The Adventures of Axelwolf
Quote: coachbelly
The doubter insists MDawg's claims are mathematically impossible,
Its more like 99.9999999% here know its impossible
Why do you believe the impossible?
I just moved to Vegas last week. I'd love to observe the impossible
Quote: AxelWolfI'm sorry you fail to understand, most others here do. I'll try to make it simple for you..Quote: MDawgAs predicted, "he'll shortly back down or create some sort of qualifier now."
WHAT MATHEMATICAL ADVANTAGE? what are you TALKING about. You made a straight bet across the board, something you proposed yourself out of the blue, that you tried to get two others to take up, DRich and KewlJ I believe it was, that I am not even betting at the levels I claim in my day to day session trip reports as posted in my Adventures thread, and that I am akin to some suspended member you keep mentioning from the distant past who you claim was a complete fraud and never bet a nickel at the tables. THAT IS ALL. How simple of a bet could that be? Either I am high rolling or I am not. You going to back out now??
My session reports are very clear. You're saying I NEVER bet like that and never could bet like that. How simple of a wager is this? What could be simpler?
The wager you proposed is that I do not bet the way I claim I bet.
Stop playing games man, I grow annoyed at your irresolution.
How much do you wager?
If I bet you 5k that you don't bet at the levels you claim to, you could simply borrow money to make big wagers. You would obviously win the bet and that would give you a mathematical advantage. You could bet 25 hands at 10k and still have an advantage if i have to pay you 5k. I can't tell you how much I want to wager until i know how many hands you are going to play and what size bets you will be making.
Quote: MDawgSo we're all broken records at times.
But I bring up the markers issue here with reference to its relevance to his proposed bet. Which I am sure is not going to happen as he didn't seem to have thought it through before proposing it.
By the way, other than the Hot Blonde Challenge or whatever it was called, which was before my time, have any recent wagers at WOV gone through to fruition?
I believe i have received the proceeds of around 5 wagers in the past year or so. I owe someone because i bet that either Roethlisberger or Brady would be retired by now. DRich owes me a beer I think, maybe $20? It is possible darkoz owes me a beer as well but I may have just imagined that! KewlJ will owe me once the Super Bowl is played. Mike paid me $50 for some bet that I can't remember. I had to pay someone by buying them a futures NBA bet on the Sizers last year.
And of course, I paid out 4 figures on my losing HBC bet.....
If you want a casino gambling related type bet, I won a few hundred dollars on a craps dice setting bet a few years ago.
Quote: coachbellyHaving second thoughts?
I read your comment, but you deleted it before I was able to post a reply.
That certainly stifling debate, don't you agree?
No, I re edited the comments, messed up the formatting and then had to run an errand.
Will repost shortly
Quote: SOOPOOI believe i have received the proceeds of around 5 wagers in the past year or so. I owe someone because i bet that either Roethlisberger or Brady would be retired by now. DRich owes me a beer I think, maybe $20? It is possible darkoz owes me a beer as well but I may have just imagined that! KewlJ will owe me once the Super Bowl is played. Mike paid me $50 for some bet that I can't remember. I had to pay someone by buying them a futures NBA bet on the Sizers last year.
And of course, I paid out 4 figures on my losing HBC bet.....
If you want a casino gambling related type bet, I won a few hundred dollars on a craps dice setting bet a few years ago.
I don't remember any beer bet.
I don't drink alcohol period so not the type of bet I would make. At least not if I had won you would owe me a beer
Quote: darkozI don't remember any beer bet.
I don't drink alcohol period so not the type of bet I would make. At least not if I had won you would owe me a beer
Well then propose a bet so you can owe me one! I'll risk a double espresso mocha latte vanilla frappucino or something like that....
Quote: SOOPOOWell then propose a bet so you can owe me one! I'll risk a double espresso mocha latte vanilla frappucino or something like that....
Okay you pegged me very well.
I always get coffee-less frappucino
Quote: coachbellyHere's a very telling and revealing exchange from earlier in the thread...
Quote: teliotThat's false. The winning is definitely possible.
This is how debate is stifled.
Quote: teliotThat's false. The winning is definitely possible. Playing a winning system, given what he has disclosed, is what is not possible.
