Mikki Beating Baccarat?
He claims he can beat baccarat and he’s been backed off from it (and a bunch of other crazy stuff he claims). Can anyone confirm if this guy has actually been backed off of Baccarat? Spencer Cornelia tried to do an investigation, but he got sucked into it and didn’t end up really coming to a conclusion on him. This guy has had me thinking lately about baccarat. Obviously we know you can’t beat baccarat, but what has mystified me
Is the guy has the money to prove and back up he’s “winning” or at least inherited a trust fund? Perhaps he has found a system, card counting method, way they deal the game, that has been over looked by professionals? Something that nobody has discovered, and is actually beating the game? Can someone confirm if this Mikki guy has been backed off of Baccarat in Las Vegas?
I really want to get to the bottom of this…
Loads of him out there in google land...Quote: WABJ11YouTube’Mikki Gambling’ and the videos will pop up. I can’t link them since I don’t have enough posts but this guy has taken the gambling world by storm.
link to original post
https://www.google.com/search?q=Mikki+Mase+baccarat+influencer
All sorts of suggestions about him and claims by him. I make no further comment at this time.
He makes his money bluffing crazy rich people at poker. I’ve only seen him play poker mostly and I don’t understand the people who are coming here asking about him why they don’t mention poker.
you say you are mystified by his evidence, but if that evidence is so flawed that merely by flashing his wealth as "proof"* it would be what he is doing ... why would you pay any attention to that?Quote: WABJ11
* you say his evidence could merely be an "inherited a trust fund"
More than likely he is full of $hit, but all the checks from casinos, money, winning stubs, and other things he’s showcased (which I know any chump could do) have just peaked my curiosity.
Quote: WABJ11I’m a professional gambler. I’ve played poker professionally for 15 years, have played blackjack professionally for 5, and I’m in OSN and have to play blackjack under the radar. I consider myself pretty acclimated with casinos and advantage play. What has me intrigued about Mikki is nobody can say “I work at so and so and he hasn’t been banned.” Also the way he words things such as if he revealed how he wins casinos would have to “stop dealing baccarat” the way they deal the game. If I were to win at baccarat this is what I would expect to find a flaw to beat the game.
More than likely he is full of $hit, but all the checks from casinos, money, winning stubs, and other things he’s showcased (which I know any chump could do) have just peaked my curiosity.
I am surprised at you WABJ11. You know better than this. Advantage play is about math. These guys, popping up on youtube AND FORUMS, with their claims not only not supported by math, but that flat out DEFY math, are just modern day carnival barkers.
Now I only very recently became aware of Mikki and have watched a total of about 10 minutes of one of his videos, but it is the same exact nonsense that so many of us that participate here are familiar with. There is no math to it. There is no reality to it.
I mean we do know baccarat can be exploited, look at the Tran family drama.Quote: kewljQuote: WABJ11I’m a professional gambler. I’ve played poker professionally for 15 years, have played blackjack professionally for 5, and I’m in OSN and have to play blackjack under the radar. I consider myself pretty acclimated with casinos and advantage play. What has me intrigued about Mikki is nobody can say “I work at so and so and he hasn’t been banned.” Also the way he words things such as if he revealed how he wins casinos would have to “stop dealing baccarat” the way they deal the game. If I were to win at baccarat this is what I would expect to find a flaw to beat the game.
More than likely he is full of $hit, but all the checks from casinos, money, winning stubs, and other things he’s showcased (which I know any chump could do) have just peaked my curiosity.
I am surprised at you WABJ11. You know better than this. Advantage play is about math. These guys, popping up on youtube AND FORUMS, with their claims not only not supported by math, but that flat out DEFY math, are just modern day carnival barkers.
Now I only very recently became aware of Mikki and have watched a total of about 10 minutes of one of his videos, but it is the same exact nonsense that so many of us that participate here are familiar with. There is no math to it. There is no reality to it.
link to original post
Quote: ChallengedMillyI mean we do know baccarat can be exploited, look at the Tran family drama.
link to original post
Many games can be exploited with a controlled shuffle.
