Please correct your statement. I made no such comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
Printable View
Please correct your statement. I made no such comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
Most AP who brag about their winning are met with two types of vitriol
1) You aren't a successful AP because AP's don't talk about their success.
2) You are a success so shut your piehole.
If MDAWG is doing an advantage play he has chosen to go a third route which is report his winning and trips but brag they aren't AP.
It seems like he would have been heckled regardless.
I still don't understand why anyone cares about his posts since he doesn't reveal his methodology for winning. If he revealed his methodology there would be something to discuss. Because he reveals nothing what is there to discuss? He might as well say he traveled to the moon on a private rocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkoz
It's a complete train wreck, with him dragging Mike down the rabbit hole with him.
Glad I blocked Mdouche long ago; reading what others write about him confirms the wisdom of my action.
"If you can't bowl em over with your brilliance, baffle em with your bullshit" ... case in point.
First of all, let me say I have no issue with you or your involvement in this. You stepped in and put up the money when someone else pulled out. Good for you. Personally, I don't think money should have been involved. That was only going to taint things. Open up the door for possible collusion. Maybe it did for all we know. Hopefully not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkoz
Let's take the opposite of what happened. Back when you stepped in, you seemed to have serious doubts about Mdawgs claims, as some of us still do. So what if Mike had witnessed Mdawg play and revealed that what he was claiming simply couldn't be true. And then later it was revealed that you and Mike had previous financial deal in which you paid him for services. Mdoggy would have then been screaming that Mike wasn't a fair judge because he had financial ties to you. THAT is exactly why people reveal these kinds of things upfront.
So we are past that now, lets move on. Someone (mission) asked why I didn't make the deal to suit me. I DID! What I wanted to see was Mike witness Mdawgs play, possibly with 1 or 2 other witnesses, to ensure no collusion between Mdawg and Mike and then Mike issue his expert opinion as to whether these claims were possible. I thought this only fair since Wizard had provided (and still does) the platform for these claims. So I worked on that both publicly and privately with Mike last fall. Mike has a real "I just don't care about things" attitude these days, especially concerning WoV, so it took some working on my part to get him interested.
Finally, in December, Wizard made that "time to put up or shut up" announcement. Mike said he would witness Mdawgs play, no money involved to influence anything and then Mike would give his expert opinion. PERFECT! And then Mdawg started bending Mike's ear privately, and it all fell apart.
I mean here's the thing: If Mdawgs claims are what he says, and he is able to beat Baccarat in a way no one else can, he should have wanted to prove all the doubters wrong. And he could have done so by just showing Mike and maybe one other witness (I was thinking Axel at the time). Mdawg should have jumped at my proposal and it was my proposal that Mike finally announced. That he instead talked Mike out of it in private, is pretty revealing.
AND then 4 months later accepted a similar agreement for a $2000 profit. Like I said, the introduction of money only taints everything. But the big question is why would the $2000 make a difference. the guy is claiming to make hundreds of thousands. yet $2000 made a difference if he was going to allow Mike to witness or not? :confused:
And finally, I don't know what kind of agreement Mike and Mdawg made, but the original Idea was Mike would witness the play and give his expert opinion if the claims were possible. Instead, came up with "I agreed not to talk about it". What the fuck! The whole thing was supposed to be about Mike issuing his expert opinion.
I don't know what others would have done and you are "supposing" here, but speaking only for me, this is how it went. When I finally had the opportunity to engage Mdawg when he came to this forum, about a year into his claims, as I have stated, I repeatedly asked if there was something he was doing to play with an advantage and he repeatedly said "no". I was very careful and not combative and used phrase like "as you are telling it" or "as you are stating it" it can't be. At one point I even asked if he was intentionally leaving something out that he didn't want to reveal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkoz
So if he had said "yes, I am doing something that gives me an advantage, but can't or don't want to reveal it", there would have been not a further peep from me. I am not sure I would have personally believed him, but there would have been no public challenges from me. There are lots of players making claims that I don't believe, that I don't say much. It is when what they ARE saying defies the math that I have a problem.
So if he started this off with me, with a direct lie answer to my question, and that lead to all the drama of the last year....that is on him. he owes me an apology.
And one final thought: lets look at the history of WoV.
