that session, is that in blackjack there is no record kept. At Baccarat, these days (and even before the advent of electronic scoreboards), everything is well documented. By the time a monster streak is in play, it’s easy to look and see how many hands have been dealt, and to note the final tally when the streak ends. This is why, ask a Baccarat player or dealer “what the longest streak he has seen” was, and he will answer immediately without hesitation – Bacc players know.
Blackjack on the other hand, by the time a massive winning (or losing streak) is in play, the player might have already lost track of or not even paid attention to how many hands have gone by, and there is no record short of trying to get the eye in the sky to provide documentation (which, is not going to happen). As such, a blackjack (or craps) player, might not even be paying that close attention to the number of hands or passes gone by, until well into the streak.
Quote: WizardCan I get you on record to say there were at least 50 hands and no more than one was a loser?
link to original post
In this situation, flat betting, winning a large sum as weighed against a relatively small flat bet, and given all the commotion as the house tried desperately to break my streak, it would be hard for me to say exactly how many hands in a row were won, or how many, if any, intervening losses there were.
In any case, it was an exceptional streak, that was mentioned to me for years afterwards by the crew that was present that night.
Firstly MDawg has walked back his claim somewhat so basically HE admits it may have been hyperbole.
People do that sometimes. Occasionally it's bad memory. Often it's just innocent exaggeration to highlight a point.
I laughed so hard I busted a gut. Anyone going to challenge me on whether I A) laughed hard and B) suffered internal organ damage?
"Sixty SOME hands" from it's outset means imo he didn't sit there keeping accurate records but was giving an after the fact overall assessment of what he felt it seemed like.
BTW for the record I saw and played 34 winning reds at roulette in a row. This was years ago when I tried a follow the streak method and Occasionally would hit one. I had a few in the 20's and that monster one. And that definitely happened because I simply played until I lost one spin and I kept records (although I haven't kept them around) but I remember being surprised how long it went.
I didn't win much cause it was early in my attempts hut it's what emboldened me to win thousands on a 16 spin streak a few months later which I posted on this forum years ago.
I also had people who disbelieved that!
I think it's more interesting about how roughly 1/3 of this "Magister's" posts are about MDawg. AxelWolf's spidey "sock" sense went into overdrive...and he is pretty good at detecting that sort of thing at least.
Quote: AxelWolfYour post wasn't offensive. It's possible I'm off base with this. I have been wrong once or twice.Quote: MagisterReading this forum over the weekend, I had questions about 3 different sections, winning slot machine play, winning blackjack play and winning roulette play. Today I decided to join and ask about each. I am sorry if I did or said something wrong. I didn't mean to offend anyone.
link to original post
I can't give you all the details as it's a no-no to bring drama here from another forum(It's a real doozy). Your timing (the main character went on "Vacation" just as you sprung up) and question to MDawg is impeccable. Only two people that I know of, me being one of them, have hammered on that legitimate point. And again, your timing is suspicious.
Here is one of the few threads you can bring yourself up to date: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?7325-The-Verdict-Is
link to original post
(quote trimmed)Quote: MDawg
If someone wants to calculate how many hands I most likely won out of say 60 hands played, in order to win just under $70K, flat betting around $800. per hand, including likely blackjacks and double downs, that would probably give an idea of around how many I won in a row.
link to original post
Just because I’m bored.
Call it12.15% hands are splits or doubles. And call it 4.75% hands are blackjacks.
So if we assume all those won on a flat bet of $800 that means the average win is:
0.1215 * 2 * 800 + 0.0475 * 1.5 * 800 + (1 - 0.1215 - 0.0475) * 800 = $916.2
Total win of $70,000 divided by average win of $916.20 means 76.4 hands.
Maybe I did something wrong as that’s substantially more than 60 wins.
**This is ignoring resplits and doubles after splits so my total below is too high but don’t see how that would bridge to 60 wins.
Quote: darkozTy
"Sixty SOME hands" from it's outset means imo he didn't sit there keeping accurate records but was giving an after the fact overall assessment of what he felt it seemed like.
Nope. You are just plain wrong. It’s really simple. If I won a lot of hands in a row but wasn’t sure if it was 59 or 62 I’d say ‘some 60 hands in a row’ and that would accurately convey the event.
If I won a lot of hands, but had one or a few losses in that 60 hand stretch I’d NOT say I won ‘some 60 hands in a row’. I’d say ‘I had a streak of 60 some hands where I only lost a few. And MDawg is a lawyer well versed in how to turn a phrase.
By the way, your 34 reds in a row is a piece of cake compared to 60 BJ hand wins in a row. (Not even including ties of course). Probably 50 million times easier.
Quote: MDawgOne thing you're doing though is injecting "average" percentages ("Call it 12.15% hands are splits or doubles. And call it 4.75% hands are blackjacks") into a well above average streak. Whether that's right or not, I can't say.
link to original post
Fair
ETA: Though all that says is that even with a crazy outside amount of doubles and splits and BJs it seems like you must have won at least 60 net hands to get to $70k from an $800 bet.
