You make the statement that you shouldn't comment on things you've never tried and yet you are saying to never write covered calls on volatile stocks even though you have never tried it. LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Printable View
You make the statement that you shouldn't comment on things you've never tried and yet you are saying to never write covered calls on volatile stocks even though you have never tried it. LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Theory split the atom. Theory exploded a nuclear device. Theory put men in outer space. Your ignorant blather about theory is mental midgetry at it's finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Now it's 487 - fifteen points higher than where I sold it. But I still have my long term TSLA, was just trading extra shares. Book the profit and move on.
MickeyCrimm on ignore now too. I look forward to NOT seeing no less than one post a day from you in my thread, Crimm! :o Keep it up. How about two or three Ignored posts a day in my thread from you? Maybe you can join Axel in his quest for nonexistent CTR slips.
https://i.imgur.com/Iozywatl.jpg
Neither Dawg.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
It was just conversation; that's what makes a market. Besides, I like tableplay he's a good dude.
That's where YOU belong. On everyone's ignore list. I really don't care if you don't read my posts. My objective is to point out that you have no ability in gambling math and push unsound gambling principles. I'm writing to others, not you. So keep writing your phony shit. I'll keep debunking it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
dannyj - got it. I'm still leaving TPlay on Ignore though.
What's that, what's that? Another Ignored post from the NoseBleed section? MickeyCrimm, care to make it three posts about me today? Whatever you are saying, please keep it coming!
The other night I watched "Ed Wood" again, the eponymous movie about the man who was, very deservedly, voted The Worst Movie Director Who Ever Lived. Wood became friends with Bela Lugosi in the last few years of Lugosi's life. In one scene, Wood visits Lugosi in the hospital where he's being treated for morphine addiction. Lugosi's room is filled with the sleaziest kind of paparazzi, sensationalist tabloid reporters and photographers. Wood chases them away, horrified. "Don't you understand?" he tells Lugosi. "They'll ruin you! They'll print terrible things about you!"
Lugosi smiles broadly. He'd called the papparazzi himself, and was thrilled that they'd come and were now going to violate his privacy with distorted, false, sensational stories and ugly photos.
Lugosi explains: "Kid --- there is no such thing as bad press."
Tried to get it again at 469 didn't quite go that low on this second bottom attempt. Should I cancel the order?
Honestly for a scalp I'd probably try to short AMZN in the 1920s, but I don't like going short against the box of my long term shares.
The feeling's mutual Danny.Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyjNeither Dawg.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
It was just conversation; that's what makes a market. Besides, I like tableplay he's a good dude.
Ditto. Mdawg wants an echo chamber Mickey, but he's not going to get one even with his earplugs in.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThat's where YOU belong. On everyone's ignore list. I really don't care if you don't read my posts. My objective is to point out that you have no ability in gambling math and push unsound gambling principles. I'm writing to others, not you. So keep writing your phony shit. I'll keep debunking it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Just goes to show that what worked earlier doesn't necessarily work again. I haven't done a second trade yet, but I have a scuttling bottom if she gets there buy order in for TSLA at 457.
Lowered it to 456. I'm in now. Just trying to get a point.
May have to average in for this trade if it drops any lower. But in general I'd rather see it this low here now than closer to the bell. Should be a bounce.
DONE. I first got a partial fill of only 530 shares the first time it finally hit the ask, but then it rebounded and filled the other 470 shares.
It did go as low as 450s but I hung tough and made the grand. I saw it go as high as 458 or maybe more anyway.
So that's five extra grand made trading TSLA today.
At this moment, my long term shares in everything are pretty much flat. They were up a lot earlier. And down a lot after that. Even now. Choppy waters, good for trading, not so much for long terms.
I ended up ahead something like 32 grand (long terms) which is really nothing, but it's better than yesterday when my long terms ended up down something like -400 grand. Choppy waters.
The five grand I made today, and here and there through trading, will help a lot, once the market recovers.
TSLA rocking in the AH! That helps! my long term TSLA. And shows the irony of how, at least today, I struggled to make a grand on that last TSLA trade, which if I had held past the bell, would have been down -$2500. at the bell, but up + like fifty grand right now on just that one trade.
This is Barney,
Much like the most greatest Madogs, on the last trip to the Vegas before the corner virus thing hit, the LID (a professional craps player) had lots of good foods and made lots of monies playing the craps. Here's a couple of pictures from his last Vegas trip.
MD here's a hint: Whenever somebody doesn't believe something that you know to be true feel free to defend yourself once in a while, but leave it at that. If it's true, it doesn't f****** matter what anybody else believes, especially, if the people you surround yourself with know the truth.
Since you claim to have no real agenda other than discussing with other gamblers it shouldn't matter what the naysayers believe, there's no reason to try to convince us.
Why not just go discuss your gambling and whatnot with the gamblers on gamblingforums who believe in all this stuff and will bow to your greatness? If it's important for you to have everyone believe you, there's a simple solution to that. Invite a couple people long to witness your greatness.
Homerun after hours!Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Axel: just one word. Well, actually, three. Show me the CTRs! Or is it four?
dannyj: Yes! and that's why, as we discussed previously, long term seems to always beat out short term (eventually anyway). My target on my long term TSLA shares is mid 1000s. We got so close! and then all this happened....
Honestly though when it gets to 1000, probably I will raise the GTC to 1200, and so on. lol
But, getting back to short term: trading extra shares as long as you book a profit doesn't hurt, right?
Hmm...covered calls...can you imagine the disaster if I had sold a covered call on TSLA? Gapped up in the AH, assume it'll gap up in the pre- tomorrow, sold out instantly at the bell for a song. And that's real world versus theory.