People like Rob Singer making claims that defy math (or are super extremely unlikely) and they have been challenged by membership including Wizard.
People coming in with martingales which happens almost every week and they are immediately challenged by membership, including Wizard.
Even Alan and 18 y.o.'s in a row, at every mention, challenged by membership including Wizard.
But Mdawgs claims, Wizard suddenly goes silent and numerous members including myself were suspended multiple times and finally I was restricted from the thread in question, meaning unable to continue to challenge.
Can someone tell me why the change? I mean if this is the way it is, and it is no longer about gambling math, but instead about forum traffic, then Singer should be invited back and protected. Alan should get an apology and no one be allowed to challenge his 18 y.o. in a row.
I think you hit it: "forum traffic," with perhaps a bit of disenchantment thrown into the mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
It is probable that having sold the site to others, Mike no longer has such a personal interest in "his baby."
Although seemingly contractually required to head the forum it seems he is "phoning it in" so to speak, at least more than pre-sale.
Which is to be expected and not harshly condemned, human nature being what it is.
I suspect the increased forum traffic warms the cockles of his heart more than the satisfaction of exposing a fraud did in days gone by; why should he care, it's no longer his baby, and perhaps his priorities have changed.
Life has a way of doing that to you.
He got his marching orders from the east where understandably they care only about the Benjamins, which in the case of WoV means increased forum traffic.
Then again I could be completely wrong, maybe Mike is just mind-fucking us.
That's right...you don't know what others would have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
But that still didn't stop you from imagining what others would have done,
and presenting your imagination as a factual basis for whatever point you tried to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
MFraud has said many times that he is beating a negative game. If there were something extra giving him an edge then he wouldn't be playing a negative game. So he would be lying about playing a negative game.
I can see how and why KewlJ gets banned everywhere, he is a pain in the ass nagger. Captain Yououghttado. Everyone else is looking forward and he is complaining about dirt on the concrete and the grass is 1/4" inch too long.
Ok, I want to talk about this dude Moraine, at WoV, who is attempting to re-invent the wheel with a blackjack count that only counts 10, J, Q, K, A.
Those are the only cards any of us card counters are really interested in. No one really cars about 3's and 4's. ;) We want to know if there is a surplus of 10 value cards and aces, which make up the 150% payout of a blackjack and make double downs more successful. It really is that simple.
Unfortunately just counting 10 value and aces doesn't give you all the information you need. You need to know if there are more or less of these cards than a 'normal' or neutral deck. There are two ways to do this. The easiest is to pick a second group of cards to offset the five 10 value cards and ace, either the same number of cards (balanced count) or slightly more (unbalanced count with pivot point). So that is what Hi-lo does.
The second way is ratio's. You can track only the five cards in question as this Moraine is suggesting measuring again normal ratio's of 5/13 or 20/52 for each deck. You start talking about multiple decks, 6, 8 and this ratio method is much harder than the Hi-Lo offset method, for most players, myself included. That is why we do the offset. Easier and gets the same information. Like I and others have said the guy is trying to re-invent the wheel. :rolleyes:
Now on of the arguments that these guys always make and this moraine made today, is that any count or method of counting that isn't Hi-Lo is beneficial because the EITS (surveillance) uses Hi-Lo for evaluations. So any method used that differs from Hi-Lo will provide some longevity. This is completely wrong in 2021. Maybe in the early 2000's this was so, but today evaluations are done by computers, not some guy up above counting down using Hi-Lo. So they have perfect effect of removal, which means if you are using a count slightly stronger than Hi-Lo, you will correlate with the computer even more often, which will result in the complete opposite effect of shorter longevity, not longer.
Some of these guys crack me up, trying to re-invent what works and doesn't, even though it has been proven over and over. Give this moraine character a couple more years and he will conclude that the wheel is working just fine and Hi-Lo is the way to go. :D And kudos to a couple people trying hard to explain it all to him, while he responds with attitude and name calling.
WIZARD APPROVED!
Now what Fuckers??
Trash MDawg... that's fine but your best buddy pal, the Wizard of Odds, is obviously in his corner.
And continues to promote MDawg and his stories/posts/threads.
MDawg Story/Picture True or Not... I do not care but many of you love the Wizard and he has proven time and time again that he supports MDawg.
