suggestion re shaky info posted re betting systems

__________


my suggestion is that the Mods do a similar thing to what Twitter does when it finds a shaky tweet

they post a warning right on top of the post as seen in the image

it would require some new tech stuff I guess but not real tough I would think

the warning on top of such posts could say something like this:

"a betting system such as this may be fun but it cannot overcome the house advantage in the long run - the more you play, even if on different days or at different times, the more likely it becomes that your net loss will come close to what the house advantage indicates"

this way newbies will see a message from the Administrators of the site who represent themselves as experts
.
.




.


.

Quote: lilredrooster

the warning on top of such posts could say something like this:

"a betting system such as this may be fun but it cannot overcome the house advantage in the long run - the more you play, even if on different days or at different times, the more likely it becomes that your net loss will come close to what the house advantage indicates"

How about

Quote:

All betting systems are worthless. However, for the mathematically challenged, here is a forum of your own.

or maybe

Quote:

Methods of varying bet size, based on previous wins and losses, not only can't overcome the house edge, they can't even dent it.

People trying to save the internet, one post at a time, should concentrate on trying to win some money in casinos.

Then again, lilredrooster already revealed, I don't play anymore which is what I always suspected...that some of those who make the most comments, are apparently doing it solely from home.


In any case, this sort of thing is unworkable and places Moderators in the role of deciding who and what to stigmatize. Once such a label is attached, the poster is essentially stigmatized. Moderators are here to make sure we follow the Rules and such posts, including as described above, are not against the Rules.

I'd also think that the people who paid big money for this site like Zuga would not want disclaimers against gambling all over their forum, given that they have links to regular casinos encouraging people who land on this site to gamble, all over the pages.

And, as Mission146, a former moderator, and Wizard, have said,




The simple solution is one stated by the Wizard more than once in more than one way,

Quote: Wizard

To those who don't like it, let me make a radical suggestion -- don't read it.

Quote: MDawg

People trying to save the internet, one post at a time, should concentrate on trying to win some money in casinos.

Then again, lilredrooster already revealed, I don't play anymore

I don't play blackjack anymore - I still bet - on sports and horses

I've made more than 350,000 bets on various blackjack tables in my past

I've vowed never to post my results again on any one bet or many bets because I don't want to be a member of the group of people who post their results because I suspect that a great many of the reports are not legitimate - and I don't want to be included in the group with them

I have enough money - I don't need to go into casinos which are IMO depressing and cutthroat places

my main target for earnings has always been in various markets

unlike you I don't crave and worship material goods such as watches

but if I wanted to - I could buy up a ton of expensive watches - a totally useless and worthless activity IMO



and why would you presume to speak for Zuga
there is absolutely no doubt the man can speak for himself





.

All right then I stand corrected as to that you don't play anymore, which is why I said "apparently" doing it solely from home.

How about a warning saying "Fools and their money are soon parted, so DO THE MATH."

______________


interesting - to me anyway - to go back and read the Wizard's post from 2014 about the member gr8player who claimed to be a big bacc winner_____ here we go:

Quote: Wizard

your message is 180-degrees the opposite of mine. This forum was never meant to be a place to boast about a secret way to beat baccarat and laugh at conventional use of math to analyze casino games.

That said, it is indeed my wish that you resign your membership and take your ideas elsewhere.

.

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

But also, I believe that Gr8player was creating issues in other ways. I believe there was more to it than what you are implying that led to his leaving the forum.

Quote: MDawg

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

And otherwise, yeah. I believe other pieces were in action; this may have simply been the camel's straw.

Quote: MDawg

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

Translation - "times are changing and we are changing in them"



Agreed - in our times mass amounts of information are published thru social media with no editing or fact checking

this forum - without controls - will soon IMO be dominated by progression and bet selection systems proponents

as I indicated earlier, TomG - a very valuable member, has dramatically reduced his time on this forum because of this

times change but one thing will never change - two plus two equals four

a member posting that he can overcome the HA in the long term with these systems or methods will never ever mean that he can actually do so

it only means that he can post a story about it


.