Quote: Dieter
Many games can be exploited with a controlled shuffle.
would you mind elaborating on your comment
are you referring to shuffle tracking?___________________thanks
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: Dieter
Many games can be exploited with a controlled shuffle.
would you mind elaborating on your comment
are you referring to shuffle tracking?___________________thanks
.
link to original post
Yes. No.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: Dieter
Many games can be exploited with a controlled shuffle.
would you mind elaborating on your comment
are you referring to shuffle tracking?___________________thanks
.
link to original post
The Tran family paid dealers to fake their shuffling. So the cards previously tracked could have the outcomes predicted.
This lead to multiple convictions.
The Tran family did not beat the game if Baccarat. They cheated in a manner that gave them guaranteed success (aside from crime doesn't pay, etc).
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/co-founder-casino-cheating-criminal-enterprise-sentenced-36-months-prison-targeting-casinos
References if you care to research.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tran_Organization
Quote: ChallengedMilly[I mean we do know baccarat can be exploited, look at the Tran family drama.
Exploiting a casino game, cheating and criminal activity involving that play are 3 very different and escalating things.
Saying The Tran Org "exploited" the game is like saying Al Capone was a businessman.
Quote: ChumpChangeI'm revamping my Baccarat betting system/strategy for progression wins on Banker. I never wanted to play Banker because of the vig, but I've been convinced lately that runs of x amount of wins will be much more frequent by playing Banker, so maybe that will make up for the vig somehow. I'm also not pressing my bets until after the 2nd win because 'chop' is such a large part of the results and my session money will last longer when it isn't 'chopped up' by the 'chop'. I used to feel that way about Place Bets too, and maybe I should reconsider that.
link to original post
Almost every casino has EZ Baccarat, Five Treasures, or one of several others that have NO COMMISSIONS NO VIG on the bankers side winning hands.
Quote: Marcusclark66Quote: ChumpChangeI'm revamping my Baccarat betting system/strategy for progression wins on Banker. I never wanted to play Banker because of the vig, but I've been convinced lately that runs of x amount of wins will be much more frequent by playing Banker, so maybe that will make up for the vig somehow. I'm also not pressing my bets until after the 2nd win because 'chop' is such a large part of the results and my session money will last longer when it isn't 'chopped up' by the 'chop'. I used to feel that way about Place Bets too, and maybe I should reconsider that.
link to original post
Almost every casino has EZ Baccarat, Five Treasures, or one of several others that have NO COMMISSIONS NO VIG on the bankers side winning hands.
link to original post
Yeah, but banker bets win less often to make up for it.
Quote: DieterQuote: Marcusclark66Quote: ChumpChangeI'm revamping my Baccarat betting system/strategy for progression wins on Banker. I never wanted to play Banker because of the vig, but I've been convinced lately that runs of x amount of wins will be much more frequent by playing Banker, so maybe that will make up for the vig somehow. I'm also not pressing my bets until after the 2nd win because 'chop' is such a large part of the results and my session money will last longer when it isn't 'chopped up' by the 'chop'. I used to feel that way about Place Bets too, and maybe I should reconsider that.
link to original post
Almost every casino has EZ Baccarat, Five Treasures, or one of several others that have NO COMMISSIONS NO VIG on the bankers side winning hands.
link to original post
Yeah, but banker bets win less often to make up for it.
link to original post
Is Chumpchange playing bricks and mortar casinos, or is this a virtual play experiment with play money?
Serious question. no offence meant.
As for B & M casinos my plan is to beat Bubble Craps, Craps Tables, Spanish 21, and Baccarat. I may drop by a BJ table, and spend some time at a Roulette table. But the table minimums and my weak bankroll have to be considered before I move up levels or games. Table minimums are $1, $3, $15, $25, $50, and $100 for various games. I want to be ready to move up when I can, so I play the home games almost all the time during the plague times.
Quote: CyrusVhttps://youtu.be/CkBAzTDwZrM
link to original post
Extremely well put together video with more fact checking and reality than YouTube Social Sales Stuff!
Absolutely great video put together that highlights Mikki.
Must watch.
So be careful: don't let your mouth or fingers write checks that your bank can't cash.