So stick up for your pal.
He'd do it for you.
That's what friends are for!
AxelWolf is one of those big time pals and promoters of the Wizard... is he not??
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...42/#post807388
"Let the record show MDawg has privately shared with me an image of a casino cage check marked "Verified Win," dated very recently (late May 2021), that is low six figures."
- Quoted by Michael Shackleford, who is known as the Wizard of Odds, on this 23rd day of our Lord, in the Year of Two Thousand and Twenty One -
Not sure what is going on and don't really care. I guess Wizard is MDawg's puppet now. Maybe the Dog showed him how to mind meld with the baccarat deck. This shit is gettin' stupider by the day....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by monet
Gotta love it though. :)
I know Mike is your friend, but he can be a little gullible. And people can and do "play" him. I know he takes offense when I say that, but it has been proven to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenNot sure what is going on and don't really care. I guess Wizard is MDawg's puppet now. Maybe the Dog showed him how to mind meld with the baccarat deck. This shit is gettin' stupider by the day....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by monet
Gotta love it though. :)
Some of these guys are very good at what they do, showing pictures of high end jewelry, chips, stacks of cash, a high end RV with one guy. The level of narcissism is off the charts.
I hope, I really do, that Mike has been duped and played, because the only other possibility is that he is complicit in this.
I concur 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI know Mike is your friend, but he can be a little gullible. And people can and do "play" him. I know he takes offense when I say that, but it has been proven to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenNot sure what is going on and don't really care. I guess Wizard is MDawg's puppet now. Maybe the Dog showed him how to mind meld with the baccarat deck. This shit is gettin' stupider by the day....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by monet
Gotta love it though. :)
Some of these guys are very good at what they do, showing pictures of high end jewelry, chips, stacks of cash, a high end RV with one guy. The level of narcissism is off the charts.
I hope, I really do, that Mike has been duped and played, because the only other possibility is that he is complicit in this.
Why would the Wiz ever in the real world want to be "complicit" with the claims of douchedawg?
What's in it for the Wiz?
The notion that might be held by conspiracy theorists that the Wiz is being paid a lot of money in order to vouche for this braying jackass defies credulity.
Nor do I suspect the Wiz would pander to this jerkoff in order to get more forum traffic; what the hell would he care, he sold the forum years ago.
Apparently this statement is being held out to be very significant:
"Let the record show MDawg has privately shared with me an image of a casino cage check marked "Verified Win," dated very recently (late May 2021), that is low six figures."
A memo on a check that says "verified win" does not necessarily mean the same thing as a player hitting a jackpot and getting a check for the jackpot amount.
In this case "verified win" could just be a return of the player's money from his own account.
The ONLY way to know is to CALL the casino cage in question and ask about their procedures.
"Verified win" might just be an accounting code for return of the player's own cash deposit, or money wired in.
I raised this point before and Mr Mdawg insists that the words "Verified win" means a profit. Sorry, I would not vouch for that unless I spoke to the cage and they verified that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
MrV, here's a question or two, "Has Shackleford ever actually in-the-field evaluated a tables game gambling claim or procedure and reported on it? Has he ever debunked an in-the-field table games gambling claim?"
I honestly don't know as I'm not a WoV aficionado, so I would be curious as to whether there are written reports on the forum regarding table games play evaluation in the field. I know years ago Shackleford reported on a video poker session with Singer, but video poker is a much easier evaluation and report. It's cut and dried and no other humans are involved.
As to motive, not everything in life is material (like hot babes, which some folks seem preoccupied with). But note that Wizard accepted $500 for no good reason to watch MDawg play, which seemed ridiculous, given that his claims are all over the site. Why not just volunteer for the good of the readership? And I did notice when it came to a recent requested game math analysis, Wizard said that it was the kind of thing he usually does for money. Now it's okay for that to be true, but why announce it on the site? Just say you don't have the time or something. It reads like your fishing for a gig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
I agree with Andrew. For example, a check for winnings in the WSOP could be memo'ed "Verified Win," and that certainly doesn't account for the cost of entering. The same could be true in this case.
Plus, just being practical and real-world about it, if you lose your ass to a casino over time, I would think a host would bend over backwards to get you a "Verified Winnings" memo line that you could show family and friends who might not approve of your gambling debauchery. I would think that kind of memo would be a commonplace cover that helps both the player and the host.