MDawg, while I question your gambling stories, I will say you are spot on when it comes to stocks and cover calls. I agree with everything you’ve said. I’ve gone down the cover call road a couple times after reading a couple investment books, and regretted it. Yes, you’ll get it right sometimes, but most the time you lose the good ones that run. I’ve lost out on a lot of potential money with the stupid cover call strategy. The stocks that don’t move, the premiums are so low it’s not worth it. I thought your analogy of a bowl of porridge for a King’s ransom or something like that was a good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Now to my question, what makes you like Tesla so much? You really think it’s going to 1000? I know it spiked up today, but long term I’ve always believed it would fall. It’s way over valued by an metric, except if you view it as a high tech. The competition will catch up. I mean all they make is fancy battery cars. What makes you think it’ll keep going up? Don’t you see it as risky?
You keep mentioning CTR'S I have no clue what you're talking about(I assume you're talking about cash transaction reports?) I don't think I've ever mentioned ctr's in a conversation with you. I don't think I've ever had a CTR physically in my hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Axel: you know what I am talking about. Click the URL, read the post, and respond.
Bob: Yes, exactly, covered calls are like selling your birthright for a bowl of cold porridge. ;) Anyone who says otherwise hasn't had any experience with them. And you're even more spot on with mentioning how when you don't get called out you make little, but when you do, you lose a lot.
TSLA - I've made a number of "mistakes" with TSLA over the years, namely, selling it too quickly. Not as in day trading quickly, more like - position trading, short to medium term quickly.
I rebought it about a year ago on that dip to the 180s. I decided that this time I would hold it long term.
I kept thinking on each double, 380, 760, etc. that I would sell it, but I didn't. Of course now it's way down compared to the 950s that hit twice, and at that time when it was in the 950s I entered a GTC sell order for around 1050 which hasn't expired yet I don't think? so anyway that remains my target even though it is much further away now than it was when it hit 968.
As far as why I am a TSLA bull, the stocks I like to hold long term are industry leaders like AAPL GOOG/GOOGL TSLA NFLX AMZN (just to name a few, on the tech side). Of these NFLX and AMZN were unprofitable for a long time, no? as is TSLA now (most quarters). I believe that TSLA will sustain profitability at some point (as you know they have booked a profit here and there some quarters).
But, when it comes to electric cars, TSLA remains in my opinion the industry leader. All the other electric cars that have come out to compete from it, such as from Porsche, have been no comparison. The Porsche Taycan has barely a 200 mile range and I understand that in real world testing it has not even achieved that. TSLA's high end range is pushing 400 miles no? Until I see some competitors closing in on TSLA's electric car range, I don't see anything else as comparable.
Anyway, besides all that, TSLA stock has momentum and once this coronavirus mess clears I believe it will be be back on track for 1000 per share.
The only real argument against TSLA is that it will fail, as any independent auto maker in the U.S. has always failed. But as long as TSLA maintains its industry leader status, I don't think it will fail.
If you watch the market, yes we are in the toilet, but there are certain stocks like AMZN and TSLA that the buyers are still snapping up on some (not all) of the dips. I think that the street senses that something big is going to happen with stocks like these, and that to let them go entirely would be a mistake.
Yes I mean - stocks are real world. Gambling is what it is. I'm not trying to make a living at gambling.
TSLA is not going to go straight up, but I think it will get to 1000+ eventually.
If you sold them near the money. I wrote that they should be sold far out of the money, but you're very selective in what you choose to reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
In the Went For It thread over at WoV, MDawg just admitted to having more losing sessions.
Predictably, TSLA's not as far up in the regular market as it ended in the AH last night, but it's still up a lot and could go up more.
U.S. Payroll numbers were not encouraging, so against that backdrop be up forty is not bad at all.
BTW, and I am sure you guys have learned this the hard way enough times, as have I: I recall in the distant past buying up some stock just before the bell that flew in the AH, such as AMZN after earnings, and making a grip of money, only to try to repeat the same the next morning and end up stuck in a position where I had to choose between giving half of it back, or holding until the next week.
While it's true that sometimes the night time high flier ends up going up even more the next day, just as often it deflates, at least for a while, from its high of the evening before.
TSLA ended up about plus eighty last night - it's only up about half, or less, of that now, at this moment anyway.
It does seem like, for a quick trade, it's good below 485 or so for a quick pop, if it drops below that again.
Just did it 485 to 487.
If any of you guys are interested seriously in Day (or position) Trading I'd be willing to set up a chat where we could communicate faster as it happens. Send me a PM. Maybe we could help each other.
Left for bit, came back, noticed another chunk of a drop...have an order to buy at 477 now.
AMZN 1895 might be worth a scalp too.
I'm in, I put the sell order in at 478.5
I averaged in 2000 sh @ 470 which makes my average 472.3333 I put in the sell to bail out at 472.5 but got only a partial fill of 1140 shares still have 1860 left.
And it dropped below 470 now. lol
So I have some work to do.
I got a fill on the rest after it dipped as low as 468. So I made, not much, 3000 x .17, just over five hunny.
And, of course! it's now over 476. But still, I had to do something to cost average in versus just sit around and wait for the original 478.5
Usually when I get down more than 5 pts I start thinking about cost averaging in, but generally I don't average in until I am at least 10 pts down. I just didn't feel like TSLA would drop that much though given last night's news, and I was right.
Apparently there has been scuttlebutt that the reason for the drop today versus the eighty point pop last night is that Musk gave no real forward guidance. But, the failure to hold the huge pop could just have as much to do with the general market today as anything. And anyway, as I mentioned, my experience has been to remain cautious about jumping in post any after hours pop.
