Any Experience with M Resort $500 Loss Rebate?

[mickeycrimm]

Question for Kewlj: you prefer the "middle" seat over "third base"? Care to explain?

That's a no brainer, Alan. Third base is where they think a card counter will sit. But there may be other reasons too, like counting 2 tables. I'll defer to KJ.

[kewlJ]

Kewlj please look at the photos I took at Mirage. Does it look to you that the players in the end seats are back to back?

YES, absolutely it does. Look at your blurry picture. It is the picture of the back of a chair from the next table. That chair and 1st base at the table you took it from are back to back and quite literally would be close to touching if the chairs were pulled out with people sitting in them.

Here's a photo of a blackjack table for sale. Where are the end positions?

There are no chairs in this picture, so it is useless. However, what you are doing is searching the internet for a picture of a table that might show what YOU want it to show....allowing for the corner seats not to be so much in the corners, so 1st base and 3rd base might not be back-to-back. Stop searching for an odd picture that supports your claims. You have a picture that you took in an actual casino....OF YOUR CHOOSING! Blurry and all, it clearly shows the 1st and 3rd seats of neighboring tables, back to back. STOP PLAYING GAMES Alan!

By the way, which is the MIDDLE seat you said you use?

Good lord, there is something really, really wrong with you!?! The table has 6 freaking chairs and you are asking which one is the middle chair. On a 6 seat table either of the two center chairs will suffice. On a 5 chair table, there is a natural "middle chair". Both 5 and 6 chair tables are common in Las Vegas. In AC they used to have 7 chair tables.

Question for Kewlj: you prefer the "middle" seat over "third base"? Care to explain?

I explained that, just last night, I am not going to do so again, because you choose not to read or can't understand it.

All you are doing is trolling and I am done with you! You are a messed up dude! Dan might think you deserve some kind of extra respect because you used to own this site. I think you are one of the biggest trolls and game-players, I have seen on the internet.

[redietz]

Alan, I sincerely doubt the claim that 18 Yos (elevens) were rolled in a row in craps.

The odds of one Yo is 1/18 -- or 5.6%.

Now, let's throw out the first one, because a Yo will eventually be rolled. So the question is -- what are the odds of 17 more consecutive Yos being rolled right after that?

Well, that math problem is easy. You take 1/18 and make it to the power of 17. So it's (1/18)^17.

And the answer? 1 in 2185911559738696531968.

Approximately 1 in 2 sextillion.

How long are those odds?

Let's say a craps roll occurs every 10 seconds. It doesn't (because the game pauses far more often than that), but let's go with that number.

At that rate, you would see 17 Yos in a row once every 692 trillion years. And we're talking about 17 Yos in a row. Change it to 18, and that goes up to once every 12 quadrillion years.

Needless to say, Alan has never seen 18 Yos in a row, nor has anyone anytime anywhere.

Unless the dice were loaded.

Dan, you kind of ruined the surprise component of an article I was planning called "The Case of the 18 Yos."

I have the rights to www.TheSkepticalGambler.com, and this is going to be a lead article when I get it up and running.

I'll give the readers here a preview. Basically (and I know nothing about craps at all; I never play), it comes down to this. The math guys can be right, and Alan can also be right. How can this be? Well, ask yourselves, what is more likely, that 18 Yos happened with fair dice, or that a pair of dice that was supposed to be set aside somehow got mixed into the game? The answer presents itself.

Now that opens all the arguments about casinos never cheating and all that, which I find ludicrous from a pragmatic and historical perspective. Rigged dice exist. Thirty years ago, they were not uncommon. Is it really likely they are extinct? C'mon, people, this is the real world.

The most likely explanation, the Occam's Razor explanation, is that a pair of dice that should not have been in the game, somehow got mixed with the other dice by mistake and inserted into the game. Whether it was 15 Yos or 16 yos or whatever, that is the most logical, elegant explanation.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm not trolling. I am asking you to prove your assertion that you can accurately count two tables simultaneously. So far, you've actually admitted that you can't. So why did you assert it in the first place?

You can't see all the cards. You said so yourself. Your count could be way off and inaccurate. So, it's pointless unless you want to use "guesswork" as being an AP.

Frankly, I think you're trolling with your continued assertion that card counting at two tables is possible when you yourself have told us how limited it can be.

I called you on it. Deal with it or prove me wrong.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz the dice weren't rigged. shit happened.

what amazes me is that so many people are saying it couldn't because the odds of it were against it happening. but NONE of those people were at the table. I was at the table.

I don't care if you don't believe. It happened. No one lost any bet with me.

By the way, after the "disbelief" on the WOV website, I went to the managers at Caesars and requested the tape of the table. That's when I found out the tapes were recycled after two or three days unless a "hold" was placed. No one placed a hold.

James, the stickman, retired shortly afterwards. I didn't know the other dealers -- it was daytime and they may have been per diem. There was no boxman and the floorman was not at our table.

Don't believe if you don't want to. It doesn't matter.

Next.

[kewlJ]

I'm not trolling. I am asking you to prove your assertion that you can accurately count two tables simultaneously. So far, you've actually admitted that you can't. So why did you assert it in the first place?