For the record, back when MDawg and I were on better terms, I told him publicly and privately that I had no real problem with someone doing message massaging on forums to keep family and friends who don't approve of their gambling off their back. If he wanted to create a kind of ongoing log that demonstrated some wins instead of losses, I'm cool with that. But when he went in the 40 out of 41 and "reading the flow of cards" direction, I told him he was way out of line and he was shooting himself in the foot if he was trying to convince family he was winning.
Would you be willing to meet MDawg to verify the meaning of the check's memo at the cage?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
This "let the record show..." statement by Wizard has little meaning. Last year after Wizard did the interview with Rob Singer (that Singer flubbed badly), Wizard announced "Rob Singer sent me these pictures of his RV" and posted the pictures. That was equally non committal by Wizard. And those pictures were easily and quickly thoroghly debunked. Here we are not even getting to see the image sent. Wizard is just saying "let the record show Mdawg sent this".
But this does go to this constant behind the scene attempt by Mdawg to manipulate and influence Wizard.
A couple posts above MrV asked "what is in it for wiz?" I think sometimes Mike just gets tired of being hounded in private by these guys and just gives in. I think he did it back when Mike admits Norm was hounding him many times a day with PM's and emails. I think he did the same thing with me recently when Mdawg was hounding him to restrict me from the thread (something that has never been done at WoV). I think Mike just gets worn out by these guys and their hounding him privately.
Someone should ask Mike how often Mdawg contacts him privately, demanding suspensions, or restrictions, or this or that, or wanting Mike to say this or that on his behalf?
It all comes back to one thing. If these claims and this Mdawg "story" were true or even close to being true, there would be no need for all this attempted behind the scenes manipulation and these tantrums that people aren't believing it.
Why must there be a need for those things? Isn't his preference enough to post whatever he wants?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Nobody needs to read your ridiculous theories and concoctions, do you need to post them?
"One dealer and pit boss the other day were saying though, how "rare" of a player I am, that I am both winning currently and a lifetime winner. But then that's the Adventures of MDawg. What kind of an adventure would it be if I were losing?"
Above is a rather interesting quote from Mdawg (page 538 of the Mdawg thread, time stamped 5/20 8:24am for coach belly who wants to know where everything came from). Take note of "What kind of adventure would it be if I were losing". That tells you everything you need to know about this who ordeal. It is about creating the illusion of winning.
Now here is a quote from 5/20 11:07am. "Every time I win, I shove the large denominations of the winner's chips into the zippered pouch of the winner's envelope and put it in a hotel safety deposit box, and cash out the under 100 sums, in ones and fives, to use as tips."
At this point, I don't think anyone is dsputing Mdawg is a big player. I will admit, I didn't think so earlier and have been proven wrong. The dispute is about all the winning and rarely any losing. So on winning days he shoves the chips in a bag rather than cashing out. And then presto...today he cashed out all those chips, received a check for 100 grand which he sent an image of to Wizard to again create the illusion of a massive win. The manipulation never ends.
Just fuck you coach belly. I am just tired of your trolling. The forum owner here labled you a troll and that you argue for the sake of arguing. He said that you don't even believe most of what you argue. I don't think there is any question of that, so just fuck off.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWhy must there be a need for those things? Isn't his preference enough to post whatever he wants?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Nobody needs to read your ridiculous theories and concoctions, do you need to post them?
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWould you be willing to meet MDawg to verify the meaning of the check's memo at the cage?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWould you be willing to meet MDawg to verify the meaning of the check's memo at the cage?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
Pardon my table games naivete, but how could the cage possibly know whether someone won or lost on a particular day?
I don't know much of anything about table games, but it seems as if the cage would have to go through every video of every table game to ascertain if cash was used to buy in at any given table. Then the cage would have to verify that no stashed chips (used frequently by blackjack and poker players) from previous visits were inserted into the equation. If this is incorrect, please lay it out for me.
And, since I have gotten casino checks in the past not quite the size of MDawg's but in the ballpark, I actually have some experience with requesting notations. And my experiences have been very interesting. Before relating my experiences, which might indeed be different from MDawg's but are certainly valid examples, I'll let coach offer some of his theories to see if he gets anything correct.