Quote: unJonQuote: MDawgOne thing you're doing though is injecting "average" percentages ("Call it 12.15% hands are splits or doubles. And call it 4.75% hands are blackjacks") into a well above average streak. Whether that's right or not, I can't say.
link to original post
Fair
ETA: Though all that says is that even with a crazy outside amount of doubles and splits and BJs it seems like you must have won at least 60 net hands to get to $70k from an $800 bet.
link to original post
To flush that out. To win $70k over 60 winning hands means an average win of $1,167 per hand. Betting $800 a hand means you won 1.46 betting units per hand. That’s nearly a BJ every single hand to get there.
Quote: MDawgI didn't win 70K. It was pushing 70K, I was betting around $800., I always leave the figures and everything else a little vague for obvious reasons. "A decade or so ago." "Two decades or so ago." etc.
link to original post
I was just doing math as you requested. Because I was bored.
“If someone wants to calculate how many hands I most likely won out of say 60 hands played, in order to win just under $70K, flat betting around $800. per hand, including likely blackjacks and double downs, that would probably give an idea of around how many I won in a row.”
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: darkozTy
"Sixty SOME hands" from it's outset means imo he didn't sit there keeping accurate records but was giving an after the fact overall assessment of what he felt it seemed like.
Nope. You are just plain wrong. It’s really simple. If I won a lot of hands in a row but wasn’t sure if it was 59 or 62 I’d say ‘some 60 hands in a row’ and that would accurately convey the event.
If I won a lot of hands, but had one or a few losses in that 60 hand stretch I’d NOT say I won ‘some 60 hands in a row’. I’d say ‘I had a streak of 60 some hands where I only lost a few. And MDawg is a lawyer well versed in how to turn a phrase.
By the way, your 34 reds in a row is a piece of cake compared to 60 BJ hand wins in a row. (Not even including ties of course). Probably 50 million times easier.
link to original post
With MDawg already saying his statement was a bit vague as to veracity you aren't prosecuting the claim but rather the turn of phrase.
I just don't see the point. It's done often and really isn't necessary imo.
Especially on a forum where no one is under oath to begin with
But then I've also seen a guy walk up and pull a half million, put a third of that on one hand, and lose.
The deliberate vagueness goes hand in hand with that my name is presented as MDawg and not whatever it really is.
People can split hairs if they want, but I cannot help comparing your claim of "beating the h out of the house at single deck, won sixty some hands in a row" with another bold claim once made by a gambler who posted here.
Your claim now ranks up there in the pantheon, perhaps only second fiddle to Alan saying he watched some random guy roll 18 yo's in a row at Caesars without anybody betting yo and without any word / publicity of the Miracle On Felt spreading across the gamblin' world.
Gotta give ya props...well played, counselor.
As long as you’re in the first two, you’re okay.
But, watching 18 yos or 34 reds in a row and not profiting off it could haunt a person for life. Certainly no real gambler could ever abide it without at least some regret. What happened to me I look back and can’t really say that I could’ve done much better. At that point in my gaming life I would not have bet much more than I did and I walked with almost all of what came in the streak.
Quote: MDawgSome people make things happen. Others, watch things happen. And some say, What the hell happened?
As long as you’re in the first two, you’re okay.
But, watching 18 yos or 34 reds in a row and not profiting off it could haunt a person for life. Certainly no real gambler could ever abide it without at least some regret. What happened to me I look back and can’t really say that I could’ve done much better. At that point in my gaming life I would not have bet much more than I did and I walked with almost all of what came in the streak.
link to original post
I didn't say I failed to profit from 34 reds in a row. Just that I didn't make a huge windfall. I kept betting $100 figuring the next spin would be the loser and I would give back only $100.
When I caught a 16 spin streak I had the cajones to keep risking my won chips until I was doing table max $2000. Sadly I only had a few max wins before the streak ended. If only THAT had gone to 34 wins. Oh well!
Quote: MDawgI didn't win 70K. It was pushing 70K, I was betting around $800., I always leave the figures and everything else a little vague for obvious reasons. "A decade or so ago." "Two decades or so ago." etc.
link to original post
Getting this to add up is bothering me so let me try again with some charitable assumptions:
1) “Pushing $70k” means at least $67.5k
2) Flatbetting “around $800” means at most $850
3) Got lucky with 50% extra doubles and splits and 100% more BJs.
So out of 60 hands:
11 doubles or splits winning (and let’s generously assume 2 of the splits resplit): $22,100
6 blackjacks winning: $7,650
Leaves 43 hands. If you win them all that’s $36,550
Total wins $66,350
So slightly still short of “pushing $70k” but close. That’s without a loss in the 60 hands. Harder with a loss, though could be with even more extra lucky doubles or blackjacks.
So I guess my math would suggest that with very generous assumptions of luck on doubles or splits I think at most you lost 1 hand out of the 60 if you ended up “pushing $70k” by betting “around $800”.
That sound fair?