It is interesting what happens when you are dealing with a lot of shares, such as the partial fill "only" 1140 of the 3000 on the first pass, but what is more interesting is how they "took it up" after the second fill of the remaining 1860. A friend of mine used to say that once you (meaning me) sell your boatload of shares too cheap, the mm (market makers) divvy it up like a bunch of scheming colluders, among themselves to sell to everyone else on the way up. Meaning - that it is my shares, sold on the cheap, that are being used to take the stock back up. In any case, "no one ever went broke taking a profit."
Quitting while ahead, you quite understand!
You could have made an easy $124 per 100 shares of AMZN owned if you had written today's expiration 2000 strike call AMZN options at the time of the posting shown in the link https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post100079, which expire in 13 minutes as of this posting. Even if AMZN had moved up 100 points from the time of that posting until now and you were called out of the position, you would have made $100 per share owned plus the premium mentioned above.
Market closing. But before it did it actually did hit my earlier 478.5 anyway. And that's the way it often goes...my initial instincts were right on, but the market tricked me into averaging in and making less than the hoped for original income.
Most of the time, when a stock drops I should just average in but maintain the original sell price, make even more! But...hindsight is not relevant. Where you're in the midst of a trade and you're down five grand, it's hard not to take measures to lower the risk and bow out with a small profit. And that's again why reality and theory are two different things.
I'm not usually one to complain about posting things in the proper thread, I'm sure I'm guilty of it myself. Mostly I'm responding to others who have already posted in the incorrect thread. This seems like this is more of a miscellaneous thread, and that's fine, if it's actually miscellaneous stuff by various different people on various different topics, but I'd really rather not have this all about stocks. Can you do us a favor MDawg and keep the stock talk contained to a separate thread dedicated to it? Thanks in advance.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
I don't mind either way. No problem.
I agree. It’s about time we had some rules and discipline on this forum, and not let threads go willy nilly, here or there. I think we should only be allowed to go off topic on a thread if we’re trying to figure out who Tasha is, or who’s her latest sock. That’s always a challenge. Otherwise we should stay on topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI'm not usually one to complain about posting things in the proper thread, I'm sure I'm guilty of it myself. Mostly I'm responding to others who have already posted in the incorrect thread. This seems like this is more of a miscellaneous thread, and that's fine, if it's actually miscellaneous stuff by various different people on various different topics, but I'd really rather not have this all about stocks. Can you do us a favor MDawg and keep the stock talk contained to a separate thread dedicated to it? Thanks in advance.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Why don't we create a whole thread, nay, an entire sub-forum to discuss the homelessness of DarkOz.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-.../5/#post717565
Not sure what your end game is, but you certainly won’t gain any respect by degrading someone’s life situation. Even if he is a jackass like Ozzy. And yea, I insult certain people all the time, but I’m no role model.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Based on your stock discussion on loses, I estimated your stock portfolio at between $6 & $8 Million. This was based on your talk of a $400K loss one day. It’s obviously an estimate because I have no clue how much is individual stocks or mutual funds.
So the question is why is someone that is probably on the North Side of $10 Million in assets, maybe far more on here? Obviously you like the attention, but regardless of what you do for a living, you are on here 10-12 hours a day checking in and posting. Is your business closed at this point? No work at home?
You can take my advice and wipe your ass with it, but if you are everything you say you are, you are making a bad decision sharing all this. Nothing good can come of it other than feeding your ego. We had a poster on here who claimed he was dead because of threats of robbery. You are making enemies (and I don’t mean Axel) and you never know what an anonymous lunatic will do.
It’s certainly not making you popular but hey, what do I know. Carry on.
Carry on. Isn't that TDVegas' expression?
I'm anonymous here or I wouldn't post much. Yes I do get carried away with talking a bit too much about myself at times, but it's actually unintentional, more like, in passing. Or it stems from trying too hard to prove that what I post is truthful. Just natural reaction from a lawyer. And, don't we all have too much time on our hands right now?
As far as creating an entire topic of its own to discuss the homelessness of DarkOz, that was Michael99000's idea, not mine! :cool:
In fact, we have some examples of that and it's very serious in some cases. It would be an extra concern if you're giving semi live high roller trip reports. How many younger white guys are playing baccarat in the higher limit room while sporting a Rolex? IIRC MD even posted pic of his clothing in the closets.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
I've thought about that. You have a legitimate point. When mcap posted something in this thread about what a flamboyant shirt I was wearing that day at such and such casino I had an Oh shit! moment, until I realized that he was talking about a picture I had posted myself earlier that included my sleeve.
Should the Adventures of MDawg be time delay posted, a week or so after the fact? Of course then even more people will claim they are faked.
Hey I was just remembering something. Somehow Redietz got me thinking about this. When I first started playing at the Nugget before I even knew the ropes about getting limos or knew to even ask, if I wanted to go from downtown to the Strip, or to the Hard Rock, it was taxi all the way. Quickly figured out that if they took you on the freeway it was faster, but more expensive, or via Paradise, slower but lower fare.
So I used to tell the tax drivers "don't take the freeway" and some would play dumb.
"You want me to drive down the Strip?"
or
"If you know some other way, you may tell me Sir."
And then I would have to direct them down Paradise, although they all knew exactly what I wanted them to do, and why.
Anyone else ever had that experience?
When I graduated to limos, I'd always (and still do) tip them twenty for the downtown to Strip (or Strip to downtown) run, which was about the same as a taxi anyway (A taxi that went on the freeway :D) but this was in the guy's pocket which I didn't mind helping him, and it was a limo ride not an old taxi.