He can't cash out chips without paying his markers off first.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
The transactions at the table are entered into a computer by the pit personnel,Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
and the agents in the cage have access to that information.
Markers, cash, chips....everything is noted by the table supervisors,
they are constantly reconciling the rack with the drops and the chips on the felt.
Who cares what the forum owner thinks?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
That would be correct if except for what about cash? The guy shows up with a bundle of cash, which he even shows us. You don't know when he buys in for cash, or when he buys in for cash after losing a marker, so at this point he is just moving money, chips, markers around, manipulating different things to appear as he wants things to appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyHe can't cash out chips without paying his markers off first.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Who doesn't know? The table games supervisors enter and track all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Don't they enter your buy-ins where you play?
Exactly. So lets say he wins 8100 on a particular day. Mdawg himself said he stuffs 8000 in chips in a bag. You do that for a month on winning days (nothing to stuff on losing days that he makes no mention of) and all of the sudden he has a bag stuffed with 100k in chips. Yes the casino knows he hasn't cashed out those chips yet. So what? So today he cashes out those chips and receives a check. What kind of notation will that check have? Winnings right?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyThe transactions at the table are entered into a computer by the pit personnel,Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
and the agents in the cage have access to that information.
Markers, cash, chips....everything is noted by the table supervisors,
they are constantly reconciling the rack with the drops and the chips on the felt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWho doesn't know? The table games supervisors enter and track all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Don't they enter your buy-ins where you play?
So coach, you're saying that you have to present identification and get tracked every time you buy in for cash at every table game? Wow, I did not know that, but then I have little table games experience.
I guess we sports bettors are fortunate then, since we avoid that kind of tracking. Unless we volunteer our wagers to be on our players' cards, they aren't on our players' cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWho doesn't know? The table games supervisors enter and track all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Don't they enter your buy-ins where you play?
So coach, you're saying that you have to present identification and get tracked every time you buy in for cash at every table game? Wow, I did not know that, but then I have little table games experience.
Of course not. If you did, I would have had no blackjack career.
Meanwhile, I wait with bated breath for coach's theories on what happened to me when I requested notations on my checks at various properties.
See, this is a real interesting question, because when I collected certain sports bets from the sportsbook with chips/cheques (to use the proper terminology), and then took those to the cage and requested paper checks, the cage had no idea whatsoever whether I won or lost that day, that week, or that year.
So my requests for notations should be interesting, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJQuote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
So coach, you're saying that you have to present identification and get tracked every time you buy in for cash at every table game? Wow, I did not know that, but then I have little table games experience.
Of course not. If you did, I would have had no blackjack career.
LOL. I think we have coach in a gotcha moment. Be patient. Another gotcha moment is on the way.
The casino tracks his buy-ins at the table, and what chips he has on the table while playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
When he leaves that table, they know and record how much he has won or lost.
I'm sure it's the same with your play, they may not know your name,
but they know if you won or lost and how much.
MDawg is staying at the property, they are following his adventures even more closely than you are.
We are talking about a specific player...MDawg...not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
MDawg is known to the casino...he's staying there and playing HL Bac every day for weeks at a time.
He's not hiding his identity and cannot hide his action from his hosts.
I don't believe he was required to show ID for markers he drew
in the Wizard's presence, and the Wizard confirmed that was true.
I could perhaps see the cashier scrutinizing the transaction / getting a mgr. involved if someone cashed in $100K in chips, but what if the amount was less than $10K, would that trigger any scrutiny?
Ok, coach smelly, We are going to back up a minute here. Remember me saying Mdawg mentioned an $80K win just after posting about his $68k loss? You responded that I made that up.
Page 533, time stamp 5/18 10;31 am:
Quote from Mdawg: Seriously, I mean if you give me a Baccarat shoe like the one I recently won eighty grand on, I don't even need an edge.
I'll wait for your apology.
I don't what you are talking about,Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I'm not aware that you requested any checks let alone what notations you requested.
Start an adventures thread and be as specific as MDawg, then I'll be happy to theorize.