Quote: DeucekiesBased on what little I've seen, my verdict is he's a trust fund kid just like Dan Bilzerian. If he's backed off in Vegas, it may just be because his action is too big for them. Not even Vegas casinos want swings in the tens of millions per day.
link to original post
And casinos are private property so they can ban anyone for virtually anything they desire, especially in relationship to play.
Quote: Deucekies. Not even Vegas casinos want swings in the tens of millions per day.
Not most casinos, cetainily.
But unless things have changed I question whether you are correct.
Didn't a few strip casinos bend over backwards to entice big whales to gamble with them in the past?
Guys like Kerry Packer were sought after, not barred, even though his wins or losses would typically be in the millions.
Forty percent of casino gambling revenue came from guys like that, "preferred players," or so I recall reading somewhere.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wlBRrFzFsGk
Quote: Marcusclark66Watch.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wlBRrFzFsGk
link to original post
damn you. DAMN YOU! i dont want to believe! I DONT WANT TO BELIEVE!!!! GAHHH blahhhhh kljdfvnlkjsdfvlkjsdbv;knad;knasdsv
With that being said, I just lost any faith I had in Spencer Cornelia's investigation abilities. It's clear he is capable of being easily bamboozled. He looks at ONE(one he Mikki chooses himself) of Mikki's casino online casino player accounts and deems him legit. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
It doesn't matter if you look at three or four or five or six, it's the one account that has a massive loss on it and that totality of all his play that really matters. Even then, you would have to factor in good old positive variance.
If Mikki's investors don't have an actual advantage(Fyi Mikki could be making something off the back end for himself) and he's just using some Marty system or whatever, Spencer Cornelia just helped perpetuate a financially dangerous situation to some gullible ignorant people.
It seems like it's only people who have a s*** ton of money to lose, that this has the potential to affect.
Quote: heatmap
damn you. DAMN YOU! i dont want to believe! I DONT WANT TO BELIEVE!!!! GAHHH blahhhhh kljdfvnlkjsdfvlkjsdbv;knad;knasdsv
link to original post
Quote: AxelWolf
With that being said, I just lost any faith I had in Spencer Cornelia's investigation abilities. It's clear he is capable of being easily bamboozled. He looks at ONE(one he Mikki chooses himself) of Mikki's casino online casino player accounts and deems him legit. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️...
It seems like it's only people who have a s*** ton of money to lose, that this has the potential to affect.
link to original post
Heatmap.... Keep the faith Brother!
* Influencer, upon influencer, upon influencer.
We have an 'influencer' and famous youtuber: Spencer Cornelia who most of us had never heard of a month ago, Who first 'debunks' and later 'endorses' another influencer. Who's selling what, and to whom?. Clue..... with youtube, YOU and I are the product. Our clicks, Our identities, Ultimately our opened wallets.
Mikki gave a good presentation, convinced Spencer of something. Who controlled the whole situation? Think about this:-
Spencer was 100% on Mikki's territory, alone.
Mikki had his entourage including the one with the distracting chest.
Spencer was like a kid in a candy store, we could see his awe and embarrassment at asking questions. He was easily convinced by Mikki's speil. See how quickly Mikki bamboozled him when discussing blackjack. It was as if neither even knew the game well enough. He was like a schoolkid interviewing Bill Gates at Microsoft HQ after being picked up in a Microsoft Limo. An easy mark.
Where were Spencer's props? pen? notepad? tablet? Spencer was winging it. Mikki showed him some reports on a web page on a phone. Where else have you seen that sort of evidence? Americas Got Talent? David Copperfield? David Blaine? Any number of street magicians? A screen on a phone handed to you can display ANYTHING. If Mikki ever wants a career in Vegas, then he has the patter and audience control to be a great magician.
Spencer was out of his depth, and Mikki had 100% control of the whole situation. I reckon he was totally pwned. Anyone who comes away convinced by the interview..... Pwned!
Let's be clear: Whatever their underlying business model profitability, both are making a LOT of money just for getting eyes on the ads on their youtube channels.
Follow the money. If something looks too good to be true..... It's probably not true.