Debate is stifled when you quote someone out of context so they appear to support your side when they don't.
Quote: terapinedWhy do you believe the impossible?
I don't believe the impossible, I accept Jacobson's explanation of what's possible.
Quote: coachbellyI don't believe the impossible, I accept Jacobson's explanation of what's possible.
Quote: teliotPlaying a winning system, given what he has disclosed, is what is not possible.
So you are willing to accept this?
Quote: unJonCoachbelly, the original from AxelWolf is below.
Axel is claiming that MDawg does not bet at the levels he claims to, he wrote "you don't bet at the levels you claim to".
MDawg is interpreting Axel to mean that he has not bet at the levels he claims to.
I agree with MDawg, that's what Axel meant...specifically that MDawg's claim of being rated at $1200 per round for 70+ hours is false.
That claim cannot be corroborated by future play, we need only to examine evidence of past play.
So whatever scenario Axel imagines about future play has no bearing on MDawg's claims about his past play and his player rating.
I advise that Axel meet MDawg's cage deposit requirement, and watch him play.
Then Axel can report on what MDawg did bet, or report in real time what MDawg does bet and post about it afterwards.
Quote: coachbellyI agree with MDawg,
OF COURSE YOU DO. Did that really need to be said?
Quote: darkozSo you are willing to accept this?
Jacobson's assertion that "playing a winning system is what is not possible" implies that a winning system does not exist.
It's unclear to me what "given what he has disclosed" refers to, I'm not sure how any disclosure by MDawg could affect the mathematical possibility of a "winning system".
Absent Jacobson's definition of a winning system, I accept that it's possible for MDawg to have won without having played a winning system.
Quote: kewljOF COURSE YOU DO. Did that really need to be said?
I came by that interpretation independently of MDawg.
What meaning do you take from Axel's statement that "you don't bet at the levels you claim to" ?
He's referring to past betting levels, right?
Is there a way to play baccarat and lower your odds of winning?
Quote: terapinedCurious
Is there a way to play baccarat and lower your odds of winning?
Side bets. The player bet also has a slightly larger house edge than the bank bet.
Not sure if that’s what you are getting at.
Quote: terapinedCurious
Is there a way to play baccarat and lower your odds of winning?
Absolutely, always bet on Player or the tie. Banker has the lowest house edge.
So a guy comes on this forum and say I played roulette for 1 hour a day for 10 straight days and won every day.
Now what if he comes on and says I am going to play roulette for 1 hour a day for 10 straight days and win everyday and then returns 10 days later saying he did just that.
So the question would you find each of these situation equally credible?
Eliot is purely a math guy. He is just looking at the math and in this example would probably be able to tell you just how likely an hour of winning roulette was for 10 straight days. And that math wouldn't change if the person had predicted it. !0 straight days would be 10 straight days.
That act of predicting this very unusual event and then immediately claiming that unusual event happened would make that claim much less credible.
That is exactly what occurred with MDawg when earlier in this very thread, several trips back, he told us he would continue to win at the same rate, winning nearly every session, and then....presto.....he did just that.
Eliot's math doesn't take that into consideration. Anyone with half a brain does. And that is not saying Eliot has or doesn't have half a brain, it is saying Eliot is purely looking at the math of the event, as you would expect a math guy to.
Quote: DRichAbsolutely, always bet on Player or the tie. Banker has the lowest house edge.
Never played
So it's kind of 1 step away from a coin flip
Instead of 2 choices, have 3 choices.
Quote: kewljOF COURSE YOU DO. Did that really need to be said?
It would be a diagnosable personality disorder if he didn't, wouldn't it?
For a session: Yes, of course. Just like a coin toss, one can engineer a probability of your session ending ahead with tools as simple as martingale or reverse martingale.Quote: terapinedCurious
Is there a way to play baccarat and lower your odds of winning?
E.g. repeatedly doubling your bet after a win can give you a small probability of a big win countered by a big probability of a bankroll sized loss over the session..
Quote: terapinedNever played
So it's kind of 1 step away from a coin flip
Instead of 2 choices, have 3 choices.
