The Adventures of MDawg (in progress)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Progression wagering system, you don't say? I've been preaching that it's a system all along. Just because you're looking for chops and streaks doesn't mean that you're not also employing a betting system (even if it doesn't have strict rules) simultaneously.

That's why I said that the number of wins in a row was conceivable, based on what I read. Or, at least, not even close to impossible.

I used to say, "One of these days people will start listening to me about stuff," but I'm smarter than that now. Nobody cares and nobody will ever listen to reason. Very few people are as naturally neutral as I am, also.

---

Don't strain your arm, patting yourself Mission. It took a long time before I even had the opportunity to interact and question Mdawg, because I was not at WoV for the first year + of this fairytale. When I finally got that opportunity, when he joined here, I asked two things the first if it was some kind of progression wagering system and he emphatically replied no. The second is less important right now.

You are right about the strict rules (or lack of). Doesn't change anything. With my blackjack play I have very strict rules. I bet this amount at this advantage etc. and I exit at this point, winning and losing. It is very possible that because he doesn't have these strict rules, or any rules written down, that he doesn't consider it a "system" but it still is! No matter how "loose" the rules, if the general theme is you start betting bigger after losing to recover the losses, that is a progression system, and they all work the same way, will result in more smaller win, initial smaller wins, and times that you successfully dig out getting back to even recording a small win, or slight loss. But there will be those times, you compound losses instead of digging out and that results in a massive loss, wiping out all the small wins.

And that is why I am so adamant about this. Whether intentional or not, and by this time, it sure seems intentional with the misleading and leaving out the losses, these guys have to be called out on this shit.

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

I do have more comments about your statement how possible this is, because Mike too has been mislead about that, but it will have to wait until later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Yeah, I mentioned this in #6805 of the WoV thread. Well, pardon the sacrilege, but even Jesus had a couple of bad days prior to Easter.

The good part of this is maybe the trip reports will be toned down out of the cartoon-land stuff, and MDawg will begin posting semi-believable accounts. I think it had gotten into the realm of caricature, of self-parody, and I don't think that was his aim. I think if he's trying to convince anyone that his LV excursions are profitable, toning it down was definitely the way to go.

To put the alleged 50-some in a row stuff in context: assuming he's using some martingale-ish progression roughly limited to a 70% or more chance of winning a session due to table limits, what he reported was the equivalent of taking a seven point favorite in football on the moneyline, and winning 50-some consecutive games. Yeah, it's not impossible (that's coach belly's line).

And I'm Batman.

---

The math on fifty in a row with a progression system with a 90%, "Session," win rate is less than 200-to-1 against. If nothing happened (in my favor) in my gambling life that was 200-to-1 against, I'd quit gambling because I'd only be getting the left side of Variance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Progression wagering system, you don't say? I've been preaching that it's a system all along. Just because you're looking for chops and streaks doesn't mean that you're not also employing a betting system (even if it doesn't have strict rules) simultaneously.

That's why I said that the number of wins in a row was conceivable, based on what I read. Or, at least, not even close to impossible.

I used to say, "One of these days people will start listening to me about stuff," but I'm smarter than that now. Nobody cares and nobody will ever listen to reason. Very few people are as naturally neutral as I am, also.

---

Don't strain your arm, patting yourself Mission. It took a long time before I even had the opportunity to interact and question Mdawg, because I was not at WoV for the first year + of this fairytale. When I finally got that opportunity, when he joined here, I asked two things the first if it was some kind of progression wagering system and he emphatically replied no. The second is less important right now.

You are right about the strict rules (or lack of). Doesn't change anything. With my blackjack play I have very strict rules. I bet this amount at this advantage etc. and I exit at this point, winning and losing. It is very possible that because he doesn't have these strict rules, or any rules written down, that he doesn't consider it a "system" but it still is! No matter how "loose" the rules, if the general theme is you start betting bigger after losing to recover the losses, that is a progression system, and they all work the same way, will result in more smaller win, initial smaller wins, and times that you successfully dig out getting back to even recording a small win, or slight loss. But there will be those times, you compound losses instead of digging out and that results in a massive loss, wiping out all the small wins.

And that is why I am so adamant about this. Whether intentional or not, and by this time, it sure seems intentional with the misleading and leaving out the losses, these guys have to be called out on this shit.

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

I do have more comments about your statement how possible this is, because Mike too has been mislead about that, but it will have to wait until later.

---

Well, off the top of my head, given MDawg's own posts for his bet ranges and the likely table ranges for bets, I'd say we're looking at a ballpark of .70 (that is, 70%) to the 50th power at the least. I don't have a calculator in front of me. So let's give MDawg a stat benefit and call it 75%. What's 75% multiplied by 75% and so on to the 50th?

Note: It's possible Mdawg used a wider range, starting on a low limit table and moving up, which would increase the per session win rate likelihood, but then MDawg's trip reports would have been inaccurate.

Anyway, what is 75% to the 50th? We're likely not talking a win rate that high, and we're likely talking more sessions than that, but let's go with the most favorable math for the Dawg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Don't strain your arm, patting yourself Mission. It took a long time before I even had the opportunity to interact and question Mdawg, because I was not at WoV for the first year + of this fairytale. When I finally got that opportunity, when he joined here, I asked two things the first if it was some kind of progression wagering system and he emphatically replied no. The second is less important right now.

You are right about the strict rules (or lack of). Doesn't change anything. With my blackjack play I have very strict rules. I bet this amount at this advantage etc. and I exit at this point, winning and losing. It is very possible that because he doesn't have these strict rules, or any rules written down, that he doesn't consider it a "system" but it still is! No matter how "loose" the rules, if the general theme is you start betting bigger after losing to recover the losses, that is a progression system, and they all work the same way, will result in more smaller win, initial smaller wins, and times that you successfully dig out getting back to even recording a small win, or slight loss. But there will be those times, you compound losses instead of digging out and that results in a massive loss, wiping out all the small wins.

And that is why I am so adamant about this. Whether intentional or not, and by this time, it sure seems intentional with the misleading and leaving out the losses, these guys have to be called out on this shit.

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

I do have more comments about your statement how possible this is, because Mike too has been mislead about that, but it will have to wait until later.

---

Immaterial. I could have come to my conclusion just reading a few posts. This is how you do it, you say to yourself, "Okay, assuming everything reported is basically true, (hypothetical assumption) how would this happen?"

The only reasonable answer is a negative progression system with a very high win rate. You'll also notice that MDawg tends to think in terms of, "House money," (his words) when he is ahead, so that being the case, even the winning sessions won't be uniform. If he is ahead for the session already, then he loosens up his betting. I imagine the negative progression is pretty tight until he gets a good bit down, then he goes for the quick recoup.