Quote: lilredrooster

______________

interesting - to me anyway - to go back and read the Wizard's post from 2014 about the member gr8player who claimed to be a big bacc winner_____ here we go:

That's a fair point, but you'll notice that Wizard says that he hoped gr8player would resign; he didn't demand it.

For my part, I defended betting system posting in the same thread that you cite; I was an Administrator at the time:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/announcements/17576-proposed-rule-change-on-restricting-free-speech/#post343892

I stand by the notion that all there is to do is prove that these things have no mathematical value.

I want to accept that the readers here are intelligent enough to look at a situation and apply logic to this, so let's apply a little logic here:

1.) This forum is about gambling.

2.) This forum makes money advertising for online casinos.

3.) If more people sign up for the online casinos and deposit, then this forum would make more money than it otherwise would have.

4.) (Because #3) people believing in betting systems and acting accordingly could be assumed to be financially better for the forum.

5.) Every Administrator, myself (who is paid to write for the sites) and every single Moderator here will tell you that betting systems DO NOT work and do nothing to change the House Edge. We would all say that there is not a single betting system that changes the expected value of a particular total in bets.

So, someone who is capable of applying logic to the situation would not believe any betting system posts because we are flatly telling everyone that betting systems do not work, essentially, to the financial detriment of the sites. We'd actually do better just to ignore betting system posts completely, but instead, many of us actively try to mathematically demonstrate why the system won't work.

However, in that thread, I also said this:

Quote: Mission146

However, one could argue that there is no place for betting system discussion in which a person adamantly refuses to elaborate, specifically, on the betting mechanics (and other mechanics) of the betting system in question. The result of this is an individual making nothing more than vague statements which can only be answered with vague statements pertaining to the house edge to which the betting system advocate will respond with something approximating, "Your vague notion of a house edge has no impact on my system because my system beats the house edge."

In that paragraph, I express concern with those who make betting system claims that are not specific enough to be mathematically invalidated by anything other than referring back to the house edge, in general.

Of course, the burden of proof is rightly on the system/method advocate anyway, because they are the side making a positive claim. That said, it would be nice to have something specific to pick apart. I've personally dismantled enough betting systems on here that their worthlessness should be already considered proven, add Wizard and everyone else into the mix and it's probably 20x that, at least.

The problem, of course, is that such advocates absolutely know that providing a concrete system will be proven to be worthless. What we see as a result is some people whose posts refuse to specify what they are doing exactly (Wellbush, MDawg and Evenbob are a few examples) and also a few posters (Wellbush is one example) who just flatly deny that house edge and expected value have any applicable meaning and exist only in theory.

Why would anyone do something like that? The answer is because any system could be mathematically proven to be garbage, otherwise. Wellbush is one of only a few to take the interesting tactic of arguing that the mathematical concepts themselves are invalid.

Of course, the bigger problem with the system advocates is the people who pay them so much attention, in some cases. To whatever extent folks may have considered MDawg a, "Problem," devoting the entire Forum specifically to going after him was three times more of a problem. MDawg didn't offer anything specific that could be mathematically proven to be bunkum, nor anything that would demonstrate that he could gain an edge. He does maintain that he doesn't operate by way of a mechanical system, as does Evenbob. Of course, they wouldn't want to give anyone parameters to simulate because, unless it relies on some external factor, (or, in theory, something akin to card counting, edge sorting or hole carding in Baccarat) we could prove that it doesn't work.

When the people who work, in one capacity or another, for a forum that would benefit from people believing in betting systems and acting accordingly is directly TELLING those same people that betting systems do not work, then the only logical conclusion is to believe that they do not work. Anyone who believes that they do work believes so against all possible evidence.

There are also some who are unwilling to accept mathematical facts, or perhaps worse, would dispute the validity of math and/or the mathematical concepts themselves. For those people, they can lose every single dollar that they possess and I don't really care. I did my job and tried to prevent that from happening, so it's out of my hands.