You can't see all the cards. You said so yourself. Your count could be way off and inaccurate. So, it's pointless unless you want to use "guesswork" as being an AP.

Frankly, I think you're trolling with your continued assertion that card counting at two tables is possible when you yourself have told us how limited it can be.

I called you on it. Deal with it or prove me wrong.

What the fuck is wrong with you? You are seriously very detached from reality.

I have shown far more patience with you that you deserve. But I am done now. I will no longer entertain your delusions.

[Alan Mendelson]

What's "wrong" with me is that I've been in the news business since I was 14 years old (I'm now 65). I've won one Emmy, the Janus Award, countless awards from the AP, 8 Golden Mics, 10 LA Press Club Awards, I wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Journalism Review. My career included stints (not a stringer) with CBS News, Barrons, Bloomberg, and yes I was a "stringer" with CNN while I worked at WTVJ in Miami because they carried my WTVJ reports on CNN.

What's wrong with me is that I ask questions based on what anyone can observe. And what I have observed in a casino is that when a player is at one table and the tables are set up as they are at the Mirage and the other "west side of the Strip casinos" that I know of, you can't see the cards on the other tables ESPECIALLY when there are other players.

You, yourself, have said there are limitations. So what are you trying to prove? You can count cards on other tables with limitations? Well whoopee doo. You can count cards on other tables with limitations. Go ahead proclaim yourself champ.

[blackhole]

Dan, you kind of ruined the surprise component of an article I was planning called "The Case of the 18 Yos."

I have the rights to www.TheSkepticalGambler.com, and this is going to be a lead article when I get it up and running.

I'll give the readers here a preview. Basically (and I know nothing about craps at all; I never play), it comes down to this. The math guys can be right, and Alan can also be right. How can this be? Well, ask yourselves, what is more likely, that 18 Yos happened with fair dice, or that a pair of dice that was supposed to be set aside somehow got mixed into the game? The answer presents itself.

Now that opens all the arguments about casinos never cheating and all that, which I find ludicrous from a pragmatic and historical perspective. Rigged dice exist. Thirty years ago, they were not uncommon. Is it really likely they are extinct? C'mon, people, this is the real world.

The most likely explanation, the Occam's Razor explanation, is that a pair of dice that should not have been in the game, somehow got mixed with the other dice by mistake and inserted into the game. Whether it was 15 Yos or 16 yos or whatever, that is the most logical, elegant explanation.

[kewlJ]

What's "wrong" with me is that I've been in the news business since I was 14 years old (I'm now 65). I've won one Emmy, the Janus Award, countless awards from the AP, 8 Golden Mics, 10 LA Press Club Awards, I wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Journalism Review. My career included stints (not a stringer) with CBS News, Barrons, Bloomberg, and yes I was a "stringer" with CNN while I worked at WTVJ in Miami because they carried my WTVJ reports on CNN.

What's wrong with me is that I ask questions based on what anyone can observe. And what I have observed in a casino is that when a player is at one table and the tables are set up as they are at the Mirage and the other "west side of the Strip casinos" that I know of, you can't see the cards on the other tables ESPECIALLY when there are other players.

You, yourself, have said there are limitations. So what are you trying to prove? You can count cards on other tables with limitations? Well whoopee doo. You can count cards on other tables with limitations. Go ahead proclaim yourself champ.

Congratulations on a long and prestigious career in journalism. That is completely irrelevant to this topic. What you are doing here, is making false accusations, statements and conclusions, about a topic and techniques that you obviously know nothing about.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, I have just exposed your own folly. You've said it yourself -- sometimes you can't see all the cards. We all know other players can get in the way. We know that when cards pass by without being counted that an accurate "count" is not possible. You have continued your absurd assertion that a partial count at best is effective.

Well, buddy, your partial count at a second table in blackjack, is as effective as my controlled throw of two dice after they hit the table.

Just try to prove your case to anyone outside of your fellow "AP believers" and you will fall flat on your face.

[kewlJ]

Actually, I have just exposed your own folly. You've said it yourself -- sometimes you can't see all the cards. We all know other players can get in the way. We know that when cards pass by without being counted that an accurate "count" is not possible. You have continued your absurd assertion that a partial count at best is effective.

Well, buddy, your partial count at a second table in blackjack, is as effective as my controlled throw of two dice after they hit the table.

Just try to prove your case to anyone outside of your fellow "AP believers" and you will fall flat on your face.

There is a reason why my fellow AP's believe what I am stating....because they have first hand knowledge of the subject. They aren't just drawing conclusions and making accusations about something they know nothing about.

Since I am not all that familiar with you and you claim to be such a celebrity, which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I did a quick google search.

What I came up with was information that you are a gambling addict. I am not the least bit surprised. That would explain your contempt for AP's that actually make money at the casinos.

In addition, I read an article by the Los Angles Times, eluding to your dishonesty, in the fact that the only 'best buys' that you promote are for companies that paid you. The word that comes to mind is shyster. I guess a career of dishonesty and misleading people has lead to what I have witnessed here, your complete dishonesty and manipulative behavior.