He wrote that he won 80K on the shoe, not for the day, you dumb fucktard.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
All of his daily results are posted, there is no 80K win listed for any day,
but you lied and wrote that he did...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
So here is the thing. I noted a few days ago that Mdawg has made a curious statement that he felt like a huge 100k win was on the horizon. And no I am not going to spend an hour searching right now. BUT presto, today, he sends Wizard an image of a check for 100k with the notation 'winnings'.
Look, bottom line: I am not the smartest guy in the world. I never claimed to be and think that is probably pretty apparent. I don't even have good "gaydar" as I think most guys are gay. :rolleyes:
But I do have a strong bullshit detector and especially about claims about the casinos. I have made a living from casino play for 18 year, 12 in Vegas. I know bullshit involving casino claims when I read or hear it, just as many other proffessional players do. And this guy, Mdawg's claims are bullshit, as far as all the winning. Almost every day, of months long trips. 12 consecutive winning trips dating back to 2018, when he started posting. And his own words "a lifetime winner".
He may very well be the big player he claims, winning and losing (more overall losing) and he may get comped what he says because he is a longterm losing player, but his story as he continues to try to sell it and manipulate everything is just bullshit.
But don't take my word for it. Here is his: "What kind of an adventure would it be if I were losing?"
Your bullshit detector relies on your own lies, fabrications,Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
and dishonest misinterpretations for information.
You are a proven and admitted liar, you post more lies
every single day, and nothing you write should be believed.
The freaking owner of this forum has called you out as a troll, someone just playing games. So just fuck off troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYour bullshit detector relies on your own lies, fabrications,Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
and dishonest misinterpretations for information.
You are a proven and admitted liar, you post more lies
every single day, and nothing you write should be believed.
That is the problem with the whole MDog story. He has not fucked up by introducing an undeniable smoking gun yet. His squeegee moment will come. Just a matter of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI don't what you are talking about,Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I'm not aware that you requested any checks let alone what notations you requested.
Start an adventures thread and be as specific as MDawg, then I'll be happy to theorize.
Occasionally, coach gets his knickers in a twist regarding things he knows nothing about. And there are many things he knows nothing about.
Anyway, I can state clearly that when I have requested notations on checks from the cage and sportsbooks, with the exception of my last go round, I have been able to get a notation whenever I wanted it. The caveat was I asked people who were on good terms with me. The amounts were from 10K up to 40K. The cage or sports book is basically doing me a bookkeeping favor. And they had no blessed idea if I had won or lost that day or that trip or that year.
"Sports book winnings" or "Casino winnings" are just catchall notations.
Coach belly's implied argument that a notation on a check is some kind of "proof of winnings" for any given time period is silly. Maybe he actually believes that; who knows?
Now last time I requested a check with a notation, I was turned down, which surprised me. It's pretty clear we don't like each other at all and are in an adversarial situation, but I thought she'd do it out of common courtesy, but she shot me down because she said the amount wasn't worth her effort. I don't recall exactly the amount. It was a partial chunk of the SF to win the NFC wager from two years ago. Maybe 10K. Maybe a little less or more. Anyway, Singer had claimed on here that I was making it up, so I decided I wanted a check with the notation "NFC Title Winnings" on it. She refused because the amount was so small, and she made me take cash. I was surprised for two reasons -- the same property had, in the past, written me paper checks for similar amounts when requested, and they had notated them however I wanted.
But ownerships change, and I think she knew me, so she was less than polite. Oh well. The manager under her did copy the ticket and sign it as I requested so I could post it for Singer. I never bothered.
But every other time, people have notated whatever I requested on checks without having any idea whether I had won, lost, or danced naked in the sport book.
You just can't move on from that squeegee can you? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
It is true Mdawg hasn't had that one huge fuckup moment, but there are lots of littler ones. Enough that any reasonable person without an egenda, like coach smelly, says "yeah this is BS".
But you are right, given enough rope these guys always hang themselves. It will come.
Quick note to MDawg, I cleaned up my inbox, so there is some room if you want to PM. It is getting jammed up these days, so my apologies. Your last message didn't make it through.
I neither made nor implied any argument about notations on casino cage checks.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
But I'll wager on the following...
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to receive a CHECK from a casino for cash put into action.
That would be straight money laundering.