And, again, that's assuming that all of the reports prior are basically true.

Yes, a massive loss will eventually occur and all wins will be gone. I've only said that about twenty times by now.

The math doesn't mislead. The math is the math. Some people only trust the math when they like what it says. I trust the math even when I don't like what it says.

Oh hell, let me just finish this thought here rather than hanging.

In December Mike said it was time for Mdawg to show what he was doing. After PM's and possibly a conversation with Mdawg Mike backed off and publicly adopted your position that these claims were possible. Still not a longterm winner, but possible as stated.

So I discussed that with Mike. I don't think it is revealing a private conversation if I reveal some of the jist of the reasoning. Mdawg convinced Mike that he has a 500k bankroll. And Mike said to me, with a 500k bankroll, I could record many small wins, before it all caved in. )Exactly how a progression works!) And Mike is/was right.

Problem is there is no evidence that Mdawg had a 500k BR he is willing to put into play. Never has he mentioned going 100k or more in the hole and digging out. Not even 75k in the hole. Coach belly was able to find an instance where Mdawg lost one 20k marker and took a second for a total of in for 40K, or was it 50k? I don't remember, coach belly can correct. So 40k is the most Mdawg has ever described as going in the hole. So Mike needs to re-calculate. Could all these wins including the dig outs have occurred with a 40-50k bankroll? The leverage situation changes dramatically. 40k BR can you win 5, 10, 15k almost every day, 80-100k every trip? The answer is no, not for long.

Now, I am back to work and my small, but very real limit play.

My only comment on what was added is that some people like to misinterpret a person saying, "Reasonably possible," as the person saying it is likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Don't strain your arm, patting yourself Mission. It took a long time before I even had the opportunity to interact and question Mdawg, because I was not at WoV for the first year + of this fairytale. When I finally got that opportunity, when he joined here, I asked two things the first if it was some kind of progression wagering system and he emphatically replied no. The second is less important right now.

You are right about the strict rules (or lack of). Doesn't change anything. With my blackjack play I have very strict rules. I bet this amount at this advantage etc. and I exit at this point, winning and losing. It is very possible that because he doesn't have these strict rules, or any rules written down, that he doesn't consider it a "system" but it still is! No matter how "loose" the rules, if the general theme is you start betting bigger after losing to recover the losses, that is a progression system, and they all work the same way, will result in more smaller win, initial smaller wins, and times that you successfully dig out getting back to even recording a small win, or slight loss. But there will be those times, you compound losses instead of digging out and that results in a massive loss, wiping out all the small wins.

And that is why I am so adamant about this. Whether intentional or not, and by this time, it sure seems intentional with the misleading and leaving out the losses, these guys have to be called out on this shit.

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

I do have more comments about your statement how possible this is, because Mike too has been mislead about that, but it will have to wait until later.

---

Immaterial. I could have come to my conclusion just reading a few posts. This is how you do it, you say to yourself, "Okay, assuming everything reported is basically true, (hypothetical assumption) how would this happen?"

The only reasonable answer is a negative progression system with a very high win rate. You'll also notice that MDawg tends to think in terms of, "House money," (his words) when he is ahead, so that being the case, even the winning sessions won't be uniform. If he is ahead for the session already, then he loosens up his betting. I imagine the negative progression is pretty tight until he gets a good bit down, then he goes for the quick recoup.

And, again, that's assuming that all of the reports prior are basically true.

Yes, a massive loss will eventually occur and all wins will be gone. I've only said that about twenty times by now.

The math doesn't mislead. The math is the math. Some people only trust the math when they like what it says. I trust the math even when I don't like what it says.

---

Mission, have you actually read all or most of MDawg's trip reports?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Progression wagering system, you don't say? I've been preaching that it's a system all along. Just because you're looking for chops and streaks doesn't mean that you're not also employing a betting system (even if it doesn't have strict rules) simultaneously.

That's why I said that the number of wins in a row was conceivable, based on what I read. Or, at least, not even close to impossible.

I used to say, "One of these days people will start listening to me about stuff," but I'm smarter than that now. Nobody cares and nobody will ever listen to reason. Very few people are as naturally neutral as I am, also.

---

Don't strain your arm, patting yourself Mission. It took a long time before I even had the opportunity to interact and question Mdawg, because I was not at WoV for the first year + of this fairytale. When I finally got that opportunity, when he joined here, I asked two things the first if it was some kind of progression wagering system and he emphatically replied no. The second is less important right now.

You are right about the strict rules (or lack of). Doesn't change anything. With my blackjack play I have very strict rules. I bet this amount at this advantage etc. and I exit at this point, winning and losing. It is very possible that because he doesn't have these strict rules, or any rules written down, that he doesn't consider it a "system" but it still is! No matter how "loose" the rules, if the general theme is you start betting bigger after losing to recover the losses, that is a progression system, and they all work the same way, will result in more smaller win, initial smaller wins, and times that you successfully dig out getting back to even recording a small win, or slight loss. But there will be those times, you compound losses instead of digging out and that results in a massive loss, wiping out all the small wins.

And that is why I am so adamant about this. Whether intentional or not, and by this time, it sure seems intentional with the misleading and leaving out the losses, these guys have to be called out on this shit.

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

I do have more comments about your statement how possible this is, because Mike too has been mislead about that, but it will have to wait until later.

---

Well, off the top of my head, given MDawg's own posts for his bet ranges and the likely table ranges for bets, I'd say we're looking at a ballpark of .70 (that is, 70%) to the 50th power at the least. I don't have a calculator in front of me. So let's give MDawg a stat benefit and call it 75%. What's 75% multiplied by 75% and so on to the 50th?

Note: It's possible Mdawg used a wider range, starting on a low limit table and moving up, which would increase the per session win rate likelihood, but then MDawg's trip reports would have been inaccurate.

Anyway, what is 75% to the 50th? We're likely not talking a win rate that high, and we're likely talking more sessions than that, but let's go with the most favorable math for the Dawg.

---

1 in 1,765,780

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

1 in 1,765,780

---

"One in a million....so you are telling me there is a chance" (from Dumb and Dumber movie)

Thanks!

See, unless you've actually read the majority of MDawg's trip reports (sad to say, I have), you're just talking out of your ass. All of the 90% session win rate martingale stuff is pure speculation that doesn't jive with the trip reports.

So then I get to the question, if you haven't read virtually all of the MDawg trip reports, why even hazard an opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Mission, have you actually read all or most of MDawg's trip reports?