__________


as you can see I thanked you for that post Mission - but that wasn't quite enough - that was a really great post
WOV is so lucky to have you here


.

Quote: lilredrooster

__________


as you can see I thanked you for that post Mission - but that wasn't quite enough - that was a really great post
WOV is so lucky to have you here


.

Thanks for the compliment and right back at you!

2+2=4 - 1 = 3 quick maths.

Quote: MDawg

I'd also think that the people who paid big money for this site like Zuga would not want disclaimers against gambling all over their forum, given that they have links to regular casinos encouraging people who land on this site to gamble, all over the pages.

Quote: Mission146

1.) This forum is about gambling.

2.) This forum makes money advertising for online casinos.

3.) If more people sign up for the online casinos and deposit, then this forum would make more money than it otherwise would have.

4.) (Because #3) people believing in betting systems and acting accordingly could be assumed to be financially better for the forum.

Funny how Mission146 and I said basically the same thing, but lilredrooster called me "so pretentious" for saying it (then edited it out a la EvenBob but not before I posted a screen shot), and yet referred to what Mission146 said as "a really great post."  😇

No there's not any confirmation bias here. 😆

In any case, no one should be forced to reveal his methods, as Mission146 has said repeatedly, and no one has been screened and provided more proof than MDawg, as Mission146 and others have also said. To that extent - that Mission146 has stated I believe that no one should be forced to reveal his methods, I believe that some of what he just posted contradicts what he has said before.

And as Gordon888 has said, who's to say what will be of interest to future generations? I'd be willing to bet this thread will not be and believe it falls more under the category of the "bickering and hectoring posts that so many of you specialize in" that Gordon888 wrote about.

Hector was a son of Priam, husband of Andromache, and Trojan champion slain by Achilles.

Quote: MDawg

Quote: MDawg

I'd also think that the people who paid big money for this site like Zuga would not want disclaimers against gambling all over their forum, given that they have links to regular casinos encouraging people who land on this site to gamble, all over the pages.

Funny how Mission146 and I said basically the same thing, but lilredrooster called me "so pretentious" for saying it (then edited it out a la EvenBob but not before I posted a screen shot), and yet referred to what Mission146 said as "a really great post."  😇

No there's not any confirmation bias here. 😆

In any case, no one should be forced to reveal his methods, as Mission146 has said repeatedly, and no one has been screened and provided more proof than MDawg, as Mission146 and others have also said. To that extent - that Mission146 has stated I believe that no one should be forced to reveal his methods, I believe that some of what he just posted contradicts what he has said before.

And as Gordon888 has said, who's to say what will be of interest to future generations? I'd be willing to bet this thread will not be and believe it falls more under the category of the "bickering and hectoring posts that so many of you specialize in" that Gordon888 wrote about.

Hector was a son of Priam, husband of Andromache, and Trojan champion slain by Achilles.

And yet the Greek Hector is only very indirectly where the modern word hectoring derives. There was a seventeenth century juvenile gang in London called the Hectors. And the phrase “hectoring” derives from that gang’s bullying behavior.

Quote: MDawg

Quote: MDawg

I'd also think that the people who paid big money for this site like Zuga would not want disclaimers against gambling all over their forum, given that they have links to regular casinos encouraging people who land on this site to gamble, all over the pages.

Funny how Mission146 and I said basically the same thing, but lilredrooster called me "so pretentious" for saying it (then edited it out a la EvenBob but not before I posted a screen shot), and yet referred to what Mission146 said as "a really great post."  😇

No there's not any confirmation bias here. 😆

In any case, no one should be forced to reveal his methods, as Mission146 has said repeatedly, and no one has been screened and provided more proof than MDawg, as Mission146 and others have also said. To that extent - that Mission146 has stated I believe that no one should be forced to reveal his methods, I believe that some of what he just posted contradicts what he has said before.

And as Gordon888 has said, who's to say what will be of interest to future generations? I'd be willing to bet this thread will not be and believe it falls more under the category of the "bickering and hectoring posts that so many of you specialize in" that Gordon888 wrote about.