* Actually, the layers of influencers gets deeper. Does our own, ever winning, MarcusClark, subtly endorse Spencer, endorsing Mikki?
Will we get another relentless winner along shortly saying "See guys, it's not just me and Marcus that can thrash the casino" and endorsing THE IDEA? THE VERY CONCEPT of easy money.?
Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: heatmap
damn you. DAMN YOU! i dont want to believe! I DONT WANT TO BELIEVE!!!! GAHHH blahhhhh kljdfvnlkjsdfvlkjsdbv;knad;knasdsv
link to original postQuote: AxelWolf
With that being said, I just lost any faith I had in Spencer Cornelia's investigation abilities. It's clear he is capable of being easily bamboozled. He looks at ONE(one he Mikki chooses himself) of Mikki's casino online casino player accounts and deems him legit. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️...
It seems like it's only people who have a s*** ton of money to lose, that this has the potential to affect.
link to original post
Heatmap.... Keep the faith Brother!
* Influencer, upon influencer, upon influencer.
We have an 'influencer' and famous youtuber: Spencer Cornelia who most of us had never heard of a month ago, Who first 'debunks' and later 'endorses' another influencer. Who's selling what, and to whom?. Clue..... with youtube, YOU and I are the product. Our clicks, Our identities, Ultimately our opened wallets.
Mikki gave a good presentation, convinced Spencer of something. Who controlled the whole situation? Think about this:-
Spencer was 100% on Mikki's territory, alone.
Mikki had his entourage including the one with the distracting chest.
Spencer was like a kid in a candy store, we could see his awe and embarrassment at asking questions. He was easily convinced by Mikki's speil. See how quickly Mikki bamboozled him when discussing blackjack. It was as if neither even knew the game well enough. He was like a schoolkid interviewing Bill Gates at Microsoft HQ after being picked up in a Microsoft Limo. An easy mark.
Where were Spencer's props? pen? notepad? tablet? Spencer was winging it. Mikki showed him some reports on a web page on a phone. Where else have you seen that sort of evidence? Americas Got Talent? David Copperfield? David Blaine? Any number of street magicians? A screen on a phone handed to you can display ANYTHING. If Mikki ever wants a career in Vegas, then he has the patter and audience control to be a great magician.
Spencer was out of his depth, and Mikki had 100% control of the whole situation. I reckon he was totally pwned. Anyone who comes away convinced by the interview..... Pwned!
Let's be clear: Whatever their underlying business model profitability, both are making a LOT of money just for getting eyes on the ads on their youtube channels.
Follow the money. If something looks too good to be true..... It's probably not true.
* Actually, the layers of influencers gets deeper. Does our own, ever winning, MarcusClark, subtly endorse Spencer, endorsing Mikki?
Will we get another relentless winner along shortly saying "See guys, it's not just me and Marcus that can thrash the casino" and endorsing THE IDEA? THE VERY CONCEPT of easy money.?
Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see.
link to original post
You know OnceDear you throw me in your rant and you are strongly insinuating that I supposedly endorsed the Spencer deal doing the sudden 180.
Seriously. Why?
Because I was forwarded the video and I posted it with the one single word, ONE WORD, “Watch”.
I do not and did not endorse Spencer. In fact I thought and posted so Spencer’s first video of Mikki was very well put together, etc., etc.
Our casino was already made aware of Mikki and Spencer by our consultants we use for intelligence gathering, etc.
So carry on and I am disappointed in your insinuating something I did not in anyway whatsoever post, say, write or believe.
Respectfully,
Marcus Clark AKA Marcusclark66
Quote: Marcusclark66
You know OnceDear you throw me in your rant and you are strongly insinuating that I supposedly endorsed the Spencer deal doing the sudden 180.
Seriously. Why?
Because I was forwarded the video and I posted it with the one single word, ONE WORD, “Watch”.
I do not and did not endorse Spencer. In fact I thought and posted so Spencer’s first video of Mikki was very well put together, etc., etc.
Our casino was already made aware of Mikki and Spencer by our consultants we use for intelligence gathering, etc.