---

That's going to be a no. I read a few here and there, and he knows his music and seems like a nice-enough guy...but I'd rather be the guy in charge of cleaning the toilets at Denny's on, "Seniors Eat Free Day," than read all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

"One in a million....so you are telling me there is a chance" (from Dumb and Dumber movie)

---

I was dealt four deuces and a joker on Joker & Deuces once, of course, I'd played more than one hand lifetime. Definitely nowhere near that dealt royal cycle, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

1 in 1,765,780

---

"One in a million....so you are telling me there is a chance" (from Dumb and Dumber movie)

---

A few months ago I hit hit a Quick Hits 9......shit happens :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Thanks!

See, unless you've actually read the majority of MDawg's trip reports (sad to say, I have), you're just talking out of your ass. All of the 90% session win rate martingale stuff is pure speculation that doesn't jive with the trip reports.

So then I get to the question, if you haven't read virtually all of the MDawg trip reports, why even hazard an opinion?

---

Because I'm a contrarian asshole.

Also, KewlJ mentioned some of the specific amounts. If he's willing to go into the tens of thousands on one hand (which doesn't mean he'd have had to yet), then it's possible to achieve. It's very unlikely, but it's not 18 Yo's.

That's what I said in the WoV thread. We're not at 18 Yo's yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

A few months ago I hit hit a Quick Hits 9......shit happens :)

---

Nice! I've had two eights.

People seem to have forgotten, its not just about the 56 in a row horseshit, that in itself is highly unlikely. Its the TOTALITY of EVERYTHING he's said over the last 2 years. If you combined the whole lot of absurd claims, its got to be a number that's non prenouncible odds wise. His credibility is ZERO and has been for a long time. Anyone who believes otherwise, is either a sock, delusional, complete tard, shill, complicit in this scam, or a combination of the above.

https://youtu.be/Bt0_P_Z0EBs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

coach belly can correct.

---

In the last trip report he had $56K in markers out.

You are asserting that he could not have a total credit line
of 500K spread over a number of properties,
because he has not reported putting it all into play.

I know some people with 5 figure lines at multiple properties
that have never even drawn a marker. For a variety of reasons,
they haven't wanted or needed to.

So you're just presenting conjecture as fact,
and that's what makes you such a tewl.

It's not that you've done it, but that you're doing it
again and again and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

A few months ago I hit hit a Quick Hits 9......shit happens :)

---

Nice! I've had two eights.

---

A couple dozen more of those and I think you will be about 1 cycle in on hitting the 9 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzy

People seem to have forgotten, its not just about the 56 in a row horseshit, that in itself is highly unlikely. Its the TOTALITY of EVERYTHING he's said over the last 2 years. If you combined the whole lot of absurd claims, its got to be a number that's non prenouncible odds wise. His credibility is ZERO and has been for a long time. Anyone who believes otherwise, is either a sock, delusional, complete tard, shill, complicit in this scam, or a combination of the above.

---

See, your post assumes that I care enough to even know anything about these, "Other claims." MDawg Investments Thread? I've opened it maybe twice ever. Actually, more than that, but just because I like to dim everything on the Recent Threads Top 10 that way I know I didn't miss something I wanted to read.

I have definitely not read the totality of what he (or anyone) has said in the last two years. I don't even think I read the totality of what I have said in the last two years, sometimes I don't really look for typos.

Maybe some of the people who believe otherwise---and hear me out, here---have something better to do than be obsessed with one random poster on a couple of gambling forums. Also, I never said I believe all of the claims that I have read. In fact, if you'd cornered me, I'd say I do not believe they are 100% accurate---but that doesn't mean that I hold my own opinion in such high regard to call someone a liar without proof that they are lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

A couple dozen more of those and I think you will be about 1 cycle in on hitting the 9 :)

---

Nice! LOL. I haven't even seen a good 5 + 6 play in years. Most of the progressive QHP seem to be gone now with stupid QH variants taking their place, or something else entirely. Even the ones that do remain don't seem to get much play anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Mission, have you actually read all or most of MDawg's trip reports?

---

That's going to be a no. I read a few here and there, and he knows his music and seems like a nice-enough guy...but I'd rather be the guy in charge of cleaning the toilets at Denny's on, "Seniors Eat Free Day," than read all of them.

---

Well, then, here's the logical problem with your argument regarding MDawg.

1) You're assigning a 1-in-200 eventuality to "MDawg using a 90% martingale -ish system."
2) You haven't assigned a probability to MDawg actually using a formal or semi-formal martingale system that would yield 90% session win rate.
3) Without doing (2) above, and without you having some special insight regarding MDawg or having witnessed his play, you have no idea what (2) above is.
4) The proper math here, then, is assigning a probability to (2) and then multiplying that by (1).
5) There's no indication that MDawg uses a 90% martingale-ish system based on his trip reports.
6) There's no indication that MDawg has the required bankroll necessary to execute a 90% martingale-ish system based on his bet sizes according to his trip reports.
7) Therefore, to consider the 1-in-200 number, an additional probability must be entered, namely "How likely is it MDawg has a 500K available bankroll?"

Now I know people with 500K bankrolls for table games, and a 500K bankroll for sports betting is not all that rare. So maybe MDawg has a 500K bankroll, but it has not really come into play in his trip reports.

In conclusion, the proper probability is the probability of (2) multiplied by the probability of (1) multiplied by the probability of (7).

Thus, the 1-in-200 number has no real bearing on the real world scenario of MDawg's wagering. And I think you know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I have definitely not read the totality of what he has said in the last two years.

---

Neither have I.

You would have to be a ditz to have done that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Mission, have you actually read all or most of MDawg's trip reports?

---

That's going to be a no. I read a few here and there, and he knows his music and seems like a nice-enough guy...but I'd rather be the guy in charge of cleaning the toilets at Denny's on, "Seniors Eat Free Day," than read all of them.

---

Well, then, here's the logical problem with your argument regarding MDawg.

1) You're assigning a 1-in-200 eventuality to "MDawg using a 90% martingale -ish system."
2) You haven't assigned a probability to MDawg actually using a formal or semi-formal martingale system that would yield 90% session win rate.
3) Without doing (2) above, and without you having some special insight regarding MDawg or having witnessed his play, you have no idea what (2) above is.
4) The proper math here, then, is assigning a probability to (2) and then multiplying that by (1).
5) There's no indication that MDawg uses a 90% martingale-ish system based on his trip reports.
6) There's no indication that MDawg has the required bankroll necessary to execute a 90% martingale-ish system based on his bet sizes according to his trip reports.
7) Therefore, to consider the 1-in-200 number, an additional probability must be entered, namely "How likely is it MDawg has a 500K available bankroll?"

Now I know people with 500K bankrolls for table games, and a 500K bankroll for sports betting is not all that rare. So maybe MDawg has a 500K bankroll, but it has not really come into play in his trip reports.

In conclusion, the proper probability is the probability of (2) multiplied by the probability of (1) multiplied by the probability of (7).

