The WoV Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

you will go to any lengths to strip mdawg of his proven ability to win with witnesses present.

---

Rob, ANYBODY, even a clueless dolt-troll like Karen can have one winning session.

Doesn't matter if the witness was the Wiz: the hound had a close to even chance of winning that session, and he won.

Luck happens.

That certainly does nothing to prove his claims of nearly nonstop winning.

But hey, he's KJ's main antagonist and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Got it.

Now, wise up.

---

That's pretty weak V. According to the mdawg haters/disbelievers, the guy loses many more sessions than he wins. Why then would mdawg take the huge risk of having a witness be there for any given session? Kinda defeats what he set out to "prove" right?

If you're not getting it yet, OBVIOUSLY mdawg wins far more sessions than he loses. And that's the only reason he agreed to having a witness present.

Compare that to the chickenshit known as kew. No one knows him after his many years as a self-professed "AP". He's been caught in an inordinate amount of lies. His biggest lies are those he likes to think happen to real professional gamblers. And he's been seen playing the same level bj as LV homeless people do as soon as they get their welfare checks.

You picked a real winner, V.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Why then would mdawg take the huge risk of having a witness be there for any given session? Kinda defeats what he set out to "prove" right?

---

Why? How about because they were both PAID! You have conveniently omitted that little detail. It was a free roll for both parties, Dawg and Wizard.

DarkOz put up the money as part of an ill-conceived challenge. Wizard was paid as the witness no matter what happened. All Dawg had to do to get his share was have a winning session witnessed by wizard, which he could have easily done...greater than 90% chance, just by playing a small martingale.

I take Wizard at his word that he witnessed Dawg have a small winning session. But we really don't know do we? The two could have just said Mdawg has a winning session and split the entire money. Wizards guaranteed free roll money increases and Dawg goes from a 90% likelihood to 100% of getting a share of the free roll money.

And in the aftermath, Wizard refuses by legal contract to say what he witnessed. How convenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

There are two reasons why UNKewlJ’s stories are so bland and generic. One is because he’s lying. He can’t flesh out what he never did and simply lifted from what he read or heard. The second is that he has all the personality of a wooden rocking chair and couldn’t come up with much interesting to say period.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

You picked a real winner, V.

---

Thanks, but I can't say I ever "picked" KJ over the hound; given what the two have posted I never had the inclination to accept the hound's claims as being factual.

It was never much of a contest, actually.

My read: KJ has lied, whereas the hound lies.

Who cares one way or the other?

If he’s a winning player more power to him.

If he’s a losing player more power to him for getting everyone fired up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Why then would mdawg take the huge risk of having a witness be there for any given session? Kinda defeats what he set out to "prove" right?

---

Why? How about because they were both PAID! You have conveniently omitted that little detail. It was a free roll for both parties, Dawg and Wizard.

DarkOz put up the money as part of an ill-conceived challenge. Wizard was paid as the witness no matter what happened. All Dawg had to do to get his share was have a winning session witnessed by wizard, which he could have easily done...greater than 90% chance, just by playing a small martingale.

I take Wizard at his word that he witnessed Dawg have a small winning session. But we really don't know do we? The two could have just said Mdawg has a winning session and split the entire money. Wizards guaranteed free roll money increases and Dawg goes from a 90% likelihood to 100% of getting a share of the free roll money.

And in the aftermath, Wizard refuses by legal contract to say what he witnessed. How convenient.

---

Was there a time limit or exact number of hands MDawg had to play? Or was he just allowed to quit when he was ahead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

But I do know this, it is routine for tewlj to make shit up on the fly to push his false narratives. He'd rather climb to the top of a tree just to tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth. So I call into question the "facts" tewlj attributed to MDawg's posts.

I don't have time to do it but I bet if I went over to WoV and read MDawg's thread, what MDawg actually wrote, and what tewlj says he wrote, are probably vastly different.

---

The MDawg Challenge was done before I started playing big enough to warrant my own private tables, set up exactly the way I wanted them set up, for my Advantage.

https://i.imgur.com/KjBlHT0h.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/uZSkgXdh.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

MDawg Challenge[/URL] was done before I started playing big enough to warrant my own private tables, set up exactly the way I wanted them set up, for my Advantage.

---

This "set up exactly the way I wanted them" is a new claim, I haven't read before. Sounds kind of Don Johnson-esque. :rolleyes: Singer stole the double up bug claim from Kane and Nester (once it hit the news). Sounds like you are stealing at least this idea from Don Johnson's story.

But here the problem. If casinos gave you something special in terms of rules and conditions, and you won EVERY day or almost EVERY day, as you claim, how long do you think they would allow that? days? weeks? Not every day for 7 months as you claim occurred a few years ago and certainly not for 5 years now as this story has been going on for.

Do you know how long Don Johnson got those special terms in AC before they pulled the plug? Most accounts say he won 15 million over a 6 month period at 3 different casinos. But it really was about a months play at each casino, one after the other with a break in between. A month! and I am surprised each let it go THAT long.

You have been claiming this for 5 years now and at one point 7 months of daily play, winning almost every day. (that was the stretch Mission146 added up). You can post silly quotes and have Rob post your talking points all you want, but no casino is going to allow a player to win like you claim. THAT is the bottom line. And THAT is where your little adventure story falls apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

UNKewlJ has remained consistent in being

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

the king of lying

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

But I do know this, it is routine for tewlj to make shit up on the fly to push his false narratives. He'd rather climb to the top of a tree just to tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth. So I call into question the "facts" tewlj attributed to MDawg's posts.