So carry on and I am disappointed in your insinuating something I did not in anyway whatsoever post, say, write or believe.
Respectfully,
Marcus Clark AKA Marcusclark66
link to original post
I make but one observation:
"Must watch." is not a disclaimer.
edit: formatting. I forgot to remove a chunk of OD's text, which was misformatted and implied a misquote of MC66.
Quote: DieterQuote: Marcusclark66
You know OnceDear you throw me in your rant and you are strongly insinuating that I supposedly endorsed the Spencer deal doing the sudden 180.
Seriously. Why?
Because I was forwarded the video and I posted it with the one single word, ONE WORD, “Watch”.
I do not and did not endorse Spencer. In fact I thought and posted so Spencer’s first video of Mikki was very well put together, etc., etc.
Our casino was already made aware of Mikki and Spencer by our consultants we use for intelligence gathering, etc.
So carry on and I am disappointed in your insinuating something I did not in anyway whatsoever post, say, write or believe.
Respectfully,
Marcus Clark AKA Marcusclark66
link to original post
I make but one observation:
"Must watch." is not a disclaimer.
edit: formatting. I forgot to remove a chunk of OD's text, which was misformatted and implied a misquote of MC66.
link to original post
Again. I posted one word, ONE SINGLE WORD.
“Watch”.
Please explain how that puts myself in the endorsement category?
Because I do not.
Thank you. Please explain.
Quote: Marcusclark66Quote: DieterQuote: Marcusclark66
You know OnceDear you throw me in your rant and you are strongly insinuating that I supposedly endorsed the Spencer deal doing the sudden 180.
Seriously. Why?
Because I was forwarded the video and I posted it with the one single word, ONE WORD, “Watch”.
I do not and did not endorse Spencer. In fact I thought and posted so Spencer’s first video of Mikki was very well put together, etc., etc.
Our casino was already made aware of Mikki and Spencer by our consultants we use for intelligence gathering, etc.
So carry on and I am disappointed in your insinuating something I did not in anyway whatsoever post, say, write or believe.
Respectfully,
Marcus Clark AKA Marcusclark66
link to original post
I make but one observation:
"Must watch." is not a disclaimer.
edit: formatting. I forgot to remove a chunk of OD's text, which was misformatted and implied a misquote of MC66.
link to original post
Again. I posted one word, ONE SINGLE WORD.
“Watch”.
Please explain how that puts myself in the endorsement category?
Because I do not.
Thank you. Please explain.
link to original post
Quote: Marcusclark66Quote: CyrusVhttps://youtu.be/CkBAzTDwZrM
link to original post
Extremely well put together video with more fact checking and reality than YouTube Social Sales Stuff!
Absolutely great video put together that highlights Mikki.
Must watch.
link to original post
I'm sure it's a technical error on my phone that makes the "Absolutely great video" post appear on my screen 5 posts earlier in the thread.
Quote: DieterQuote: Marcusclark66Quote: DieterQuote: Marcusclark66
You know OnceDear you throw me in your rant and you are strongly insinuating that I supposedly endorsed the Spencer deal doing the sudden 180.
Seriously. Why?
Because I was forwarded the video and I posted it with the one single word, ONE WORD, “Watch”.
I do not and did not endorse Spencer. In fact I thought and posted so Spencer’s first video of Mikki was very well put together, etc., etc.
Our casino was already made aware of Mikki and Spencer by our consultants we use for intelligence gathering, etc.
So carry on and I am disappointed in your insinuating something I did not in anyway whatsoever post, say, write or believe.
Respectfully,
Marcus Clark AKA Marcusclark66
link to original post
I make but one observation:
"Must watch." is not a disclaimer.
edit: formatting. I forgot to remove a chunk of OD's text, which was misformatted and implied a misquote of MC66.
link to original post
Again. I posted one word, ONE SINGLE WORD.
“Watch”.
Please explain how that puts myself in the endorsement category?
Because I do not.
Thank you. Please explain.
link to original postQuote: Marcusclark66Quote: CyrusVhttps://youtu.be/CkBAzTDwZrM
link to original post
Extremely well put together video with more fact checking and reality than YouTube Social Sales Stuff!