So a person playing roulette lets say, buys in for 10k, loses, buys in for another 10k, wins, cashes out exactly even, 20k. Takes those chips to the cage and asks for a check. He is cashing in his chips that he played with and asking for a check. That is not a problem as far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI neither made nor implied any argument about notations on casino cage checks.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
But I'll wager on the following...
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to receive a CHECK from a casino for cash put into action.
That would be straight money laundering.
By the way the money laundering has occured either way, whether he is paid by check or cash. The money laundering occured when he bought in at which point he has "laundered" the money he initially had.
Not happening. You wanna bet?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
No I don't want to bet, because I can't say I know for sure. I think I have requested a check twice and they were machine payouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNot happening. You wanna bet?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
But it seems to me it is just a currency exchange. You are exchanging currency (cash) for casino currency (chips) in order to play and then exchanging back after play is completed and I don't see why you wouldn't be able to request a check if you wanted just the same as you can request a check for a machine payout. Last year I requested a check for a pretty small payout ($8000), just because i was heading out on our boat for a couple days and didn't want the cash sitting in the car in the parking lot.
So, you are telling me that when Charles Barkley, or Michael Jorden are playing blackjack for $50,000 a hand as it has been reported and they have a winning night, maybe cahing out at $500k or a million dollars, they are paid in cash?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNot happening. You wanna bet?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
What are you thinking, that these guys buy in with suitcases full of cash?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
They pull markers, they pay their markers, and if they win then they can receive a check.
But they can't buy in for 500K in cash, break even and convert that cash to a check.
Are you sure that you know anything about how casinos work?
Can you prove that you do, because right now it sounds like you're clueless.
So they can receive a check, contrary to what you just satated.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWhat are you thinking, that these guys buy in with suitcases full of cash?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
They pull markers, they pay their markers, and if they win then they can receive a check.
Now how about this one: A guy buys in for 10 grand cash playing blackjack. Pretty common, most of us have seen that. He is playing not all that much more than I do. Sits there for a few hours and runs that up to 50k. 5 times buyin, always a good run. He cashes out. So you are telling me he can't request a check and has to walk around carrying (5) 10k bricks of cash on him? Sounds like the casino could be held responsible for the robbery he is likely to endure.
That's money laundering.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You are concealing the origin of the cash, and exchanging it
so that it appears to come from a legitimate source.
According to Nevada Gaming regulations if they won half of a million they're entitled to cash and the casinos must have cash available equal to every chip.
You do that every time you make any transaction. The second you exchange money for chips (or anything else) it is money laundering.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
They can receive a check for a casino verified win,Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
not to exchange "dropped" cash for a check.
The player who wins 40K can request a check for the winnings,
but he can't exchange 50K in cash for a check, even if he exchanges
the cash for chips, then attempts to exchange chips for a check.
That may once have been possible, but not possible now.
Ridiculous. Money laundering requires intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou do that every time you make any transaction. The second you exchange money for chips (or anything else) it is money laundering.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Entitled to it, yes. But the player certainly can request a check and I would suspect in most cases does. No one is going to want to walk around with 500k cash, 100k cash, even 30 or 40k cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
Coach belly is saying you can't request a check when cashing out chips.
Andrew, please go back and read posts #7175 and 7177 to understand what we are talking about.
Not for amounts greater than 10K.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Even multiple transactions less than 10K will be flagged as structuring.
Anyway, for the purpose of this discussion you should admit that MDawg has won,
that he has not been fabricating his daily reports, nor has he been exchanging
cash buy-ins for casino checks to create the illusion of winning.
That is not possible.
If you are so sure that he's been lying,
then take him up on his latest challenge,
should be easy money.
Just ask DO.
You are talking in circles here. This started with me saying.....well Mdawg saying he placed his winning chips in a bag each day. And I susggested he cashed in that bag today. According to you, these were all verified win, that the casino had recorded, balancing the chip rack. he just hadn't cashed them in until today. So today he cashed in those verified winning chips and requested a check, which he sent an image to wizard.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
You said he couldn't do that.
You cannot request a check unless it's a casino verified win.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You can't buy chips for cash, then cash out chips for a check without winning.
That's money laundering...they won't do it.
He won those chips, that's why he can request a check.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
If he owed markers, he would be required to pay the markers first.