Hector was a son of Priam, husband of Andromache, and Trojan champion slain by Achilles.

This site doesn't encourage anyone to gamble, and as I have pointed out, multiple people who work for this site in one way or another discourage people from believing in betting systems. Personally, I'd suggest that people avoid all forms of -EV gambling, but if they don't want to do that and play with only what they can afford to lose (and wish to do so online), then here are the links to online casinos that pay us to put the links here and have people sign up.

I did not say that nobody has been screened and provided more proof than you, so if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth in the future, then I would really appreciate that. I said that you have been vetted to the extent that you are a real person who, at a minimum, at least occasionally plays high-limit Baccarat in Las Vegas and have been witnessed doing so and having a single real session in which you won.

If you want my opinion, my opinion is that it does not put you anywhere close to being the most, "Screened," or person who has provided the, "Most proof." Not even close. Nothing about that even suggests that you play with a profitable expectation. In the meantime, I have personally seen physical proof with my own eyes of what someone like DarkOz is doing, so to say that I have repeatedly said noone has provided more proof than you is a total lie.

I've personally worked on a pretty big (and massively profitable play) with Axelwolf and at least two associates of his who have also posted here, so again, that provides more proof to me of what that play was, how it worked, why it worked and that it had a profitable expectation than anything that has ever been provided on you here.

I don't believe that you should be forced to reveal your methods. However, because you have not revealed them, they cannot be mathematically proven to be losing or to have a positive expectation. I'm not contradicting anything. Your assertion that you are playing at an advantage is neither provable nor disprovable based on what you have said.

Anyway, don't take my charitable view of your postings as a ringing endorsement, because it isn't.

Quote: MDawg

who's to say what will be of interest to future generations? I'd be willing to bet this thread will not be

don't tell me - let me guess - your gambling escapades and/or your other business activities and all of your posts here will be of interest to future generations

schoolboys and schoolgirls all over the world will be studying and learning about your life and your activities

sure they will__________no doubt_______________100% guaranteed

you're a lock to be immortal



.

To be clear, I am very p!$$** off about MDawg's statement that I quoted because such a statement damages my credibility in my capacity as a paid gambling writer.

Quote: Mission146

I did not say that nobody has been screened and provided more proof than you, so if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth in the future, then I would really appreciate that.

I must agree here.

MDawg, Misquoting/Trolling, Suspension TBD.

There are mitigating and augmenting factors to consider.

Beyond that, in terms of posters here who I have not actually met, Bob Dancer is a professional video poker player, gambling writer and host of a show about advantage play called, "Gambling with an Edge."

The notion that I would think that MDawg has been screened and has provided more proof than Bob Dancer is ridiculous. The plays that Bob Dancer has been involved with, and the mathematically provable advantage to be had on those plays, are very well-documented.

I've written an article reviewing Bob Dancer's book, Million Dollar Book Review.

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/million-dollar-book-review/

I wrote an article specifically disagreeing with an article by Bob Dancer, who concluded that a promotion (at least as I interpreted his article) could not be played profitably:

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/surprising-dancer-article/

The basis for my disagreement was that Bob Dancer was too focused on playing Video Poker on that promotion and missed a much better opportunity.

So, we have Bob Dancer who I have never met and who has been the subject of two of my articles. We can compare that to MDawg, who I have never met and has been the subject of zero of my articles.

To come to the conclusion that I have ever said that MDawg has been more screened and provided more proof than anyone else is completely ridiculous. Even ignoring the people who I have met and worked with, I don't consider MDawg's claims necessarily more credible than those of other posters who I have similarly never met, which includes Bob Dancer, who is a member here. Much less do I think MDawg has offered more proof and been vetted more than Bob Dancer.

I see no difference between deliberately misquoting and lying.

Inveterate liars should be nuked.

Quote: MDawg

no one has been screened and provided more proof than MDawg, as Mission146 and others have also said.

