I am not interested in providing more proof than what I have online to anonymous internet people, other than the win statements that I am happy to post at the end of the year, unless there is something in it for me. For one, I assume that anyone who has significant cash to put up is more likely to be a legitimate person and somewhere on my level, and therefore not someone I would be reluctant to meet in person. If anyone is so certain that what I have posted is not true, then let's arrange a wager for some real money that makes it worth our time.

Quote:MDawgI actually proposed another version of that "Let me observe MDawg" wager another time. Which was, show up, watch me play Baccarat. At the end of the session I will either pay you DOUBLE what I lost, or you must pay me double what I won. This last trip I won as much as $30,000. in one session, although most sessions I won much less.

I don't think that really proves anything for that type of wager due to daily variance

However some of the posters on here might agree to a cumulative win/loss over say five days.

I think someone needs to calculate when it passes over into million to one odds for you to win consecutive days at Baccarat.

And then if you achieve beating million to one odds most of the forum members not only will hail you for it but be willing to pay the above type wager

Quote:MDawgIf anyone is so certain that what I have posted is not true, then let's arrange a wager for some real money that makes it worth our time.

What does a wager have to do with proving the impossible

Winning consistently at a negative EV game is impossible

Has nothing to do with a wager

It's impossible

Watching the impossible is definitely worth my time

You proving the impossible should be worth your time. You are doing something nobody else on the planet is doing if we are to believe you. Proving it should be worth your time. You being believed seems important to you looking at all the posts in this thread. If you did not care to be believed then this thread would not exist

Quote:MDawgAll right, so now you're calling me a liar. Saying that what I have stated that I have done is "impossible" is akin to calling it "fiction."

Which is precisely why you should be willing to prove your impossible claims without a financial demand.

Let me put it to you another way.

If you were to get any number of gambling experts including the Wizard, Michael Blujay, and plenty others to watch you actually achieve your claims in person...

That would be worth $50,000 in multiples.

You could sell books. You might have a movie made. You could charge for the lecture circuit.

Possibilities would be endless

I know of no viable method to win at baccarat beyond variance (luck). Variance will only take you so far. It will not allow you to beat the game.

Btw, net ahead could mean ahead by $1 at the end of a gambling career.

No one is using the tables as some kind of consistent income generator, IMO. Even card counting has been hammered to death by the casino bosses.

Quote:TerapinedWinning consistently at a negative EV game is impossible

Quote:MDawgAll right, so now you're calling me a liar. Saying that what I have stated that I have done is "impossible" is akin to calling it "fiction."

T's statement is true, assuming you define consistently as over an infinite period of time. Since he made a generalization I do not interpret it to be equivalent to calling you a liar.

I'm interested in a wager, by the way.

Quote:TDVegasIt’s not impossible to be net ahead over long term play at a negative expectation game. I believe simulations have shown this to be possible with low house edge wagering. It is, however, impossible to beat the house advantage unless one provides some form of mathematical reasoning as to why he can beat it. Counting cards in black jack would be one way. Dice influence in craps would be another.

I know of no viable method to win at baccarat beyond variance (luck). Variance will only take you so far. It will not allow you to beat the game.

Btw, net ahead could mean ahead by $1 at the end of a gambling career.

No one is using the tables as some kind of consistent income generator, IMO. Even card counting has been hammered to death by the casino bosses.

Mathematically there might not be so much variance in Baccarat, for someone who bets Bank every hand. But there is a tremendous amount of variance between the shoes where I win a lot and the shoes where I lose or break even, based on the way I play. I'd get into details, but it might take a dissertation.