Absolutely great video put together that highlights Mikki.
Must watch.
link to original post
I'm sure it's a technical error on my phone that makes the "Absolutely great video" post appear on my screen 5 posts earlier in the thread.
link to original post
Absolutely great video. =. Exposing Mikki and his so called claims and open ended statements, etc. I thought Spencer did a good/great job of debunking.
So I am wrong now?
Quote: Marcusclark66Quote: OnceDear* Actually, the layers of influencers gets deeper. Does our own, ever winning, MarcusClark, subtly endorse Spencer, endorsing Mikki?
Will we get another relentless winner along shortly saying "See guys, it's not just me and Marcus that can thrash the casino" and endorsing THE IDEA? THE VERY CONCEPT of easy money.?
Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see.
link to original post
You know OnceDear you throw me in your rant and you are strongly insinuating that I supposedly endorsed the Spencer deal doing the sudden 180.
Seriously. Why?
Because I was forwarded the video and I posted it with the one single word, ONE WORD, “Watch”.
I do not and did not endorse Spencer. In fact I thought and posted so Spencer’s first video of Mikki was very well put together, etc., etc.
Our casino was already made aware of Mikki and Spencer by our consultants we use for intelligence gathering, etc.
So carry on and I am disappointed in your insinuating something I did not in anyway whatsoever post, say, write or believe.
Respectfully,
Marcus Clark AKA Marcusclark66
link to original post
Hi Marcus
I'm sorry that you are disappointed and annoyed. I didn't think my post was a rant, so much as an observation on the video that you suggested we watch. I misinterpreted your advice to watch the video as some sort of endorsement of the value of its content. You did NOT endorse Mikki's claims. You did NOT endorse Spenser's endorsement. You simply suggested that we watch a video where Spenser had implicitly endorsed Mikki as 'legit'. I never really considered your motive for doing so, let alone intend to insinuate anything.
Both the videos that you brought to attention were interesting and together they gave a balanced report.
I raised a question "Does our own, ever winning, MarcusClark, subtly endorse Spencer, endorsing Mikki?"
It was a question. Not meant as an insinuation. I'm sorry if you see it that way. I think I was trying to indicate that you and indeed all of us that pass on or mention this content, are 'influencers'
Thank you Marcus for answering that question.
I did not say that you did endorse anybody, but I apologise to you if you believe that i did insinuate anything. That was not my intention.
Regards,
OD
Quote: Marcusclark66Absolutely great video. =. Exposing Mikki and his so called claims and open ended statements, etc. I thought Spencer did a good/great job of debunking.
So I am wrong now?
link to original post
That would appear to be an endorsement of Spencer and his videos, at least on this subject.
Urging people to watch another video of his shortly after would seem to be a furtherance of the prior endorsement.
Quote: Marcusclark66
Absolutely great video. =. Exposing Mikki and his so called claims and open ended statements, etc. I thought Spencer did a good/great job of debunking.
So I am wrong now?
link to original post
I agree.
The first of the videos was a thoughtful and powerful debunking
In my humble opinion, the second video devalued the earlier one and as Axelwolf said,
[Trimmed for brevity]Quote: AxelWolf...I just lost any faith I had in Spencer Cornelia's investigation abilities. It's clear he is capable of being easily bamboozled. He looks at ONE(one he Mikki chooses himself) of Mikki's casino online casino player accounts and deems him legit. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
link to original post
Quote: DieterQuote: Marcusclark66Absolutely great video. =. Exposing Mikki and his so called claims and open ended statements, etc. I thought Spencer did a good/great job of debunking.
So I am wrong now?
link to original post
That would appear to be an endorsement of Spencer and his videos, at least on this subject.
Urging people to watch another video of his shortly after would seem to be a furtherance of the prior endorsement.
link to original post
To give Marcus credit where it is due, he seems to, quite reasonably, highlight the value of watching the videos while not endorsing the content.
Hard to say whether highlighting the value of something equates to 'endorsing it' I'm inclined to think they are different things.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: DieterQuote: Marcusclark66Absolutely great video. =. Exposing Mikki and his so called claims and open ended statements, etc. I thought Spencer did a good/great job of debunking.