I retract the above statement. I was thinking of this, where Mission146 said,

Quote: Mission146

Hell, even legitimate APs (not saying that anyone in particular is not legitimate) wouldn't want to have proof strictly demanded of them every ten seconds. You certainly don't. In fairness to MDawg, he has definitely proven more about himself than I understand you to have done. I believe your Blackjack tales, of course, but has anyone from the forum ever even seen you? What standard of proof should MDawg be held to when no standard of proof is required of anyone else? Seems a little unfair.

and I was wrong to state that Mission146 was saying that I had provided more proof than anyone, rather, Mission146 was referring to that I had provided more proof than KewlJ.

Deleted, pointless, doesn’t involve me

Quote: MDawg

I retract the above statement. I was thinking of this, where Mission146 said,


and I was wrong to state that Mission146 was saying that I had provided more proof than anyone, rather, Mission146 was referring to that I had provided more proof than KewlJ.

Thank you for retracting your statement and making that clarification.

I agree with MDawg that I have said he has been more proved and, "Vetted," than KewlJ specifically. That said, my statement should not be taken to mean that I question the veracity of what KewlJ has said in the past, because I do not question KewlJ's veracity.

Quote: MDawg

Mission146 was referring to that I had provided more proof than KewlJ.

there's a great big difference between your claims and KJ's claims
KJ is a working AP
his journaling is interesting, but there's nothing amazing about what he's done

your claims, on the other hand, fall into the category of being "amazing"

somebody, somewhere, had totaled you up as having won 122 of your last 124 sessions
I don't know if that's accurate - I'm just recalling from memory what somebody somewhere had posted

even if the above is not accurate your claims are far beyond what I've ever heard or read anybody claim about gambling wins


.

I don't know why you insist on keeping up this topic, I posted my retraction and am done with it as far as this thread is concerned. If it matters that much to you, as some might say, "By all means, Captain." Carry on.

Quote: lilredrooster

even if the above is not accurate your claims are far beyond what I've ever heard or read anybody claim about gambling wins

actually, that statement that I just posted is not really accurate
there are other gamblers who have claimed much bigger wins
I'm not sure about their consecutiveness

but those gamblers, or their biographers, or chroniclers, provided detailed info regarding their methods as well as corroborating accounts from accomplices which could stand up to scrutiny

and of course, along with their exploits, their real names were made public


.

Quote: lilredrooster

there's a great big difference between your claims and KJ's claims
KJ is a working AP
his journaling is interesting, but there's nothing amazing about what he's done

your claims, on the other hand, fall into the category of being "amazing"

somebody, somewhere, had totaled you up as having won 122 of your last 124 sessions
I don't know if that's accurate - I'm just recalling from memory what somebody somewhere had posted

even if the above is not accurate your claims are far beyond what I've ever heard or read anybody claim about gambling wins
.

I guess I should offer an additional clarification as to what I mean by, "Proven," and, "Vetted." MDawg has physically proven to Wizard that he, at a minimum, is a physical human being who at least occasionally plays high-limit Baccarat in Las Vegas. As far as I know, nothing about KewlJ has been physically demonstrated to be the case with anybody on here, but I am NOT claiming that is absolutely true; it's just not true as far as I know.

Quote: Mission146

I guess I should offer an additional clarification as to what I mean by, "Proven," and, "Vetted." MDawg has physically proven to Wizard that he, at a minimum, is a physical human being who at least occasionally plays high-limit Baccarat in Las Vegas. As far as I know, nothing about KewlJ has been physically demonstrated to be the case with anybody on here, but I am NOT claiming that is absolutely true; it's just not true as far as I know.

I don't know all the details of the mdawg /wizard/do challenge but I get the impression that mdawg got paid $2,000 to play a baccarat shoe at a certain level. I can only imagine how many posters here would have accepted the same challenge.

Quote: billryan

I don't know all the details of the mdawg /wizard/do challenge but I get the impression that mdawg got paid $2,000 to play a baccarat shoe at a certain level. I can only imagine how many posters here would have accepted the same challenge.

If they had the bankroll for it, I don't see why not. The $2,000, depending on total in bets made throughout the shoe, would likely be sufficient to more than cover the expected loss.