You should probably wait a year or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Of course, that's the wonderful thing about fake stuff you could just randomly posted up any time and still be safe:p
Of course that's what I mean about Axel's two facedness. One day (or in this case, minute), posting something seemingly genuine and supportive, the next, back to being his a-hole self! ;)
MDawg, I wanted to thank you for your detailed response to my stock question. Like I said, I’ve agreed with pretty much everything you’ve said about stocks and options. I’ve done a lot of day trading and some option trading back in the day, but over time I realized I was just gambling, basically I won just enough to think I could beat the system. After several years, I gave it up and now I just have Fidelity mutual funds and a couple long stocks.
My best day trading stock was amazon and google back in the 2000 timeframe. I actually had as many as 2,000 shares of Amazon. I bought them around 8. (Yes, I got them under 10), and I think I sold them a couple days later for around 15. At that time, boy was I proud of myself, picking up a quick $1,500. Now I look at amazon and see it’s at 2,000 and think if I’d just held on and not day traded, I’d have about 4 million dollars. Oh well, live and learn.
Anyway, I’ve enjoyed your posts and the way you respond to your doubters. You’ve changed my mind....I’m starting to believe you’re the real deal, and you won all that money. And I get why you’d want to share your experiences in a forum. I mean it’s entertainment and most the people on these forums are pretty intelligent, although I’m still holding out judgment on my favorite poster, Tasha.
I’ve learned quite a bit from these forums too, and even though I give my favorite doomsday protagonist, Kj, a hard time I have learned a lot from him on blackjack, and I’ve use his advice to improve my game and minimize heat. Thanks Kj!
I’m only a small time AP, and enjoy the casino experience and everything that goes with it. So even though I don’t get to stay in your lavish suites, I feel I can relate. I like the way you tip too...that’s a big part of my game too. I mean you can’t take it with you, so you might as well help others while you’re down here. And who better to help out than a buxom waitress and great looking dealer. Btw, I tip men dealers too, so don’t get upset with me Kj.
Thanks Bob. I do sometimes get carried away and argue with people a little too intensely, but that is mostly the lawyer in me. But seriously, if I had no personal experience with something, I would not hazard a guess I would just listen.
As you mention, this sort of thing, posting online in blogs, forums, etc., just somewhat builds on itself...something like the habit of writing in a Diary. Once you start, it's hard to stop.
I am no longer reading MDawg stuff. He's finally admitted to losing sessions. Even admitted to 4 losing sessions in a row. That's been my contention all along. Dude is bound to have losing sessions. Since I don't care for his adventures I no longer feel the need to read his bullshit. Its a waste of time.
Woke up at 5am and wondered why my stock streaming app wasn't streaming. I decided it must be Good Friday. Then I realized it was Saturday! I really thought yesterday was Thursday.
I don't remember the date. The devil knows what month it was.
I'm not clicking links you can just answer me without having me to click on links and look at a bunch of s***.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
I think it comes down to discipline. If you're disciplined, I mean robotically, to the level of an AndroidQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
https://i.imgur.com/kzc1l5nm.jpg
then it shouldn't matter what you have or don't have in front of you.
But for the average human, if you're winning it doesn't take much, and if you're losing better to have access to less than more. This may be all this guy was getting at?
Yeah MDwag, you are probably right, and one poster actually made that point during the thread. But that was not what this was guy, Wave, was trying to say. He was trying to say he simmed it on a computer and it showed having a smaller bankroll meant you’d win the same per hour, but lose less.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawgI think it comes down to discipline. If you're disciplined, I mean robotically, to the level of an AndroidQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
https://i.imgur.com/kzc1l5nm.jpg
then it shouldn't matter what you have or don't have in front of you.
But for the average human, if you're winning it doesn't take much, and if you're losing better to have access to less than more. This may be all this guy was getting at?
This is just a stupid idea, no mater how you slice it, and Bosox understood that right away. I give him a lot of credit for never letting up. At one point Wave came back at Bosox claming he had hard data to show he was right. Common should tell anybody this makes NO sense! The size of your bankroll per shoe has no impact on minimizing losses, while keeping win rate per hour high.
Now Moses, I just read your post over at Zenzone, and I can tell you’re an intelligent person, but you have a blind spot for Freightman, so you’re defending him. Please go back and reread that thread, especially read the one post by Don Schlesinger where he called out this whole thread as a “claptrap”, which was a great description of it!
There is nothing to be learned by anything Freightman said, other than he wants to sound intellectual when he really doesn’t get simple concepts. His writing style is really bizarre. You can tell he thinks highly of himself.
I give a lot of credit to Bosox. He got it right away! Nothing Wave said made any sense whatsoever!
I don’t think that if you carry it out to an infinite number of hands while still imposing a house limit that the size of your bankroll would make a difference. So I don’t see how his computer simulation would support his theory.
But, you also have guys that will say that it is impossible to win no matter what you do, and if you accept that, then what’s the point of discussing any strategies at all?
In any case, we don’t play an infinite number of hands and over the shorter term given variance the size of your bankroll could affect things. The question is, how, or, in what way?
I think it comes down to how you play. I see something like what the guy is talking about all the time at least at the Baccarat tables – mostly from Asian cash (not credit line) players. They pull out three hundred dollars and get three black chips, to “test” the shoe. If they lose it, they invariably pull out more cash anyway, which is why I never understood that concept of “testing,” but I suppose their theory is that if it is a bad shoe all they’ll lose is $300. However, if they come right in at the point of some monster run, then having only $300. will sell themselves short and wind up winning a lot less than for them if they had been properly capitalized.
I also see all the time, at the BJ and the Baccarat tables both, people coming in with only five hundred, or a thousand, TOTAL, which I believe is just not enough for a black chip minimum table. Not enough to handle the usually inevitable swings, and not enough to vary your bet properly.