If he bought in with cash, then he can request a check for the winnings (which are legit)
buy no they will not issue a check to cover his cash buy-ins.
These ARE verified wins. He won whatever amount each day and shoved it in a bag. You told me the casinos have it on record that he wonhaving balanced everything out each day. So they were just waiting for him to cash out the chips which he did today. All verified.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
He did win. These are the chips from winning days. (there are losing days also, but he doesn't mention them)Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
You are going in circles.
Coach belly, you are either completely nuts or just always being a dick. I suspect a poll would be petty lopsided as to which. I am done with you again.
I am in negotiations with MD to make this happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewGYesQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWould you be willing to meet MDawg to verify the meaning of the check's memo at the cage?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
Can you PM me on WOV?
Listen up...you are insisting that MDawg did not win the amount on the check that he showed to Shack.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You think that he could have bought in for cash, converted the cash to chips,
presented the chips at the cage, and requested a check.
That is not possible. Deal with it.
That is not what I said at all. I said those chips were from winning days. Actually, it wasn't me that daid it, it was Mdawg. let me repeat if for you and i will type slow. Those chips in that bag were from winning days. He just kept socking away the chips from winning days in the bag, while the losing days, get no mention. So now he has a bag of 100k in chips from many winning days. He cashes them out and requests a check. And the check and the notation of 'winnings' makes it look (and he claims) one big winning day, when in fact they were many smaller winning days that he had already reported.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyListen up...you are insisting that MDawg did not win the amount on the check that he showed to Shack.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You think that he could have bought in for cash, converted the cash to chips,
presented the chips at the cage, and requested a check.
That is not possible. Deal with it.
Nope...he never claimed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting what MDawg wrote.
This is why nobody believes anything that you write.
You need to come to grips with being wrong...but it must be difficult when you are always wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWhat are you thinking, that these guys buy in with suitcases full of cash?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
They pull markers, they pay their markers, and if they win then they can receive a check.
But they can't buy in for 500K in cash, break even and convert that cash to a check.
Are you sure that you know anything about how casinos work?
Can you prove that you do, because right now it sounds like you're clueless.
Technically, coach, if you think this is "how casinos work," you are wrong. Now this is what a sports bettor can do. Go to Casino A and bet 55K on Team A +7. Go to Casino B and bet 55K on Team B -6 1/2. Hope to win one and push one, but if you don't, you can request a check.
Voila. You have a check for 105K. You haven't "broken even," but you had a chance to win and push, which more than negates the stipend you're paying to execute the transactions. You've converted your non-winning wagers to a "winning" notation for 105K.
Coach, you need to broaden your horizons.
Here is the quote, word for word and where it is located.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Now here is a quote from 5/20 11:07am. "Every time I win, I shove the large denominations of the winner's chips into the zippered pouch of the winner's envelope and put it in a hotel safety deposit box, and cash out the under 100 sums, in ones and fives, to use as tips."
So he accumulated a bag of chips from winning days, which he cashed out today.
The bettor will have won from whichever casino cuts the check.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
If he bet both sides at the same store on the same account then there would be no check issued.
That's why this scenario does not apply to MDawg, whose action is at the same casino.
In your scenario I suspect that the CTRs and/or STRs would expose
the bettor to government scrutiny, if the bets are made with cash.
Just ask the Jelinski brothers.
He did not represent his 100K check as a single day win, which is what you claim here...Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJHere is the quote, word for word and where it is located.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Now here is a quote from 5/20 11:07am. "Every time I win, I shove the large denominations of the winner's chips into the zippered pouch of the winner's envelope and put it in a hotel safety deposit box, and cash out the under 100 sums, in ones and fives, to use as tips."
So he accumulated a bag of chips from winning days, which he cashed out today.
He posts his daily results, so it's obvious that the 100K win is cumulative, not one day's winnings.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You are intentionally going in circles (playing games) as you always do. And you are conflating rules and regulations regarding CTR's which has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You are just all over the place and I don't think it is by accident. It is coach belly typical games. That is why there is barely anyone that even engages with you anymore.
I am quoting and disputing what you wrote. You are wrong but you won't admit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You can't accept that MDawg won 100K playing a -EV game.
That must be devastating to you.
The circle is the motion you make with your index finger pointing at your numbskull.