Our discussion is now over. Please move on to your next trolling victim. As a matter of fact, I see no value in anything you may post. I am adding you Singer on my blocked list.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, there are too many inconsistencies in your own story. You even admit the weaknesses of your so-called ability to count cards at two tables. It's bullshit. I'm finished with you.

There is no LA Times article about "dishonesty." I'm now in the Infomercial business. Best Buys is a paid program. It says so right on the TV screen at the beginning and end of each show as required by federal law.

Fuck off.

[coach belly]

I read an article by the Los Angles Times, eluding to your dishonesty

That's easily verified by providing a link to the article.

Will you post the link, or do you need to be paid for the info?

[Alan Mendelson]

We need redietz to provide commentary on the word "eluding" especially in this context. I wonder if "alluding" is what he meant. Either way it's quite a reach.

[redietz]

The word is "alluding." And in his previous post, Alan provided a fine example of an expletive to help out Rob.

Editor Bob

P.S. Maybe this will help me get an editing job with Gaming Today. Then I could hire Rob (why not, he's free) and really help him edit his stuff.

[dannyj]

This assumes the first roll is already a yo and you only need 17 more yo's. Either way, it's a crazy number. That doesn't really do it justice. You can say a billion or a googol, but we can't really wrap our brain around it.

Put simply, you're far and away much more likely to get dealt three royal flushes in a row than to see 18 yo's in a row (about 143,000 times as likely). Dealt RF, as in being dealt all 5 RF cards and auto-holding all 5.

If you're playing video poker on 10-play and are dealt 4 to the royal, you're 748,000 times more likely to draw the single royal card, on all 10 draws, than to see 18 yo's in a row. I've played a good amount of 10-play, and I've hit a royal on 2 of the draws three times I can remember. I've never hit 3+ in one go. I would assume the machine malfunctioned if I hit all 10 (not that I'd deny the money).

I've been dealt a royal four times.

First was at Mandalay on a 50-play machine. Nickels. It paid $10,000.
Second was at Rincon on a progressive that paid about $36,000.
Third was at Bellagio on their $5 progressive. Paid $31,005. I posted the photo here on this forum.
Fourth was at Caesars on a $1 game. I posted the photo here on this forum.

And then my girlfriend was dealt two royals within 24 hours.

Figure the odds. Shit happens.

You also mocked me for getting two $100K royals within 300 hands of playing $25 VP. It happened again. What you're overlooking is that in both cases I had played $1, $2 and $5 video poker -- sometimes for hours -- before I built up the bankroll to play $25 and I got the royals soon after switching to $25 VP.

I also played $1, $2, and $5 video poker sometimes for weeks or months without a royal. The royals just happened to have come when the denomination was $25.

I hit another royal this past week. But it was a 25 cent royal at Arizona Charlies on Boulder Highway. I started with $100 in the machine.

Alan,
Again, I'm not saying the 18 yo's in a row did not happen. But, surely you will concede that your examples of "shit happens", with dealt royals, RF frequency, and lottery wins are not in the same probability universe as the odds that Dan calculated/provided as to what you saw.

P.S.
Congrats on the latest royal.

[Alan Mendelson]

Look when I saw 18 Yo's in a row I had no idea what the math was. All I know is that a young guy kept throwing 6/5 and we were amazed. No one stopped to figure any odds.

[kewlJ]

I read an article by the Los Angles Times, eluding to your dishonesty

That's easily verified by providing a link to the article.

Will you post the link, or do you need to be paid for the info?

Good god coach belly, are you incapable of a simple computer search? You really should learn to "google" for yourself instead of a knee jerk reaction of "link?"

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct...media-20101006

Half way down the page, when the discussion turns to your hero Alan:

Alan Mendelson, the onetime business and personal finance reporter for KCAL, spent years telling viewers he could help them find "best buys." But he lost his job in 2006 and has since made his living producing infomercials (many for lawyers) and a weekend "Best Buys" show that airs on KCOP Channel 13. The website for the program promises an expert with a "black belt in shopping" but the bottom line is that Mendelson features only companies that paid to be on the air.


if you remember, earlier in this very thread, Alan offered me (and anyone else living in Vegas) a job. "Earn up to $500/hr with phones sales." I guess we sell him to the local businesses and then he turns around and peddles their product as a "Best Buy" on his TV show. Very honest!

That is your "award winning" 50 year professional Journalist. Did someone say shyster? At 65, in questionable health he should be retired. Perhaps he needs the money to fuel his gambling addiction. Earlier in this thread didn't he attacked AP play, with the very notion that AP's couldn't earn a living and build a retirement off of AP play? It always comes back to one thing with these guys that are so vehemently opposed to advantage play and advantage players....resentment. They resent that others can successfully make money at the casinos when they can't.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes kewlj. It's called TV advertising.

Now please. Put me on ignore because from now on I'm ignoring you.

[MisterV]

He used to be a contender.

Not anymore.

And it hurts, it hurts like hell.



"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

--- Dylan Thomas