Like I said, if you’re coming in from the side of “no matter what you do you will lose” then why discuss anything, but if you at least concede that certain strategies may increase your chances, my thought would be that having enough money to vary your bet at LEAST 1 to 10X for enough hands given whatever the table minimum is, would be the right amount to bring.
Getting back to stock trading, some people think that it is impossible to win at that consistently. Baloney. I do it all the time. But part of why I am able to win at it so consistently is something like what I am talking about here - having the capital to average in. Someone else who buys 1000 shares of whatever might be dead if it runs against him, but I am prepared and able to average in with at least another four 1000 share blocks even if it is a very expensive stock, and HOLD it for as long as necessary without having to pay margin costs, so my chances of winning are much greater than someone who has just one shot and must sell by the end of the day because he is maxed out. And this is not even including the discussion of being able to read charts or not read charts, or get a sense of when to buy or not to buy, which again, some people, looking from the outside, think means nothing.
So I do think that at a table game being under capitalized definitely could handicap you. And again we're talking real world, not an infinite number of hands in a simulation.
So this is it, huh? It's going to have to be just talking about casino play and not actually doing it for many moons, it looks like to me.
There are no strategies that increase your chances. It’s not a matter of conceding anything. It’s simply a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
There’s a lot to dissect here, so I’ll need to read this again in the morning. To me, you got a lot of different concepts going on that are not totally related. I don’t see gambling in a Casino, which is a math game and NOT influenced by outside event, as being related to the stock market, which is influenced by outside events, but I know a lot of people disagree with me here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
First about what the poster, Wave, said so we can clear that up. His whole point is if he came to the table with $1000 instead of $2000, he could win the same amount per hour, but if he’s on a losing streak, he’ll only lose $1000 instead of $2,000. So his point was to go to table with limited funds to limit what you lose, but you’ll keep winning the same amount. That’s just stupid. No matter how you look at it that’s called “stoploss” theory.
As far as the rest of your comments I’ll comment on those tomorrow.
To further comment on some of your thoughts. First off, the stock market and casinos are not the same, they are not even in the same ballpark. You’ll see people make comments like the stock market is the world’s biggest casino. That’s just naïve people saying stupid things.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Here’s one big difference between casinos and the stock market. In casinos there has always got to be a loser. It’s a zero sum game. Either you or the house wins. In the stock market, everyone can win. It is NOT a zero sum game. For example, take amazon. The investors are winning, the employees are winning, the people running amazon are winning, the customers buying something from amazon are winning, since they are gettting something they want for a good price. Everyone is a winner!
The stock market is a collection of companies owned by private investors, us, the people. It’s a collection of companies that give us one of the highest standards of livings in the world. Liberals hate it since it mostly rewards hard workers and innovation and doesn’t support the lazy, and do nothingers.
Yes, some companies will go bankrupt, so their stock goes to zero. For example, there are no more stagecoach companies around. That’s why average Joe Blow should invest in mutual funds, a collection of companies.
Can someone trade stocks and treat it like gambling? Of course. They can do the same thing with real estate, and most people don’t call real estate gambling. It’s called flipping house. And yes, some people can make money doing this and day trading stocks. But most lose at it. I agree with your stock strategy, averaging down with good stocks. With enough money, you’ll usually win with this strategy. It’s not like the Martingale with gambling.
The other thing different between casinos and the stock market, is the casinos games are based on math, so NO outside events impact them. The stock market is impacted by outside events, which change with time. Thats why math cannot be used to predict the stock market long term.
The reason so many people think math can be used to predict stock performance is because our markets are so stable. We have some of the most stable markets in the world. So yes, over a short period of time, like over 10 to 20 years, you can use math to predict short term movement in stocks, but you’re still taking on huge risks, because you don’t know when some outside event will make your math meaningless.
Take a current example, our current coronavirus pandemic. It’s having a huge impact on stocks, since it’s impacting companies. No math model could have predicted this a year ago, or even 3 months ago. In contrast, the coronavirus pandemic has not impacted the math behind Blackjack.
This brings me to one of my pet peeves, Ed Thorp, a legend in the gambling world. He doesn’t get what I just wrote here. He thinks the math behind blackjack and the stock market are similar. That’s one of the dumest things I’ve ever heard.
Ed has said repeatedly in interviews and in his book “The man for all markets” how blackjack helped him develop a math model for the stock market. I couldn’t even finish this chapter in his book, because it made no sense. Ed’s stupid math model failed him in 2008, during the financial debacle, when he lost a lot just like everybody else. His math only works during stable times, which nobody can predict. In these times he made a lot, but he was also highly leveraged so if something would have happened, he’d have gone bankrupt just like Lehman Brothers. He was taking on a lot of risk and lived through it, but this is not a good long-term strategy.
Enough for now. The short version is the stock market and casinos are not the same thing....they are not even in the same ballpark.
I don't read this thread but it sure seems popular!
You guys type a lot in these posts lol.
Yeah, not much to do right now, with everything closed and no sporting events.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
They sure do. It takes a long time to even get rid of it, to quote it, to get to the last line, I guess, the only line some of us read.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Thanks for that. It made me think a bit about the old space-time, where it comes from, and, how, in some way(s), every thing is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
I don't know how or why Bob Thorp claims that blackjack is the same as the stock market, but my mention of the stock market as in stock trading was to illustrate that being undercapitalized is a bad thing, whether it comes to trading stocks or playing at the tables. If you're at the black chip table no matter what you are doing, counting BJ or whatever, if you don't have enough to vary your bet or ride out the bad streaks, you will most likely lose.
It was not to claim that there are any kind of predictive mathematics that may be used across the board of casino table games and the stock market.