So I am wrong now?
link to original post
That would appear to be an endorsement of Spencer and his videos, at least on this subject.
Urging people to watch another video of his shortly after would seem to be a furtherance of the prior endorsement.
link to original post
To give Marcus credit where it is due, he seems to, quite reasonably, highlight the value of watching the videos while not endorsing the content.
Hard to say whether highlighting the value of something equates to 'endorsing it' I'm inclined to think they are different things.
link to original post
True enough. Is "recommend" a more suitable word than "endorse" here?
How about we rewind and don't use any words, lest we misinterpret or are misinterpreted.Quote: DieterQuote: OnceDear
To give Marcus credit where it is due, he seems to, quite reasonably, highlight the value of watching the videos while not endorsing the content.
Hard to say whether highlighting the value of something equates to 'endorsing it' I'm inclined to think they are different things.
link to original post
True enough. Is "recommend" a more suitable word than "endorse" here?
link to original post
Quote: OnceDearHow about we rewind and don't use any words, lest we misinterpret or are misinterpreted.Quote: DieterQuote: OnceDear
To give Marcus credit where it is due, he seems to, quite reasonably, highlight the value of watching the videos while not endorsing the content.
Hard to say whether highlighting the value of something equates to 'endorsing it' I'm inclined to think they are different things.
link to original post
True enough. Is "recommend" a more suitable word than "endorse" here?
link to original post
link to original post
Quote: DieterQuote: Marcusclark66Absolutely great video. =. Exposing Mikki and his so called claims and open ended statements, etc. I thought Spencer did a good/great job of debunking.
So I am wrong now?
link to original post
That would appear to be an endorsement of Spencer and his videos, at least on this subject.
Urging people to watch another video of his shortly after would seem to be a furtherance of the prior endorsement.
link to original post
The one video, yes. In most ways on a personal level I would side with Spencer or I would tend to agree with the majority of what Spencer was bringing forward as an observer.
However, IMO and hopefully that of most others, since I did not say I totally endorse or Spencer is always spot on, etc, whatever else Spencer comes out with does not automatically obtain my approval and endorsements.
I don’t believe I urged people to watch a video. Urging, would have to be, IMO, a bit ‘stronger’ than ‘watch’, no?
But maybe I am wrong?
Quote: OnceDearQuote: DieterQuote: Marcusclark66Absolutely great video. =. Exposing Mikki and his so called claims and open ended statements, etc. I thought Spencer did a good/great job of debunking.
So I am wrong now?
link to original post
That would appear to be an endorsement of Spencer and his videos, at least on this subject.
Urging people to watch another video of his shortly after would seem to be a furtherance of the prior endorsement.
link to original post
To give Marcus credit where it is due, he seems to, quite reasonably, highlight the value of watching the videos while not endorsing the content.
Hard to say whether highlighting the value of something equates to 'endorsing it' I'm inclined to think they are different things.
link to original post
To watch something, to sit in a conference, to read a summation of an incident or review video footage, etc, is to become aware and learn what is happening or might happen or what is out there, etc.
To endorse, approve of, side with, recommend as the correct way, etc, is to be included in such and such trend of thought or actions and furtherance of what the author or the subject is presenting.
The above two is my way of thinking.
Quote: AxelWolfI have no idea if Mikki has some back-end deals with the casinos or what kind of profits he makes from his social media stuff. There's certainly a potential +EV situation given the right situation, especially if he has the money and knowledge to negotiate a favorable deal. I believe he actually does. I can see a situation where casinos are/were willing to bend over backwards offering player-friendly deals(+EV) to get a shot at his and his connections money only to realize after the fact that they have been duped.
With that being said, I just lost any faith I had in Spencer Cornelia's investigation abilities. It's clear he is capable of being easily bamboozled. He looks at ONE(one he Mikki chooses himself) of Mikki's casino online casino player accounts and deems him legit. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
It doesn't matter if you look at three or four or five or six, it's the one account that has a massive loss on it and that totality of all his play that really matters. Even then, you would have to factor in good old positive variance.