Yes very close to that.
More like picking your color at roulette. Red, Black or Green.
In BACCARAT You pick if either Banker or player side will win. You can also choose tie.
Unlike betting green at roulette in a tie both sides get their money back in a tie, while tie wins.
Banker has a slight mathematical Advantage to win over Player side. So betting player is the "losing' side over time.
Betting Banker however, as the "winning" side over time is hit with a 5% commission on winning wagers.
While Banker "wins" more, his having to pay a commission on wins brings his edge back down to what the Player has to overcome (it's not exactly the same so Banker's marginally the better bet). They both have a -ev.
Quote: darkozYes very close to that.
More like picking your color at roulette. Red, Black or Green.
In BACCARAT You pick if either Banker or player side will win. You can also choose tie.
Unlike betting green at roulette in a tie both sides get their money back in a tie, while tie wins.
Banker has a slight mathematical Advantage to win over Player side. So betting player is the "losing' side over time.
Betting Banker however, as the "winning" side over time is hit with a 5% commission on winning wagers.
While Banker "wins" more, his having to pay a commission on wins brings his edge back down to what the Player has to overcome (it's not exactly the same so Banker's marginally the better bet). They both have a -ev.
So its akin to Pass or dont pass
Dont is very very slightly better then pass but both negative EV
I'm a Dont player due to odds
So if I decided to play Baccarat
The correct strategy is banker every bet
and
Any deviation gives the casino better odds
Correct?
Quote: terapinedSo its akin to Pass or dont pass
Dont is very very slightly better then pass but both negative EV
I'm a Dont player due to odds
So if I decided to play Baccarat
The correct strategy is banker every bet
and
Any deviation gives the casino better odds
Correct?
Yes, I would say that's a good analogy/assessment.
There is zero decision making in the game. The cards are dealt per rules of the game.
Two cards to each side initially. Either side gets a third card based on their total per preordained rules. There is no affect the patron has on the outcome. Pure luck of the draw (assuming dealer funny business like deck shuffling to a certain order hasn't occurred which of course would be illegal but has happened in the past).
MDawg could claim he bets Don't Side at Craps and is a lifetime winner because he can pick psychically when players won't make their point with the same credibility
Yes, a reverse martingale. Keep doubling up after each win until you lose.Quote: terapinedCurious
Is there a way to play baccarat and lower your odds of winning?
Edit added:
Just noticed, OD got to this solution before me. I guess I need to spend more time obsessively reading threads.
Quote: darkozYes, I would say that's a good analogy/assessment.
There is zero decision making in the game. The cards are dealt per rules of the game.
Two cards to each side initially. Either side gets a third card based on their total per preordained rules. There is no affect the patron has on the outcome. Pure luck of the draw (assuming dealer funny business like deck shuffling to a certain order hasn't occurred which of course would be illegal but has happened in the past).
MDawg could claim he bets Don't Side at Craps and is a lifetime winner because he can pick psychically when players won't make their point with the same credibility
So the bottom line is the best strategy is to have no strategy at all by betting banker 100% of the time.
So therefore
Having a baccarat strategy different then always betting banker is actually hurting your odds.
So therefore
Somebody like me that is betting on baccarat and wants the best odds possible on every bet should not play like Mdawg.
I am really fascinated by gamblers that use a strategy to give the casino a bigger edge. It's an article that belongs in the Onion
Why play in a manner that gives the house more of an edge? Just seems so absurd to me. Gee, I see a toilet, let me throw some money in lol
Quote: terapinedSo the bottom line is the best strategy is to have no strategy at all by betting banker 100% of the time.
So therefore
Having a baccarat strategy different then always betting banker is actually hurting your odds.
So therefore
Somebody like me that is betting on baccarat and wants the best odds possible on every bet should not play like Mdawg.
I am really fascinated by gamblers that use a strategy to give the casino a bigger edge. It's an article that belongs in the Onion
Why play in a manner that gives the house more of an edge? Just seems so absurd to me. Gee, I see a toilet, let me throw some money in lol
Well to go a level deeper there’s a card counting method for baccarat. Not for any expectation of either player or banker being +EV. But rather the count will tell you when to switch from betting banker to betting player to minimize the -EV.