Also, it is not true that "everyone wins" in the stock market. You might be referring to long term investing - yes I do that. But when it comes to trading, actually whatever I win is taken from someone who loses, at least for that moment. Consider for example if AMZN opens at 1904 and closes at 1904 that day, but goes up and down all day long. I trade it and make $1000. That means that someone (or "someones") during the course of that day who lost $1000. gave it to me. Trading, at least in the short term, is actually a zero sum game.
Another example is stock options. Almost all options expire worthless. But along the way some people make money on them, and some people end up making money even by holding to the very end. But, somewhat like a sports pool, the end sum has to even out, where the winners are paid by the losers. You can read about how this is a myth, that option trading is not a zero sum game because each trader may hedge his bet, but still at the end of the day what pays the options winners has to come from the options losers, in the grand scheme of the options market.
MDawg, I thought I made the distinction between “investing” in stocks and “trading” in stocks clear. This is two different things. Yes,of course everybody doesn’t win trading. I expect most lose trading. But everybody will win investing in the stock market. In the long run stocks go up.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Now if it so happens our country gets overtaken by communist or a socialist liberal Democratic Party, yes, the stocks could become worthless while companies are taken over by the government. That’s why we got to make sure we keep the Democrats out of office.
Yes, of course you have to have a big bankroll to survive Variance. All APs believe this. Many don’t make it as professional APs because they don’t have a big enough bankroll to handle the variance. But varying your bet by itself has no impact on you winning long-term. You have to vary your bet when you have an advantage. It’s that simple!
As people have already stated here anybody can win short term and by betting into negative EV situations. It happens all the time with the people who win the lottery. But this is the exception, not the rule.
This is what I think most people have been trying to tell you here and why they question you’re winning. If your strategy is anything other than betting more in positive EV situations you will be a long-term loser. In the short term anything can and will happen.
Okay now you're saying a lot of different things. Which is good! and fine.
All I was saying was that if you are undercapitalized in a casino, then at best you'll be able to flat bet - won't have the money to vary your bet. And we know that flat betting is a sure loser no matter what you are doing, counting cards at BJ, or whatever. And the same applies, in a way, at the stock market, with trading. If you are undercapitalized, you'll be able to buy only one "chunk" (lot) of shares, versus being able to average in, and your chances of winning will be lowered. This could be somewhat compared to flat betting (one bite - one bet at the stock only, versus multiple).
Which is why I am agreeing with you in disagreeing with that guy who said that a small bankroll is better than a big bankroll at the tables. I am more concurring though, in that I am agreeing for different reasons. I am saying that undercapitalization is bad.
And explain the reason why flat betting is a sure loser?(I'm not asking because I don't know the reason, I'm just curious as to what you think the reason is) perhaps you can give baccarat as an example since that's your "expertise"Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
I know you don't play table games any longer (you probably never played them to any great high limits), but even with BJ and card counting there are times that justify jumping the bet. Duh. So if you must flat bet how are you going to jump the bet? You'll never be able to take advantage of the count or any of the other things you may be able to utilize to figure out what is going on. (Such as that trick you mentioned where you would see the bottom card in the deck and be able to manipulate it to your advantage on your player cut, or the one I mentioned where some of the machines they used to use in Vegas would flash a certain way and indicate exactly what small card (not a ten not a face) was under the ace when they checked for a BJ, if you had been around long enough to figure it out, which would allow me to double down even with certain cards that I might not normally double down with, since I knew exactly what the dealer had at that point.) Or shuffle tracking, tracking clumps, whatever. Flat betting eliminates any edge from any of that.
I know you know this, even though you don't play table games, and instead you're just trying to get me to discuss how I win at Baccarat with you. Not happening!
Being highly capitalized by itself won’t get you anywhere. If you’re playing a negative EV game, being highly capitalized just means you’ll survive longer before you go bankrupt. This is true if your flat betting or varying your bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
As far as the goofball who played with small bankrolls, it was only small bankrolls per shoe. He believed if you limited your bankroll per shoe, it would limit how much you lost for that shoe, which is obviously a true statement but somewhat meaningless. Somehow he thought this would limit his loses long term, but keep his win rate per hour up. Again, his ideas made no sense. He had some new jargon for the same old ideas of “stop losses”.
Even if I had no advantage to my Baccarat play, which I do, even if I were playing a straight coin toss with no house edge, still being undercapitalized would make a difference, simply due to variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
You might be trying to say that it is impossible to win at a casino. That's ridiculous. People win all the time. Why? For one - Variance. Yes for the vast majority they are mostly going to lose. But tell the guy like me who has cleared a half million at Baccarat before, and low hundred thousands many times, that his bankroll (or bet varying) made no difference. For most it may never make a difference, but for the guy who was there at the right times, with enough of a bankroll to really press his bet, it makes enough of a difference to make him a lifetime winner.
This may be somewhat what that guy was getting at. To use the stock trading analogy, you need to let your winners run and cut your losers off short. I don't actually let my trades lose, but when they go against me I do what I did couple days ago, which was average in and then get the hell out at a small profit. But it's the same concept.
Here we are back to MDawg claiming he has an advantage playing bac. But he won't explain what that advantage is. Betting trends does not turn the game positive. Varying ones bet does not turn the game positive. This guy MDawg is nothing but a compulsive liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawgEven if I had no advantage to my Baccarat play, which I do, even if I were playing a straight coin toss with no house edge, still being undercapitalized would make a difference, simply due to variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
You might be trying to say that it is impossible to win at a casino. That's ridiculous. People win all the time. Why? For one - Variance. Yes for the vast majority they are mostly going to lose. But tell the guy like me who has cleared a half million at Baccarat before, and low hundred thousands many times, that his bankroll made no difference. For most it may never make a difference, but for the guy who was there at the right times, with enough of a bankroll, it makes enough of a difference to make him a lifetime winner.
