Douche Dawg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I think it's fairly clear that MDawg is some kind of high roller who makes his money from other sources besides gambling, and enjoys feeling important when he goes to Vegas.

It is highly unlikely he is pulling a Don Johnson style loss rebate trick on the casinos to where he's +EV. Besides, most casinos are wise to that, anyway, as Johnson's "secrets" have been revealed. I do believe he probably has loss rebates though.

I don't understand why other forums are protecting him from criticism. I guess they like the content he brings, and they don't want the little fantasy story to be brought down to earth.

For many -EV high rollers, being treated like a king is enough. For MDawg, it seems he also wants the forum gambling cred to go with it, and figures that posting evidence of big bets, big chips, and nice suites is somehow evidence that he's winning. Obviously only the most naive ploppy is gonna fall for that.

With that said, MDawg doesn't really bother me, because he just spins tall tales to make himself feel important. He's not really hurting anyone, so I don't bother trying to expose him, or anything like that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

For many -EV high rollers, being treated like a king is enough. For MDawg, it seems he also wants the forum gambling cred to go with it, and figures that posting evidence of big bets, big chips, and nice suites is somehow evidence that he's winning. Obviously only the most naive ploppy is gonna fall for that.

---

This isn't exactly the Dan Druff quote I was looking for. Druff has said it better, more distinctly at other times. But this will suffice as my new signature for now.

Beautiful 70 degree day in Vegas. Heading out. Not wasting it on you morons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I think it's fairly clear that MDawg is some kind of high roller who makes his money from other sources besides gambling

---

Besides something, or beside something, means in addition to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I think it's fairly clear that MDawg is some kind of high roller who makes his money from other sources besides gambling

---

Besides something, or beside something, means in addition to it.

---

Not interested in your coach belly troll games.

I said Druff has said it more distinctly, in more certain terms elsewhere and I am pretty sure you and the fleahound knows it. I will find it and use that more certain statement at some point. Just not going to do so now. So relax troll belly. I will get to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Druff has said it more distinctly, in more certain terms elsewhere and I am pretty sure you and the fleahound knows it.

---

I am certain that I do not know that Druff said it more distinctly, in more certain terms elsewhere.

Did Druff say that MDawg is lying, or call MDawg a liar?

He did call UNKewlJ a liar:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

a lot of what you write could be total fiction. You're definitely someone who isn't adverse to lying on forums if it suits you to do so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Druff has said it more distinctly, in more certain terms elsewhere

---

Did Druff say that MDawg is lying, or call MDawg a liar?

---

I don't recall Dan Druff using that word. Most decent people just don't throw that word around about people unless they have to. But, Druff has said in no uncertain terms that Mdawg is a LOSING higher limit player. And Mdawg by all his posts claims to be winning. What do you call it?

You only have my attention for a few more minutes while I finish my breakfast. After that you will be talking to and trolling with yourself, so make it good. You know these posts are out there. I will get to it. And if Dan Druff wants to jump in and clarify or make any new statement about how he now believes Mdawg is telling the truth and is in fact the greatest gambler to ever walk Las Vegas, he is welcome to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

He did call UNKewlJ a liar:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

a lot of what you write could be total fiction. You're definitely someone who isn't adverse to lying on forums if it suits you to do so.

---

---

He said "could be". And with you he said IS.

And I am pretty sure the quote you just posted is taken out of context as almost everything is. I suspect it is in regard to the back-rooming. Druff has said he doesn't believe part or all of that experience. Which is fine. You don't see me freaking out because he doesn't believe part or all of what I said, like you do. I haven't made up any lies and slandered Druff because I don't like his opinion have I?

The jury is already back on you. Virtually unanimous at this and every forum that you are a compulsive liar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Guess who said this UNKewlJ?

He's pretty much a pathological liar you can't believe anything he says. But also probably a sociopath and they have no guilt no shame no embarrassment. They simply make up lies to cover the other lies.

Could it be perhaps that well known AP you used to think is on your side?

But it was so well said I decided to just adopt it for myself.

---

When one person says you have a tail, disregard it. Two, better start thinking about it. Three (let alone dozens), you'd better start looking behind you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Druff has said in no uncertain terms that Mdawg is a LOSING higher limit player..