Quote: kewljSo the question would you find each of these situation equally credible?
There's no need to deal with the hypothetical here, we have an actual event to consider.
Consider the evidence, the proof that MDawg has supplied to substantiate his claims of having won.
I'm interested to know why you insist that his documentation is all faked.
Because of math?
The PHD explained that such winning is possible, and he provided an anecdote to demonstrate the reality of a player winning consistently at a -EV game. Did you read it?
Since you are accusing MDawg of fakery, then you are obliged to prove your accusation.
That's how it works, you can accuse but you must prove the accusation for it to stick, the accusation itself is not proof.
Review the evidence, have an expert examine the evidence, interview witnesses, and prove that MDawg is lying.
Hypothetical tales of roulette and 3-minute miles and such don't prove anything, those type of things are deflections.
I think MDawg has done plenty to prove whatever he claims, but you have done nothing to prove that he is lying.
And having accused him, that remains your obligation.
Quote: coachbelly
I'm interested to know why you insist that his documentation is all faked.
Who insisted that his documentation is fake? I didn't. Nor have I see where anyone else did. What I have seen is several people, myself included say documentation can be faked and manipulated. And I, nor I am guessing anyone else wants to place a bet under those circumstances. You have a real talent for twisting everything around.
Quote: coachbelly
Since you are accusing MDawg of fakery, then you are obliged to prove your accusation.
That's how it works, you can accuse but you must prove the accusation for it to stick, the accusation itself is not proof.
That is NOT how it works! YOU coach belly, don't get to make the rules. Wizard does and Wizard has stated "it is time for MDawg to put up or shutup". So take it up with Wizard.
Quote: kewljWhat I have seen is several people, myself included say documentation can be faked and manipulated.
You won't examine, review or consider any documentation because it can be faked.
That's the same as insisting that is has been faked.
Quote: kewljThat is NOT how it works!
Of course that's how it works...innocent until proven guilty.
This is not a court of law, but the same principles apply, and they have for thousands of years.
You can't absolve yourself of your obligation, you're bearing false witness against thy neighbor.
You've accused MDawg of lying, and now you are obligated to prove your accusation.
Quote: coachbellyThere's no need to deal with the hypothetical here, we have an actual event to consider.
An event where a player
Instead of playing optimal strategy
Chooses a strategy giving the house a higher edge
ROTFL
Hmm
I think I'll flush some money down the toilet. Thats the equivalent of not playing optimal strategy :-)
Quote: coachbellyYou won't examine, review or consider any documentation because it can be faked.
That's the same as insisting that is has been faked.
Of course that's how it works...innocent until proven guilty.
This is not a court of law, but the same principles apply, and they have for thousands of years.
You can't absolve yourself of your obligation, you're bearing false witness against thy neighbor.
You've accused MDawg of lying, and now you are obligated to prove your accusation.
You haven't been paying attention. This is Wizard's court and Wizard has ruled. MDawg is supposed to show his play to Wizard in order to be able to continue to have this platform (WoV) to post his claims.
As far as lying the only one lying here is you. I never accused MDawg of lying. You can't find where I said that. But I am now accusing you of lying for repeating over and over the lie that I accuses MDawg.
You are trolling everyone with this crap and now lying.
Quote: MDawgI didn't comment because most of what these guys post on the subject of Baccarat is garbage. The strategy they propose of "always bet on bank" will ensure a loss.
Well yea
But any other strategy insures a larger loss
I'm a dark sider
Strictly bet the Dont
If I played baccarat, would strictly bet the bank
When I gamble, I try to flush as little money as possible down the toilet
Any other strategy is flushing a lot
Illogical
Quote: kewljThis is Wizard's court and Wizard has ruled. MDawg is supposed to show his play to Wizard in order to be able to continue to have this platform (WoV) to post his claims.
Is that a definitive ruling from the Wizard? I'm not sure that it is.
I've read that MDawg and the Wizard are in discussion and agreement...
Quote: MDawgHe has asked me to prove that I may continue to win, is the essence of his challenge. He and I have discussed that challenge and he has made clear that it is not a demand. As far as anything more on that future subject, he and I have discussed it.