This may be somewhat what that guy was getting at. To use the stock trading analogy, you need to let your winners run and cut your losers off short. I don't actually let my trades lose, but when they go against me I do what I did couple days ago, which was average in and then get the hell out at a small profit. But it's the same concept.
This is what the entire thing comes down to. Other than maybe Coach & Blackhole, and I say maybe because they are just contrarians, no one believes you have a Baccarat system or way to win. That’s the entire situation and it’s pisses you off to no end and it’s becoming an obsession for you. One only has to look at how much more time you spend discussing it and trying to defend it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
The fact that you try to compare BJ to it is only digging a deeper hole in your logic. You are only person on Earth who feels there are hands you have an advantage on in Baccarat unless you are Edge Sorting or found another new method. And if you did and come on here you are truly the dumbest rich fuck on Earth. I don’t think you are stupid so I’ll eliminate that possibility. Instead you are just another rich GAMBLER who got lucky a few times and thinks they have it all figured out.
It’s really that simple. No one can learn anything from you. Nothing, nothing at all. There is zero chance Axel thinks he can learn anything from you. While I don’t know what his goal is, my guess is he wants to see you realize you are doing nothing but gambling. Of course you prove that with your daily gambling on stocks.
As I’ve said, it’s not personal with me. I see you for what you are and am not sure you even believe the shit you post. I like to think you are smart enough to understand math, odds and how casinos work. And understand no system or structure of bets can beat a Negative game other than with short term luck. But plenty of rich successful businessmen over the years have succumbed to the lure of the glitter of Vegas comps and the lifestyle. Look at the Oriental Trading guy.
And I’m serious as a Heart Attack someone will doxx you in the future. It’s happened to some of us before, it happened to someone here recently with a picture and a name. Someone threatened to turn you in to security at casinos you frequent. And you have already decided it’s something you are willing to do to both Michael and Axel with half hearted attempts. I truly hope it doesn’t happen to you, but you are continuing to make yourself a target.
Why I can’t figure out.
Like Bob you said a lot of different things. Which is good!
As far as that bozo - he didn't say that he was going to turn me in, he said that the casinos were already looking into how I had been overcomp'ed! Of course where his stupid story fell apart is when he said this after the casinos had already shut down for over a week and had plywood on their doors. Not to mention that I've been playing the same way, above the radar, and winning, for years. Plus, if you're going to punch someone in the eye, why tell him you're about to swing, unless it's all about bluster and no punch is actually coming? I assume that every one of these losers who follows me to a forum and posts are jealous fucks who have nothing better to do than try to rattle real people. But - what's MickeyCrimm's excuse?
I think you basically have some people here who don't mind discussing things openly, and then others for whom it somehow sticks in their craw, such that they can't abide it.
You're absolutely correct, I never played a lot of high limit table games, I only played that stuff when I had an advantage and those opportunities never came along that often as I was concentrating on other things. Also, once I was added to the Griffin book it became difficult to play table games without having an issue. Playing table games seem to get more heat and other things. No doubt, I probably have more time in at the tables than you do, considering I've been doing this stuff full-time since about 1993. If I count online baccarat play I estimate about two thousand hands. But you certainly have more experience playing -EV high limit Baccarat I do. Then again, you have absolutely zero proof of ever playing at single-handle Baccarat. Your pictures only show chip's and you have no Witnesses that you've actually played any Baccarat. I can accomplish all those pictures and Records without ever playing more than a few low limit hands on table games(technically you can do it without playing at all, but that might raise some suspicion) With that being said, I'm not doubting that you play Baccarat. I absolutely don't believe that you're playing it as often for as much as you have led us to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Of course you have to jump your bets to make money at blocked back when your card counting that's the entire point. Baccarat is a whole different story, going by what you said previously you wouldn't have to jump your bets in order to profit from Baccarat if one was given the abilities that you claim to have. Assuming you're flat betting one would just have to recognize the streaks and make the correct decisions a majority of the time. Obviously, you would make more if you made the correct decisions with higher bets out. Nobody other than possibly a few idiots want to learn your baccarat system. We only ask so we can actually debunk your b******* with logic and math. That's exactly why you can't or won't tell us what it is because you know it won't pass those tests. You're not the first person to come up with us full of s***, and you won't be the last.
P.S. It doesn't matter if you play high limit or low limit Baccarat your system should work either way. Somebody with a $5,000 bankroll should be able to when the same amount of units as you do so having a lot of money isn't a factor as far as how many units one could win. Obviously, they wouldn't get all the perks a highlight player would.
What's interesting, and again two faced as can be - is that on the one hand Axel comes in and warns that I shouldn't post too much about what I do, and then follows up a day or so later with some post about how I need to show him more, up close and personal, about how I play Baccarat!
And again, that he says things like <<I can accomplish all those pictures and Records without ever playing more than a few low limit hands on table games>> that is as much as conceding that he'd have to fake everything to appear as if he plays at the casino!
In any case, if you can make a record of play as detailed and supported by the paid markers, chips, paid verified win checks, cash, and videos of win statements as I did, then
https://i.imgur.com/NCkvm5lm.jpg
WHY DIDN'T YOU? to prove your point.
And it didn't take me two days to read what he wrote and then half forget most of it, like he always does. I mean he comes in and says that he KNOWS that SiegFriedRoy was a fraud, but forgets why. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but saying that you KNOW he was but that you forgot why, is pretty weak. That is a serious accusation, and yet you make it, and can't even remember why you made it? How he does so well at any casino with a fading memory like that is beyond me.