Thus, the 1-in-200 number has no real bearing on the real world scenario of MDawg's wagering. And I think you know that.

---

I said, in that thread, 1,489,277 times, that if there WERE concrete system rules AND a concrete absolute bankroll, then I could give an exact probability of a session win. In fact, doing so would be a quite trivial affair. My 90% and your 70%, therefore, are both conjecture. Also, my 90% is very much a, "Benefit of the doubt," sort of estimate because, quite frankly, I can't figure out why all of you are obsessively attacking him. If you all had instead ignored him, then he would be gone. I'm kind of glad he's not, though, because if we're ever in Vegas at the same time we can grab a bite and chat about rock music. I seriously doubt Baccarat will even come up because I think it's a really stupid game.

1.) Benefit of the doubt.

2.) I can come up with a few, if you want.

3.) Yes, because I can define a, "Session," and then define a bankroll and come up with a system. Depending on the, "Stop Win," a straight Martingale is by itself over 90%, easily.

4.) Right, and I can come up with a system that wins more than 90%.

5.) There's no indication that he doesn't, especially since his reports don't require he fully tap his bankroll.

6.) Isn't there? 64k is Step 7 on a base bet of a grand for a straight Martingale.

7.) Unknown. No way for me to know. Perhaps he'll give me his checking account credentials, of course, one of you have probably asked for those by now.

Maybe it's 1 in 10,000? Maybe it's 1 in 1,000,000. It seems like it's definitely 1 in (Lower Number Than Shit I've Actually Experienced)

Again, the math is the math. It doesn't work for you or against you. It just operates. Nobody will always like what it has to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I said, in that thread, 1,489,277 times, that if there WERE concrete system rules AND a concrete absolute bankroll, then I could give an exact probability of a session win. In fact, doing so would be a quite trivial affair. My 90% and your 70%, therefore, are both conjecture. Also, my 90% is very much a, "Benefit of the doubt," sort of estimate because, quite frankly, I can't figure out why all of you are obsessively attacking him. If you all had instead ignored him, then he would be gone. I'm kind of glad he's not, though, because if we're ever in Vegas at the same time we can grab a bite and chat about rock music. I seriously doubt Baccarat will even come up because I think it's a really stupid game.

1.) Benefit of the doubt.

2.) I can come up with a few, if you want.

3.) Yes, because I can define a, "Session," and then define a bankroll and come up with a system. Depending on the, "Stop Win," a straight Martingale is by itself over 90%, easily.

4.) Right, and I can come up with a system that wins more than 90%.

5.) There's no indication that he doesn't, especially since his reports don't require he fully tap his bankroll.

6.) Isn't there? 64k is Step 7 on a base bet of a grand for a straight Martingale.

7.) Unknown. No way for me to know. Perhaps he'll give me his checking account credentials, of course, one of you have probably asked for those by now.

Maybe it's 1 in 10,000? Maybe it's 1 in 1,000,000. It seems like it's definitely 1 in (Lower Number Than Shit I've Actually Experienced)

Again, the math is the math. It doesn't work for you or against you. It just operates. Nobody will always like what it has to say.

---

Why on Earth would you argue with redietz?
You call that Evil Handi-Scammer a Gook Loving, Noodle Slurping, Hate Site Contributing Commie Pinko Faggot and be done with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I said, in that thread, 1,489,277 times, that if there WERE concrete system rules AND a concrete absolute bankroll, then I could give an exact probability of a session win. In fact, doing so would be a quite trivial affair. My 90% and your 70%, therefore, are both conjecture. Also, my 90% is very much a, "Benefit of the doubt," sort of estimate because, quite frankly, I can't figure out why all of you are obsessively attacking him. If you all had instead ignored him, then he would be gone. I'm kind of glad he's not, though, because if we're ever in Vegas at the same time we can grab a bite and chat about rock music. I seriously doubt Baccarat will even come up because I think it's a really stupid game.

1.) Benefit of the doubt.

2.) I can come up with a few, if you want.

3.) Yes, because I can define a, "Session," and then define a bankroll and come up with a system. Depending on the, "Stop Win," a straight Martingale is by itself over 90%, easily.

4.) Right, and I can come up with a system that wins more than 90%.

5.) There's no indication that he doesn't, especially since his reports don't require he fully tap his bankroll.

6.) Isn't there? 64k is Step 7 on a base bet of a grand for a straight Martingale.

7.) Unknown. No way for me to know. Perhaps he'll give me his checking account credentials, of course, one of you have probably asked for those by now.

Maybe it's 1 in 10,000? Maybe it's 1 in 1,000,000. It seems like it's definitely 1 in (Lower Number Than Shit I've Actually Experienced)

Again, the math is the math. It doesn't work for you or against you. It just operates. Nobody will always like what it has to say.

---

Why on Earth would you argue with redietz?
You call that Evil Handi-Scammer a Gook Loving, Noodle Slurping, Hate Site Contributing Commie Pinko Faggot and be done with it.

---

You forgot Comrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Maybe some of the people who believe otherwise---and hear me out, here---have something better to do than be obsessed with one random poster on a couple of gambling forums. Also, I never said I believe all of the claims that I have read. In fact, if you'd cornered me, I'd say I do not believe they are 100% accurate---but that doesn't mean that I hold my own opinion in such high regard to call someone a liar without proof that they are lying.

---

I am still home. Looks like work for the day is done, as my "sig other" is home from work early and we are heading out for a long bike ride and catch a bite to eat somewhere. (The beauty of self employment).

So I want to address this "lying" thing. I generally don't like to jump to words like that. And I didn't in this situation. At WoV, mike said everyone has the right to decide if they believe these claims or not. I and some others clearly didn't. I used the word "fiction" and then was suspended when Mdawg complained to Mike that I was calling him a liar.

So next thing you know Mdawg starts ramping up attacks on me, because I stated I didn't believe his claims as stated. At WoV, only mildly, staying within the rules. But he comes here and immediately starts in with all the faggot name calling. Nothing new here, I read that everyday. But you have to ask yourself, why people like Singer and now Mdawg using the same playbook, get so nasty, when you challenge their claims based on math and how you know the casino industry to work. It isn't personal with me, why do they come back with the nastiest personal attacks they can. To me that only confirms my opinion, that they aren't being truthful.

Now here is the clincher: Last year was a very "trying year for me, as I shared. Went like this. January (precovid) good start. up 5 figures. February (still precovid) up $5. Not a misprint. I won exactly $5 in February. ;) A little ahead in the first few days of March before shut down for covid.