If Mikki's investors don't have an actual advantage(Fyi Mikki could be making something off the back end for himself) and he's just using some Marty system or whatever, Spencer Cornelia just helped perpetuate a financially dangerous situation to some gullible ignorant people.
It seems like it's only people who have a s*** ton of money to lose, that this has the potential to affect.
link to original post
I thought twice about it, (Axel and I have wrestled a bit, LOL) but his rendering of Spencer’s video described in his post above is excellent IMO!
However I have done zero investigation or read anything more than an industry wide bulletin/memo regarding both Mikki and Spencer. My end of the memo was to alert another department’s personnel if those two individuals are recognized on the floor. That dies not imply anything is wrong or against the gaming regulations that govern our properties.
Again, I would side with Axel’s interpretations.
Quote: Marcusclark66
To watch something, to sit in a conference, to read a summation of an incident or review video footage, etc, is to become aware and learn what is happening or might happen or what is out there, etc.
To endorse, approve of, side with, recommend as the correct way, etc, is to be included in such and such trend of thought or actions and furtherance of what the author or the subject is presenting.
The above two is my way of thinking.
link to original post
E.g.
Imperatives or commands (example: Watch!)
"Watch." is a complete sentence. The sentence commenced with a capital letter and was terminated by a period.
If it were referring to timepieces, or if it were just a verb, we would normally need a second word.
Now. I did not use an exclamation mark, so I did not URGE you to click that spoiler button. I 'suggested', 'commanded', or we might say 'recommended' that you click on it. You clicked on it. Thank you.
Now, Let's all stop assuming what we each mean or are thinking. Let's just read what we see on the screen and let's not argue about what we infer?
Click!
Quote: OnceDearQuote: Marcusclark66
To watch something, to sit in a conference, to read a summation of an incident or review video footage, etc, is to become aware and learn what is happening or might happen or what is out there, etc.
To endorse, approve of, side with, recommend as the correct way, etc, is to be included in such and such trend of thought or actions and furtherance of what the author or the subject is presenting.
The above two is my way of thinking.
link to original postUse of single word sentences in English.
E.g.
Imperatives or commands (example: Watch!)
"Watch." is a complete sentence. The sentence commenced with a capital letter and was terminated by a period.
If it were referring to timepieces, or if it were just a verb, we would normally need a second word.
Now. I did not use an exclamation mark, so I did not URGE you to click that spoiler button. I 'suggested', 'commanded', or we might say 'recommended' that you click on it. You clicked on it. Thank you.
Now, Let's all stop assuming what we each mean or are thinking. Let's just read what we see on the screen and let's not argue about what we infer?
Click!
link to original post
Within the definition that was contained in the dictionary under your ‘click’ for ‘click’:
“to fit or agree exactly”
Which we all do when we click on click?
Disclaimer. Lol, I’m joking, :)
Just curious as to why the casino would care if Spencer was on the gaming floor? Concern that he might be filming?Quote: Marcusclark66My end of the memo was to alert another department’s personnel if those two individuals are recognized on the floor. link to original post
Mikki would not exactly blend in, would he?
Well done. You saw an amusing subtlety that I had not intended. But if I had, I'd have been proud.Quote: Marcusclark66Quote: OnceDear
Use of single word sentences in English.
E.g.
Imperatives or commands (example: Watch!)
"Watch." is a complete sentence. The sentence commenced with a capital letter and was terminated by a period.
If it were referring to timepieces, or if it were just a verb, we would normally need a second word.
Now. I did not use an exclamation mark, so I did not URGE you to click that spoiler button. I 'suggested', 'commanded', or we might say 'recommended' that you click on it. You clicked on it. Thank you.
Now, Let's all stop assuming what we each mean or are thinking. Let's just read what we see on the screen and let's not argue about what we infer?
Click!
link to original post
Within the definition that was contained in the dictionary under your ‘click’ for ‘click’:
“to fit or agree exactly”
Which we all do when we click on click?
Disclaimer. Lol, I’m joking, :)
link to original post
Let's agree exactly.