I don't have time to do it but I bet if I went over to WoV and read MDawg's thread, what MDawg actually wrote, and what tewlj says he wrote, are probably vastly different.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Was there a time limit or exact number of hands MDawg had to play? Or was he just allowed to quit when he was ahead?

---

There was a minimum of 57 hands, no max. So if he wasn't a head at 57 hands, he could keep playing until he was.

---

I have raised the possibility of collusion between dawg and Wizard since they were the only two involved in this challenge, dawg as player and Wizard as the witness. they could have just said dawg won that session and split the money offered up by Darkoz.

But I hope that is not what happened. I take Wizard at his word that he witnessed a small winning session. Whether Dawg martingaled that session to give himself a high probability of a small winning session and winning the challenge money, we don't know because Wizard the witness isn't allow to say what he witnessed. Mdawg had wizard sign a NDA to not discuss what he saw. What kind of "witness" is that? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

A high pitched soft whine, ever rising in frequency and volume.

---

https://i.imgur.com/3nmNeg9m.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzy

I don't whine like a fairy and have my panties in a bunch, like a repetitive whining UNKOOL poster.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

But I do know this, it is routine for tewlj to make shit up on the fly to push his false narratives. He'd rather climb to the top of a tree just to tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth. So I call into question the "facts" tewlj attributed to MDawg's posts.

I don't have time to do it but I bet if I went over to WoV and read MDawg's thread, what MDawg actually wrote, and what tewlj says he wrote, are probably vastly different.

---

---

Still remains....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

You can post silly quotes and have Rob post your talking points all you want, but no casino is going to allow a player to win like you claim. THAT is the bottom line. And THAT is where your little adventure story falls apart.

---

Methinks the hound's empire is built on sand.

This bozo continues to stress the fact that he "won" the challenge as if it actually serves to corroborate his claims of massive gambling conquest for many months at a time: it certainly does not.

Boiled down: he played at least 57 hands, and at the end of this ONE SESSION of play he was ahead.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't he have a close to even chance of pulling that off anyway?

As I said; "Luck happens" and is most prominently on display in the short run, as seems to have been the case here.

At the end of the day, nothing ever changes with this nonsense. There ARE players that win long-term from casinos. They are called advantage players and they are doing something that gives them a mathematical (sometimes very small) advantage, which will turn into long-term winnings. YOU, dawg have never been able to explain anything that would give you a mathematical advantage explaining the 5 years of winnings.

And these advantage players at table games that do win, of which I am one, have to do things like play unrated, move around a lot, trying to hide as best we can or at least make it harder for casinos to track our play, because they will just not allow a player to sit there and win like you claim day after day.

THIS is where your little story falls apart. It is just not how long-term winning play work. It is as improbably as 18 y.o. in a row or Jack magic beans turning into a bean stalk stretching to the heavens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Methinks the hound's empire is built on sand.

This bozo continues to stress the fact that he "won" the challenge as if it actually serves to corroborate his claims of massive gambling conquest for many months at a time: it certainly does not.

Boiled down: he played at least 57 hands, and at the end of this ONE SESSION of play he was ahead.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't he have a close to even chance of pulling that off anyway?

As I said; "Luck happens" and is most prominently on display in the short run, as seems to have been the case here.

---

It is worse than that MrV. If you remember, at GFs, he kept posting a little banner that his claims were "Wizard verified". This was during the 7 month period where he was posting his daily claims of winning on multiple forums. "Wizard Verified" as if Wizard verified each days claims, when in fact wizard had only verified one small session as part of a challenge. One of the most dishonest and misleading things I have seen.

And it only stopped when several people made Wizard aware of what Mdawg was doing and Wizard forced him to stop.

Everything this guys does and says, all the manipulating of things said, all the PMing people talking points, all the deflections including attacks on people, all the chips and cash spread out on beds supposed to infer winning when they in no way do. Even the Casino checks which doesn't mean what he claims they mean....it is all part of and tools of a scam. Because this guy is a scammer.

Dunno if he's a "scammer," KJ, at least as I define the term: to me, a scammer scams via falsehood to get money or a tangible thing of value from others.

I don't see this dissembler getting anything TANGIBLE for his efforts from we the readers who are exposed to his drivel; no, I wouldn't call him a "scammer."

I would call him a liar who has self-esteem issues and creates a false story about himself to make him feel better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't he have a close to even chance of pulling that off anyway?

---

Yes absolutely. But employing a small martingale could bump that up to 80-90% chance of showing such a short-term win. THAT has always been the suspicious of myself and many others, even before that free-roll challenge that Darkoz provided took place.

And guess what? the only way we would know is if the one witness was to say what he saw and surprise surprise...Mdawg had him sign a NDA not to. :cool:

What is the point of having a supposedly neutral witness sign a NDA?

Hello, SlipperySslope; greetings, Intent to Deceive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Dunno if he's a "scammer," KJ, at least as I define the term: to me, a scammer scams via falsehood to get money or a tangible thing of value from others.

I don't see this dissembler getting anything TANGIBLE for his efforts from we the readers who are exposed to his drivel; no, I wouldn't call him a "scammer."

I would call him a liar who has self-esteem issues and creates a false story about himself to make him feel better.

---

To me, he is stealing MrV. He is stealing from the real players that doing something mathematical to be able to win, and put in the time and effort and work, and RISK to do so.