So June casinos reopen, I have doubled my stakes, and immediately hit some major negative variance and start losing. Lose what I was up pre-shutdown and go into the hole about 15 k. Work back to about even and straddle that even line until October, a little up, a little down. oct 1, still slightly in the red. had a decent October, ending up 9 grand total and played just a couple sessions in Nov and early Dec, finishing up 14k for the year. This was my worst year since my 3rd year of play, playing very lower stakes, so not really compatible, so in my mind, this was my worst year. And I gladly and accurately shared it.

So Mdawg starts saying I had a "losing year and then quit". said it at WoV a few times, said it here a few times. I corrected him the first 2 or 3 times. I didn't have a losing year, had I had a losing year I would have accurately shared that. Not a whole lot of difference in a losing year and the bad year I had, but it simply wasn't a losing year.

So Mdawg has gone on to say this losing year and "quit" thing about 40 more times, knowing it is not true. So I ask you: If a guy is going to lie, and yes I will use the term LIE in big bold letters, about something like that, that is really pretty insignificant and yet he has been corrected about, so he KNOWS he is lying, then how can anybody believe anything he says? So where you normally would give someone the benefit of doubt, this guy has used that up with me and I hope everyone else being objective. THAT is what credibility is about.

How does he know he is lying? Did he have written evidence of all of your sessions for last year? Perhaps he simply considers your account of last year fiction. Calling something fiction is different than calling it a lie, apparently.

In any case, I can't emphasize how little of a fuck I give as to the veracity of his individual reports. I entered into his thread for one reason and one reason only---and that was to offer a mathematical perspective. I wasn't trying to prove, disprove, support or contradict anything other than to offer math.

But, now look at me. Posting here and there in these threads daily. I will look at both sites one more time this evening and then I am banning myself from posting anything but articles for seven days. (Oh, also threads and posts to pimp my articles)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

How does he know he is lying? Did he have written evidence of all of your sessions for last year? Perhaps he simply considers your account of last year fiction. Calling something fiction is different than calling it a lie, apparently.

---

Oh for God sakes!

You said earlier and I quote "Because I'm a contrarian asshole". Is it necessary to prove that at every turn. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

How does he know he is lying? Did he have written evidence of all of your sessions for last year? Perhaps he simply considers your account of last year fiction. Calling something fiction is different than calling it a lie, apparently.

---

Oh for God sakes!

You said earlier and I quote "Because I'm a contrarian asshole". Is it necessary to prove that at every turn. :p

---

LOL. You got that right!

I try not to take sides, and even when I do, I spend half my time arguing with the people I agree with because I don't like the way they are making our case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

How does he know he is lying? Did he have written evidence of all of your sessions for last year? Perhaps he simply considers your account of last year fiction. Calling something fiction is different than calling it a lie, apparently.

---

That is an unbiased, honest and reasonable perspective.

I especially appreciate how you asked questions...seems so familiar.

Just part of the fallacy. He shows a loss so that when the challenge happens it just furthers his narrative. What is off is that. NO ONE I REPEAT NO ONE is getting a rebate day over day in Vegas anymore. ESPECIALLY NOT someone with 50k lines. Not only are they not going to rebate someone who has been there 28 days winning every day but one but rebates are based on the trip at best. On top of dawg saying he will be near even after his rebate on 48k loss With an overall daily loss of 10k. So he claiming at 20 percent rebate. Or even 15. PURE BULLSHIT I hahe screen shots from a very well known celebrity gambler who gets 17 percent Trop over trip but not until he loses 1 mil. Anything under is 10 percent an not triggered until a 400 loss. And this person has lost millions. Rebates are negotiated. So mdawg negotiates rebate but never promo chips. Guess thats next leve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Maybe some of the people who believe otherwise---and hear me out, here---have something better to do than be obsessed with one random poster on a couple of gambling forums. Also, I never said I believe all of the claims that I have read. In fact, if you'd cornered me, I'd say I do not believe they are 100% accurate---but that doesn't mean that I hold my own opinion in such high regard to call someone a liar without proof that they are lying.

---

I am still home. Looks like work for the day is done, as my "sig other" is home from work early and we are heading out for a long bike ride and catch a bite to eat somewhere. (The beauty of self employment).

So I want to address this "lying" thing. I generally don't like to jump to words like that. And I didn't in this situation. At WoV, mike said everyone has the right to decide if they believe these claims or not. I and some others clearly didn't. I used the word "fiction" and then was suspended when Mdawg complained to Mike that I was calling him a liar.

So next thing you know Mdawg starts ramping up attacks on me, because I stated I didn't believe his claims as stated. At WoV, only mildly, staying within the rules. But he comes here and immediately starts in with all the faggot name calling. Nothing new here, I read that everyday. But you have to ask yourself, why people like Singer and now Mdawg using the same playbook, get so nasty, when you challenge their claims based on math and how you know the casino industry to work. It isn't personal with me, why do they come back with the nastiest personal attacks they can. To me that only confirms my opinion, that they aren't being truthful.



So Mdawg starts saying I had a "losing year and then quit". said it at WoV a few times, said it here a few times. I corrected him the first 2 or 3 times. I didn't have a losing year, had I had a losing year I would have accurately shared that. Not a whole lot of difference in a losing year and the bad year I had, but it simply wasn't a losing year.

So Mdawg has gone on to say this losing year and "quit" thing about 40 more times, knowing it is not true. So I ask you: If a guy is going to lie, and yes I will use the term LIE in big bold letters, about something like that, that is really pretty insignificant and yet he has been corrected about, so he KNOWS he is lying, then how can anybody believe anything he says? So where you normally would give someone the benefit of doubt, this guy has used that up with me and I hope everyone else being objective. THAT is what credibility is about.

---

They are two separate things, MDawg blatantly lies numerous times regarding your previous year results KJ because he knows that you are a very easy target, which he finds rather amusing. Not surprisingly some other people laugh their ass off seeing how you get all worked up and agitated. MDawg has now got you to say on both boards about two dozen times that last year you made 14K, KJ everyone is now aware of it that you tell the good with the bad. Bottom line is that he finds you entertaining.


Pertaining to him lying about himself is an entirely different thought process that he has to work at. Combining all the protection he receives from management of that site, with numerous ongoing suspensions taking place he is a much harder target.

Why doesn't MasturbatoryDawg simply allow the Wiz or someone else to watch him play for at least several hours?

No bets involved, allow note taking: all in aid of him establishing once and for all that he's the real deal, the meanest, baddest Dawg to ever strut his stuff in the rarefied air of Las Vegas' most elegant baccarat pits.

Should be enough to get a feel for how he approaches the game and to settle questions about whether he is genuine or a lying sack of shit.

What, is MushmouthDawg afraid his pic will be taken and posted online?

DumbDawg should know that "for a lawyer there's no such thing as bad publicity."

Of course that applies to lawyers, not squatters on Fantasy Island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

That is an unbiased, honest and reasonable perspective.