Quote: MDawgI don't bet on bank only,
Well of course
That would be optimal strategy
The casinos beg for players to give the casino a bigger edge.
They bend over backwards for any high rollers giving the casino a bigger edge
Quote: MDawgI don't bet on bank only, and I'm a short term and lifetime winner at Baccarat. And at blackjack. Come to think of it, I haven't played much craps or roulette but what little I've played at those games I'm ahead at those two too. I guess somebody up there must like me then If there's no other explanation.
I recall you previously posting that you tried craps and quit because you weren’t winning at it. Maybe Coschbelly can locate it. I could be misremembering.
NO! it's not the same. How can you not see the difference? Your bias is clouding your brain. It almost the opposite situation. Why would you need an expert to know if someone was able to successfully post up a fake persona(or whatever we are calling it) with pictures of cash, watches, and paperwork or whatever was on their list? The challenge is to see if someone can reasonably recreate the things he has.Quote: coachbellyIsn't that what you just proposed, right on the previous page?
He is probably privately communicating some BS trying to stall or get out of it. Why does it need to be negotiated in private. Perhaps the time and location should be kept private.Quote: coachbellyI recall MDawg explaining that he and Mike are having private communications regarding that challenge.
Is that the excuse that you mean? That they are working it out privately?
Whatever the case ,I don't really care about that because it will never happen since it's impossible for him to show that he can gain an advantage if he's playing in a negative situation.
This isn't the only time this has come up. I have probably mentioned various bet amounts and numbers of hands at different times. I have also said, what you claim OR would have us believe.Quote: MDawgExactly. The bet as proposed by AxelWolf was quite clear. That he bets against that 'I play as big as I claim.' I accepted that bet.
Then, as usual, he came back later with qualifiers....
Let's nail down what you claim your avrage bet is. What is it? What's the lowest and highest bets you are making nowadays?
Quote: AxelWolfIt almost the opposite situation.
I disagree.
In each case, the judges would have no confirmation bias.
The experts would judge if the evidence presented is authentic or fabricated.
Quote: AxelWolfWhy does it need to be negotiated in private.
Apparently the parties involved prefer the negotiations to be private.
What difference does it make to anyone not directly involved, as long as the results are made public?
I already explained, I would never deposit money at a casino he knew about for many reasons. I would bring cash, or let a trusted member hold it,or perhaps show a 3rd party proof it's been deposits at a secret casino.Quote: coachbellyAxel is claiming that MDawg does not bet at the levels he claims to, he wrote "you don't bet at the levels you claim to".
MDawg is interpreting Axel to mean that he has not bet at the levels he claims to.
I agree with MDawg, that's what Axel meant...specifically that MDawg's claim of being rated at $1200 per round for 70+ hours is false.
That claim cannot be corroborated by future play, we need only to examine evidence of past play.
So whatever scenario Axel imagines about future play has no bearing on MDawg's claims about his past play and his player rating.
I advise that Axel meet MDawg's cage deposit requirement, and watch him play.
Then Axel can report on what MDawg did bet, or report in real time what MDawg does bet and post about it afterwards.
No THEY don't. Mdawg has cleverly taken it private as a stall tactic hoping we forget and stop with the put up or shut up comments. Personally, I don't trust Mike's ability to see through all the MDawg games and BS. I have a feeling MDawg knows this and purposely uses the private message system so others cant ferret out the BS and call him out.Quote: coachbellyApparently the parties involved prefer the negotiations to be private.
What difference does it make to anyone not directly involved, as long as the results are made public?
Quote: AxelWolfI already explained, I would never deposit money at a casino he knew about for many reasons. I would bring cash, or let a trusted member hold it,or perhaps show a 3rd party proof it's been deposits at a secret casino.
Can your proof of deposit at the secret casino be faked?
You are disqualifying yourself from the challenge....for unspecified reasons.
Agreed?
Quote: AxelWolfNo THEY don't. Mdawg has cleverly taken it private as a stall tactic hoping we forget and stop with the put up or shut up comments.
How can either Mike or MDawg be prevented from making the negotiations public, if that's their preference?