---

Is there a post for you to quote where he said that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I don't know what the purpose of all these quotes are?

---

Let me clarify his plan for ya, KJ: he's using a play from his law school playbook.

It was axiomatic to we One L's that "If you can't bowl them over with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit."

I suppose, like coach belly, one can go nitpicking anything kewlJ says regarding MDawg's stories -- undermining every kewlJ phrase, positing 10,000-to-1 scenarios, assigning slivers of possibility as if they were suggestive of reality, and so on. But why do that?

Basically, if MDawg's stories are to be taken as full reporting, a rational person has to ask how he does it. And there really is no answer. Unless he's a Howard Hughes guy playing at casinos he owns that just assign wins to him regardless of the actual cards, there is not much explanation. Or he could be clairvoyant. Plus a shape shifter so no one can recognize him. Or someone with a couple dozen identities. And then, considering that the reported cumulative bottom line for MDawg would be as subtle as a white crow, you have the fact that he reports his alleged results on multiple forums.

Dan Druff dismisses debunking the MDawg narratives because he considers them prima facie absurd and not in need of actual debunking. I tend to disagree with this, but that's because I've seen USA Today refuse to debunk advertisers claiming 85% and 90% ATS records for a hundred plays and more, and I've understood that the advertisers would not be doing it unless they were getting the responses they wanted.

Essentially, MDawg is reporting the same kinds of things as those first-year USA Today advertisers. Would the general public buy the MDawg stories, like many thousands bought the USA Today advertisements? Some people would, unless Druff continually added some commentary regarding the likelihood. Once someone like MDawg has been allowed to establish a thousand-post context that supports his "winning," it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Todd is a WSOP champion. He has a consumer reports type of podcast. If he allows someone to establish and reinforce a narrative, then a casual reader would have to draw the conclusion that the narrative may be true. Or else, why would Todd allow it? Todd would have to insert his opinion on a regular basis to undo the PR effects of the thousand-entry-plus MDawg library.

The fact that MDawg has found forum homes for his storylines isn't surprising. If you go to any bookstore and look up books regarding the paranormal, you're going to find that the pro-paranormal books outnumber the debunking books by about 20-1. As the old X-Files poster says, "I want to believe."

Found what I am looking for! (Take that U2).

Actually, someone else found it and sent it to me. As soon as I find a place to sit down for a few minutes I will attempt to cut and past, quote and link from my phone. Don't know how that will go. Bare with me, stinky belly. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

if MDawg's stories are to be taken as full reporting, a rational person has to ask how he does it. And there really is no answer.

---

He demonstrated how he does it, in front of a reliable witness. The event was fully reported.

He may be available to demonstrate it to you as well, you'll need to ask him.

Johnson negotiated terms that gave him a mathematical advantage, but that's not why he won.

Johnson matter-of-factly stated that he won because he got lucky.

Ginger Adams Otis reported on one lucky session, an event that Shack put at 1 in 47,217,280,736,393,700 odds.

Does that qualify as your "sliver"?

Ok this is a rather long post from Dan Druff. I am only posting the parts relating to Mdawg. But have linked to the entire post below in case anyone wants to read and be sure I didn't subjectively cherry-pick. I am highlighting a few words and phrases I find important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Okay, I read this whole thread.

What a mess

Here are my conclusions:

With that said, there's no question that MDawg has been an obnoxious braggart, and has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. There's something missing from his stories. Either they're fabcricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete. In any case, coming onto a gambling forum full of APs and acting in such a way is also bad form, and it angers people. This is especially true because the internet is so highly saturated with gambling phonies, everyone's bullshit detector is set off the minute anyone brags about any winning beyond the norm. You know what they say... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. MDawg has never provided this evidence. The frustration with him is justified.....

....The funny thing is that MDawg could have been mildly interesting if he just stuck to "I'm a high roller, here's my trip reports" sort of posts, and just kept quiet about his results. Not all of us get to see the high end suites or other spoils of being a casino whale. That stuff is interesting, even if it's an overall loser posting it.

Do I think MDawg is winning? No. I think he probably has some money (maybe not as much as he claims), likes to gamble, likes the high roller treatment, and wants to present himself as a guy who gets all this AND wins, rather than just a chump who is getting lavish treatment because he's dumping money.