I especially appreciate how you asked questions...seems so familiar.

---

The Socratic method applied to trapping questions isn't lost on me, my objection was only asking them one question at a time---one post at a time---in written form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Why doesn't MasturbatoryDawg simply allow the Wiz or someone else to watch him play for at least several hours?

No bets involved, allow note taking: all in aid of him establishing once and for all that he's the real deal, the meanest, baddest Dawg to ever strut his stuff in the rarefied air of Las Vegas' most elegant baccarat pits.

Should be enough to get a feel for how he approaches the game and to settle questions about whether he is genuine or a lying sack of shit.

What, is MushmouthDawg afraid his pic will be taken and posted online?

DumbDawg should know that "for a lawyer there's no such thing as bad publicity."

Of course that applies to lawyers, not squatters on Fantasy Island.

---

I don't know, does Darkoz want to pony up ten grand? I tend to think that the $500 would be Wizard expecting a time spend of two hours, not counting time in transit.

I'll watch 12 hours worth over a five day period for $2,000, if you want and MDawg agrees. That's 12 hours of watching. I also want room, flight and food covered. I'll take care of transit out of my 2k. I'll take the bus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Why doesn't MasturbatoryDawg simply allow the Wiz or someone else to watch him play for at least several hours?

No bets involved, allow note taking: all in aid of him establishing once and for all that he's the real deal, the meanest, baddest Dawg to ever strut his stuff in the rarefied air of Las Vegas' most elegant baccarat pits.

Should be enough to get a feel for how he approaches the game and to settle questions about whether he is genuine or a lying sack of shit.

What, is MushmouthDawg afraid his pic will be taken and posted online?

DumbDawg should know that "for a lawyer there's no such thing as bad publicity."

Of course that applies to lawyers, not squatters on Fantasy Island.

---

I don't know, does Darkoz want to pony up ten grand? I tend to think that the $500 would be Wizard expecting a time spend of two hours, not counting time in transit.

I'll watch 12 hours worth over a five day period for $2,000, if you want and MDawg agrees. That's 12 hours of watching. I also want room, flight and food covered. I'll take care of transit out of my 2k. I'll take the bus.

---

I take it you put an estimate of 250$/ hour for the all mightys time. Very generous of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

my objection was only asking them one question at a time---one post at a time---in written form.

---

I don't recall your objection.

The follow-up questions often depend on the answer to the previous question,
and besides...listing a few questions together in the same post could reveal the trap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzy

I take it you put an estimate of 250$/ hour for the all mightys time. Very generous of you.

---

From parking garage to casino to watching one Baccarat shoe and talking to two different people for ten minutes back to parking garage.

I say about two hours.

$500/2 = $250

I wouldn't personally pay $250 for an hour of anyone's time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

my objection was only asking them one question at a time---one post at a time---in written form.

---

I don't recall your objection.

The follow-up questions often depend on the answer to the previous question,
and besides...listing a few questions together in the same post could reveal the trap.

---

Haha, so you admit it! My objection is predicated upon the fact that you know I'm going to be honest about math, so some of the one at a time questions you had to have asked already knowing what my answer would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

my objection was only asking them one question at a time---one post at a time---in written form.

---

I don't recall your objection.

The follow-up questions often depend on the answer to the previous question,
and besides...listing a few questions together in the same post could reveal the trap.

---

Haha, so you admit it! My objection is predicated upon the fact that you know I'm going to be honest about math, so some of the one at a time questions you had to have asked already knowing what my answer would be.

---

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

I will ask questions knowing what the answer will be (or should be),
but I don't presume to know the answer to all questions that I ask.

I don't necessarily make any assumptions about the other readers' knowledge,
but I could be mistakenly assuming that there are any other readers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I saw the report of a losing session happening if a meetup was set in stone. I just thought the meet up would be sooner. The recipient of that PM has my permission to confirm it was sent on 4/3 and said that MDawg would report a losing session within a week.

---

You should have asked for this to be revealed before the losing session was reported.

This seems like past-posting, as though you are seeking recognition from many,
when you were only willing to risk humiliation in the eyes of one.

To be clear...I'm speculating that you would not have asked the recipient
to reveal the private message if a losing session had not been reported.

Wait a minute - who would dump money in a session on purpose? Is that what he's implying? I simply report what happens.

So far, in my life, I have been dealt two sequential royals.
Both times on single line quarters.
One in Spades, Left to Right, at the Slots-A-Fun at the bar for around 1500 on the quarter progressive when the game was a 105% winner from the jump.
The other was online at BoDog or Brovada... same difference right?
Right to Left in Hearts on quarters as well.

Tell me it didn't happen and tell me how the math proves that it didn't happen.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers lost 26 NFL games in a row.
Tell me it didn't happen.
Tell me what the odds are to lose 26 of those games in a row is?

What are the odds for an NHL team to lose 18 games in a row?

A tourist won 21 Million on the MegaBucks at the Palms.
Tell me it didn't happen.

People claim that Man landed on the Moon.
Tell me it didn't happen.
Tell me what the odds are to land on the moon.
Tell me what the odds were during the year 1500 B.C to land on the moon in the next 3500 years.

Fuck You!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

You should have asked for this to be revealed before the losing session was reported.

This seems like past-posting, as though you are seeking recognition from many,
when you were only willing to risk humiliation in the eyes of one.

To be clear...I'm speculating that you would not have asked the recipient
to reveal the private message if a losing session had not been reported.

---

If I had made that speculation openly, then it decreases the probability of the event. I don't want any recognition; I just said I would prove it if openly challenged. If someone wants to quietly doubt that such a PM happened, then that's perfectly fine with me.

Your speculation is correct. And...I was wrong, but that's because I thought the meetup would be sooner. There's no way he doesn't CYA just in case he ends up losing in front of Wizard. Of course, he wouldn't have lost any credibility if he had as long as the other stuff was reported to be accurate.

I still feel that MDawg only stood to gain from the whole thing. -EV play more than covered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I haven't even seen a good 5 + 6 play in years.

---

Here's a unicorn from November of 2020.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Never donate to Charity.

---

That's some of the best advice I've ever seen on VCT.

---

Bible = Good
Organized Religion/Charity = The Devil

Tableplay,

Nice! I don't know the play points for Fever, are they about the same?

The must-hits and all of the vulture machines started coming in right around the time that QHP was starting to become less popular, so I basically ignored the other variations of the game, for the most part. I still looked at the QHP because I knew if it was good (enough for me) at a glance, but I don't like getting married to a progressive when there are a bunch of quick turnaround machines all over the place.

That's why I played Harley way higher than most other entry points. Opportunity cost. I'm not going to potentially get married to Harley for two hours for a 50 count on the Mini. I could miss one Golden Egypt play with more value (along with other plays) in that time that would take me under a minute.