Reminds me of that Monk episode where the SF detective got so drunk he forget how or why he had solved the case.
https://monk.fandom.com/wiki/Mr._Monk_Goes_to_Vegas
But at least Captain Stottlemeyer eventually remembered. When will Axel?
It's just typical of Axel to say things without any backup. Making accusations without any backup is even worse.
Anyway I think it will be a long time before MDawg is in Vegas playing again.
I think the day your average non-addicted gambler returns to Vegas, will be the day people are comfortable sitting next to each other in a 50,000 packed to capacity stadium, or standing next to each other in a mosh pit, and I don't see any of that happening soon unless something changes drastically.
For a reality check about Baccarat's inability to be profitable (played straight up - no edge sorting, dealer collusion, etc.), look no further than Spanish 21. Spanish 21 was not considered countable initially by casino management and got very little pit scrutiny as a result (as you guys know, a lot of people made a lot of money on it because of this). Then it gradually became more widely known that it was countable (recall that books about it started coming on the market) until it reached a point in visibility such that casino management became widely aware that it was beatable, and then it got about as much scrutiny as BJ. So if Baccarat, a much older (1400s) game than Spanish 21, is beatable, then why the fuck is there no heat on the game ? I mean eventually it would have become known by casinos that it was beatable given the age of the game, just like Spanish 21 (and BJ for that matter). Well because it's not beatable.
The BOZO is a full blown piece of shit.
Nice well thought out contribution to the discussion of claims of beating a Negative Game.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole
Happy Sunday Mr Hole.
This is exactly what I mean with you BOZO and the rest of the hustlers here. Never once did I ever say anywhere that MDawg has a system to beat Baccarat. I believed he won what he said he did on his recent trip and I also believed he proved it. I wished him great luck in the future with both his gambling and career that affords him that gambling luxury. That means nothing when it comes to your fraudulent narratives you want to keep putting across. I guess you just skip over those past comments I made more than once and suggest instead what would fit your phony narrative above.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
You pop into threads like the conservative man of Wisdom and make absurd comments, most just guesses, then after being made a fool of with responses, you disappear. At least when Mickey makes a fool of himself, he ignores all the facts that follow afterwards and just continues posting like nothing was said. Then again, he is a stupid hillbilly fool who still sleeps in the original OK Corral.
MDawg talks about stock investing success. You hustlers can’t stomach it and again try to convince everyone what he’s doing is not possible or bullshit. I got stock investment stories that would give you the chills. In fact, I’ve been arrested for it. Of course, after two almost three years of endless investigating all charges were dropped against me. You fucking two-bit hustlers couldn’t afford the legal fees involved. I wouldn’t dare consider sharing those stories on con artist envious forums like this one.
Now you’re warning MDawg he might get doxed. In fact, your comments about doxing sound more of a call out for someone to do it. This also confirms the true skumbag fraud you actually are. I could only imagine the joy you and the rest of the hustlers would have if that happened.
Is this what you bullshit phony hustlers do and say to keep someone from pointing out how much of a fraud you are? Dox them or try to point out their posts to actual casinos.
Now if you want to talk about why anyone would consider you fine chaps hustlers? You and your post couldn’t point that out anymore clearer.
Here MDawg shows his ignorance again. He's giving axel a clinic on jumping the bet in BJ when the deck is positive. Like axel hasn't known that for 30 years. And... he's talking about a machine glitch that, if axel had been around long enough he may have known about. LOL! Axel has been around the casinos since the early nineties, a hell of a lot longer than MDawg.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Arrested for stock fraud? Sounds like we have a true hustler here now. And one that may be a little jealous of the attention MD is getting.
In this case, I believe you 100%. It totally fits the image you have presented the past few years on forums.
Watch out folks, we have an “Innocent” man we are dealing with. Quick, look at him!
As for doxxing, I wish it on no one, even you.
You got stock fraud, jealousy, out of my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
Without the slightest idea of what took place with the SEC and DOJ you somehow concluded it had to be stock fraud.
I’d like to add one more adjective to my list of descriptions of you. AIR fucking Head. You might even have reached a level of stupidity below Micky.
I think people notice how you skipped my whole response above pointing out your bullshit, and how you make up an unknown fact and add to that. You're a fucking fraud.
Homo say what?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackholeYou got stock fraud, jealousy, out of my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
Without the slightest idea of what took place with the SEC and DOJ you somehow concluded it had to be stock fraud.
I’d like to add one more adjective to my list of descriptions of you. AIR fucking Head. You might even have reached a level of stupidity below Micky.
I think people notice how you skipped my whole response above pointing out your bullshit, and how you make up an unknown fact and add to that. You're a fucking fraud.
Stock fraud, price manipulation or insider trading. That should cover it if the DOJ was involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackholeYou got stock fraud, jealousy, out of my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
Without the slightest idea of what took place with the SEC and DOJ you somehow concluded it had to be stock fraud.
I’d like to add one more adjective to my list of descriptions of you. AIR fucking Head. You might even have reached a level of stupidity below Micky.
I think people notice how you skipped my whole response above pointing out your bullshit, and how you make up an unknown fact and add to that. You're a fucking fraud.
Not sure what you want me to reply to. I’ve made my OPINION about you known many times and you usually confirm it.
You admitted you are lifelong casino loser and are proud of it. You say the entertainment was worth it to you and I don’t think you are lying.
You have bragged about owning boats and houses in multiple states. You point out many times you have more than all of us combined. Ok, terrific.
You call people you never met hustlers and scammers without any proof, only OPINION.
And you come off as one bitter, angry old Son of A Bitch.
You can give it just like you take it, but you just seem to have a little more anger to it. The type person who wishes ill upon others.
I guess you prove that money and success doesn’t always add up to happiness.