---

https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...403#post127403

While Druff did not use the word Lie or lying, he did use fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete. I don't know how much closer you can get to saying lying. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Druff has said in no uncertain terms that Mdawg is a LOSING higher limit player.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Do I think MDawg is winning? No. I think he probably....

---

blah, blah, blah

The operative words in that statement are "I think", and "probably".

That's not "in no uncertain terms", any more than your nonsensical quote below...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

there were some probably inexperienced card counters that went to strip casinos and tried to spread 1-50 at double deck, and ended up backed off, trespassed and/or in OSN after about 5 minutes, that we just haven't heard about, just because the great "dope of Las Vegas" claimed the casinos don't care about players that spread and win.

---

You seem to be dancing around this, so to be clear...has Druff asserted that MDawg has lied, or is a liar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I don't know what the purpose of all these quotes are?

---

It was axiomatic to we One L's that "If you can't bowl them over with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit."

---

KJ, no one will ever give the slightest hoot about anything you might post about MDawg. Or, for that matter, about MrV. Or, versa, what they post about you. Their lives are well over, in terms of money made, and a profession locked into. Neither tries to develop themselves, however, online. But, you, on the other hand, have done nothing in comparison. So, like Tasha, you really and actually ought to just give it up. Just say that you are getting on with your life, and, then, fuck off online, for good. How many more decades are you willing to devote to this stuff? If you have a family, think of them, as well. Anyone can flush himself down the toilet of life. Ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

if MDawg's stories are to be taken as full reporting, a rational person has to ask how he does it. And there really is no answer.

---

He demonstrated how he does it, in front of a reliable witness. The event was fully reported.

He may be available to demonstrate it to you as well, you'll need to ask him.

Johnson negotiated terms that gave him a mathematical advantage, but that's not why he won.

Johnson matter-of-factly stated that he won because he got lucky.

Ginger Adams Otis reported on one lucky session, an event that Shack put at 1 in 47,217,280,736,393,700 odds.

Does that qualify as your "sliver"?

---

Coach, I'm not one of your rubes. I'll do a line by line breakdown of your post. I have to give you credit. Your post is such a teaching moment, and representative of almost all paranormal reporting in so many ways, that I'm going to feature it in a paper that I'll publish on my blog.

I mean, c'mon, what does Johnson have to do with MDawg? You may as well have plucked any reporting of anyone and compared it to MDawg. You're guilty of finding one example out of the hundreds of thousands of gambling snippets you've read in your life and tried to tie it, for no real reason, to MDawg. LOL.

Your writing is stellar. Ginger Adams Otis "reported" on one lucky session. Why use the word "reported?" Did she witness it or not? Record it live or not? Film it or not? If she did not witness it herself, who "reported" it to her? Is it on tape? Is it hearsay? Why am I asking these questions when someone as detail-oriented as yourself is not?

This is all SOP when trying to confirm paranormal abilities. You're using standard fog writing.

"He demonstrated how he does it." LOL. What did he demonstrate? What is "it?" Is "it" winning one session? That's not "demonstrating" anything.

"In front of a reliable witness." Who is reliable? Shackleford? What makes him a reliable witness? He knows basic math of gambling? That makes him "reliable?" "Reliable" to whom?

"The event was fully reported." How was it "fully reported?" Were there line by line notes shared with the audience? Video? Why not? What is your definition of "fully reported?"

And on and on. It's every line of your post, which I took a photo of for posterity.

Thanks for the post. It's a classic. It's so classic that I'm not sure people would believe me if I said someone else wrote it. It reads like something I'd write to serve as a basis for a paper.

Dan the Man Dandruff, along with everyone else including MrV,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

OK, so he lied.

---

has called out UNKewlJ for straight lying.

R.I.P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Dan the Man Dandruff, along with everyone else including MrV, has called out UNKewlJ for straight lying.

---

So you don't consider "fabcricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete" as Druff calling you out for lying? :confused:

How about "fibbed". How do you feel about him stating that you have fibbed?

Dan Druff responding to Mdawg:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Given your hesitancy to prove yourself -- even to neutral third parties -- it looks highly likely to me that you've fibbed about a lot of things.

---