Another thing is the Disney movie in India and a game with the same name as a popular phone game were there during much of this time. The game with the popular phone game name was a gold mine. There's no way I was getting tied to something long and missing a play on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I don't want any recognition; I just said I would prove it if openly challenged.

---

LOL...really? Who would have challenged you if you had not brought it up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

LOL...really? Who would have challenged you if you had not brought it up?

---

Oh, I get your point now. You used the word, "Recognition," in an unusual way. I thought you were using it to mean that I wanted other people to openly acknowledge and appreciate me. I don't care if I'm acknowledged or appreciated by other people---being right about what I say is its own reward.

Quote:

---

I don't care if I'm acknowledged or appreciated by other people---being right about what I say is its own reward.

---

Pretty pompous there, old boy, and it leads to a somewhat thorny question: how can you truthfully say you are "right" about anything?

If people disagree, and you can always find someone to disagree, how then can the "winner" be objectively determined?

Similar conumdrum to that faced by Pirsig in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" when he examined the notion of "quality."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

I don't care if I'm acknowledged or appreciated by other people---being right about what I say is its own reward.

---

Pretty pompous there, old boy, and it leads to a somewhat thorny question: how can you truthfully say you are "right" about anything?

If people disagree, and you can always find someone to disagree, how then can the "winner" be objectively determined?

Similar conumdrum to that faced by Pirsig in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" when he examined the notion of "quality."

---

I'm pretty pompous, if you hadn't noticed. I've definitely got a touch of the intellectual arrogance.

Anyway, this one is pretty objective. I predicted something and it came to fruition. I did not simultaneously predict the antithesis of that thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

You used the word, "Recognition," in an unusual way.

---

You are incorrect, sir.

What other predictions about this MDawg challenge are you sandbagging?

Will you only reveal the correct ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Never donate to Charity.

---

That's some of the best advice I've ever seen on VCT.

---

Bible = Good
Organized Religion/Charity = The Devil

---

Well said. Same with your advice about giving directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Tableplay,

Nice! I don't know the play points for Fever, are they about the same?

The must-hits and all of the vulture machines started coming in right around the time that QHP was starting to become less popular, so I basically ignored the other variations of the game, for the most part. I still looked at the QHP because I knew if it was good (enough for me) at a glance, but I don't like getting married to a progressive when there are a bunch of quick turnaround machines all over the place.

That's why I played Harley way higher than most other entry points. Opportunity cost. I'm not going to potentially get married to Harley for two hours for a 50 count on the Mini. I could miss one Golden Egypt play with more value (along with other plays) in that time that would take me under a minute.

Another thing is the Disney movie in India and a game with the same name as a popular phone game were there during much of this time. The game with the popular phone game name was a gold mine. There's no way I was getting tied to something long and missing a play on that.

---

That's a good point Mission. I too try and take out the short cycle plays (UX,GE,OM,Scarab,WP,etc.) as well before looking for non-must-hit longer cycle plays (Farmville,BD,QH, etc.). As far as entry point on QHF (85% RTP), about the same is accurate (~$40 on the 5 with no card benefits at 85% RTP - obviously you can go lower if you're throwing a card at it that has a daily free play for points threshold). I would say the cycle for either a bonus round or a progressive is 65 spins on QHF. This is actually the cycle I look at: either a bonus round or progressive as opposed to only looking at the progressive cycle (about 95 spins on average for any progressive on QHF at 85% RTP) .

Cheers, TP.

Congratulations, Mdawg on your Adventures Of Mdawg on WOV surpassing my Nathan's Corner on WOV! :D My Nathan's Corner has 455, yours is currently 458. :) This congratulatory post could go in BOTH here and the WOV Thread on VCT! :D You clearly are the New Me on WOV! :D

Mission146...
You need to reassess your million dollar thinking.
I've been there.
It's a very common misconception.
I have so many clever things to say but simply put your formula always ends with ERROR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tasha

Congratulations, Mdawg on your Adventures Of Mdawg on WOV surpassing my Nathan's Corner on WOV! :D My Nathan's Corner has 455, yours is currently 458. :) This congratulatory post could go in BOTH here and the WOV Thread on VCT! :D You clearly are the New Me on WOV! :D

---

That's ugly.
Tasha Double Dipping on you now.

Well, some IDIOT "New Member," named Frauddawg is already ragging and dragging on Mdawg on WOV... Just his NAME is banworthy...What's the Over/Under on Frauddawg being BANNED by tomorrow? I think its Over in more ways than one for Frauddawg....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tasha

Well, some IDIOT "New Member," named Frauddawg is already ragging and dragging on Mdawg on WOV... Just his NAME is banworthy...What's the Over/Under on Frauddawg being BANNED by tomorrow? I think its Over in more ways than one for Frauddawg....

---

Seriously, do you really think this person is worried about being banned? You say the dumbest things.

And no fraud Mdawg is not me. Just reading it, I thought jeez, people are going to think that is me. I probably would have thought that if I didn't know that it wasn't. But I do think it is great. I don't usually like the idea of sockpuppets, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander, or whatever the saying is. So 3 loud cheers from the peanut gallery for fraud Mdawg, telling it like it is. And he is right about the loss rebate. Not how it works today, maybe 10-15 years ago, but not today at that level. Just ANOTHER piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit. Given enough rope these guys always hang themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tasha

Well, some IDIOT "New Member," named Frauddawg is already ragging and dragging on Mdawg on WOV... Just his NAME is banworthy...What's the Over/Under on Frauddawg being BANNED by tomorrow? I think its Over in more ways than one for Frauddawg....

---

Seriously, do you really think this person is worried about being banned? You say the dumbest things.

And no fraud Mdawg is not me. Just reading it, I thought jeez, people are going to think that is me. I probably would have thought that if I didn't know that it wasn't. But I do think it is great. I don't usually like the idea of sockpuppets, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander, or whatever the saying is. So 3 loud cheers from the peanut gallery for fraud Mdawg, telling it like it is. And he is right about the loss rebate. Not how it works today, maybe 10-15 years ago, but not today at that level. Just ANOTHER piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit. Given enough rope these guys always hang themselves.

---

I never said Frauddawg was worried about being banned. I just pointed out he most likely will be banned by tomorrow. It is clear that Frauddawg is NOT a Legitimate Newbie... Legitimate Newbies don't usually sink their claws into Longer Time Members....

I never thought Frauddawg was you....

These guys keep bringing up Don Johnson and his loss rebates. While that always been widely documented, he did not need them. He was playing with "top blackjack pros" and had a huge edge to begin with. Dig around the internet a bit and you'll find the true story of how he crushed those casinos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

These guys keep bringing up Don Johnson and his loss rebates. While that always been widely documented, he did not need them. He was playing with "top blackjack pros" and had a huge edge to begin with. Dig around the internet a bit and you'll find the true story of how he crushed those casinos.

---

It's to my understanding that he DID take a few loss rebates. But I agree, for the most part, he beat the game "str8 up" without the rebates.

Just sooo many pieces to the puzzle that don't fit. More and more every day.

I used this analogy before, but did you ever go visit someone in a retirement home, or Veteran's hospital or home? You start putting together the jigsaw puzzle and realize half the pieces don't fit and aren't even for that puzzle. Here are two pieces that fit together, brown and green. Looks like part of a tree. Problem is that it is a puzzle of the space shuttle in outer space. That is what we are dealing with here. You always have a few numb skulls, like coach belly that try to force pieces together that don't fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

These guys keep bringing up Don Johnson and his loss rebates. While that always been widely documented, he did not need them. He was playing with "top blackjack pros" and had a huge edge to begin with. Dig around the internet a bit and you'll find the true story of how he crushed those casinos.

---

It's to my understanding that he DID take a few loss rebates. But I agree, for the most part, he beat the game "str8 up" without the rebates.

---

He may have used some, but as mentioned, he didn't need them. Just like Ivey, he was just the middleman with the large bankroll.

I read that the casinos gave him fifty grand a day "show up money."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

I read that the casinos gave him fifty grand a day "show up money."

---

Pretty much the same as giving the plebs $10 in slot free play per week.

Perhaps, but given the extended length of his play (many, many sessions over many days) it certainly added to his advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

These guys keep bringing up Don Johnson and his loss rebates. While that always been widely documented, he did not need them. He was playing with "top blackjack pros" and had a huge edge to begin with. Dig around the internet a bit and you'll find the true story of how he crushed those casinos.

---

It's to my understanding that he DID take a few loss rebates. But I agree, for the most part, he beat the game "str8 up" without the rebates.

---

He may have used some, but as mentioned, he didn't need them. Just like Ivey, he was just the middleman with the large bankroll.

---

I agree. DickWeedDawg claimed he never used any. When I asked him about that claim, he pulled the good old... I'm not responding to your post trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Perhaps, but given the extended length of his play (many, many sessions over many days) it certainly added to his advantage.

---

Certainly. I don't think anyone will dispute that.

The whole point was, the general public thinks DJ and his "bj HoF crew" only had the loss rebate angle when in reality, it was much more then that.

I'm not a blackjack player but I know that loss rebates aren't more than 100% of what you lose. So for someone to beat the casinos for millions they had to win millions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewG

I'm not a blackjack player but I know that loss rebates aren't more than 100% of what you lose. So for someone to beat the casinos for millions they had to win millions.

---

Looks like you aren't getting the loss rebate, Andrew. let me see if I can help.

So a player has a 50% loss rebate based on each days play.
day 1: he wins a million dollars. No rebate
day 2: he loses a million dollars. rebated $500k
day 3: he wins a million dollars. No rebate
day 4: he loses a million dollars. rebated $500k

4 day total $0 (2 wins, 2 losses of a million dollars each ) But with the two, 500k rebates, he is up a million dollars even though he won exactly $0.

Let's deal with real numbers. Don Johnson said he negotiated a 20% loss rebate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewG

I'm not a blackjack player but I know that loss rebates aren't more than 100% of what you lose. So for someone to beat the casinos for millions they had to win millions.

---

Obviously it's not that frequent but There have been 150% loss rebate promos. Alan RS_, others and I had this discussion before IIRC. it's funny since Alan was saying the same thing you are attempting to say.


Also, you dont have to actually lose to get a rebate... IF you were to rathole.


If you search out and play nice rebate promotions, you will see a profit very quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Let's deal with real numbers. Don Johnson said he negotiated a 20% loss rebate.

---

It doesn't matter. What matters is the shortness of the terms of the rebate.

I have rebates at a certain offshore. Unfortunately, it's for six months (which is actually damned good, in my book). If the rebate were weekly, I'd have them completely by the cajones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Let's deal with real numbers. Don Johnson said he negotiated a 20% loss rebate.

---

And that's all you need to have a significant advantage. There are people that travel the world looking for smaller % loss rebates deals, and they do very well.

As KJ pointed out with a simple easy to understand example that you dont have to be a winner from the game itself to make a profit, your profits come from the loss rebates. If you happen to beat the game st8 up then you will obviously make much more. However, if this is the type of thing you are doing over and over there's a good chance things will average out on the game itself, and you are left with your profits FROM THE REBATES.

None of this, or the discussion about Don Johnson matters in regards to the Mdawg situation. Only 2 things matter about that.

1). Mdawg is not playing any where near enough to qualify for a loss rebate at the high end properties he is describing. Neither is he playing anywhere near high enough to get the high-end suites he claims for weeks at a time, but I guess that is a different discussion. Lets keep this to the rebate.

2.) 55 winning sessions, through a number of trips over a number of years and no mention of a loss rebate. Only mention of winning...EVERY day. Finally he tells of us a losing, day, which everyone saw coming as cover for this "witnessing of his play" and guess what? Magically, all of the sudden there is a loss rebate. This guy is just bullshit stacked on top of bullshit. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Let's deal with real numbers. Don Johnson said he negotiated a 20% loss rebate.

---

It doesn't matter. What matters is the shortness of the terms of the rebate.

I have rebates at a certain offshore. Unfortunately, it's for six months (which is actually damned good, in my book). If the rebate were weekly, I'd have them completely by the cajones.

---

I was going to mention the online rebates since I have seen some that were up to $1,500 for 200%. I didn't want to get into the whole online debate about getting paid, fairness and whatnot. One must do their research and tests and know what they are doing when it comes to online playing and then figure out the risk vs the reward long term for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Let's deal with real numbers. Don Johnson said he negotiated a 20% loss rebate.

---

It doesn't matter. What matters is the shortness of the terms of the rebate.

I have rebates at a certain offshore. Unfortunately, it's for six months (which is actually damned good, in my book). If the rebate were weekly, I'd have them completely by the cajones.

---

I was going to mention the online rebates since I have seen some that were up to $1,500 for 200%. I didn't want to get into the whole online debate about getting paid, fairness and whatnot. One must do their research and tests and know what they are doing when it comes to online playing and then figure out the risk vs the reward long term for themselves.

---

I'm strictly betting sports, and I was happy to have found an offshore that'll give me a 25% loss rebate every six months (it's actually 12.5% because the rebate comes as free play).

If I found somewhere willing to rebate me every week or every month, I'd bet my brains out on every sport even if I didn't know what I was doing.