The WoV Thread

[Darkoz]

If you are asking for the exact breakdown of Baccarat math just go to the WOV sight and read Wiz mathematical analysis as well as his statements about beating Baccarat long-term.

MDawg is not claiming to have beaten Baccarat long-term.

From WOV

coachbellycoachbellyJoined:Oct 21, 2013Threads: 1Posts: 323November 22nd, 2020 at 7:17:01 PMpermalink


Quote: redietz
let's examine what MDawg did not say. He did not say that he was ahead money-wise "at casinos." He said he was a "winner."



Can you clear this up MD, so to render the rest of dietz's diatribe moot?


MDawgMDawgJoined:Sep 27, 2018Threads: 16Posts: 1307November 22nd, 2020 at 7:47:31 PMpermalink


And when someone says that he is a lifetime casino winner it is understood this means in terms of money - winnings.

End quotes from WOV

Coach, the above conversation happened a day or so ago at WOV. You were directly involved in the conversation as seen above where MDawg claimed lifetime winning at casinos and yes it was a conversation about Baccarat.

So now in order to win you resort to lying?

[coach belly]

I don't think he even claimed to be a net loser on that day. He just said that he won in the morning and gave nearly all of it back at night.

If he reports any losing day or days, then how does that affect your analysis?

4 hours a day. 1k bets. 60 bets/hr. 30 days. That's 7.2m in wagers.

Assuming banker bets, the chance of being up after 7.2m in wagers flat betting $1,000 is 16.68% after simulating 1m trials on the old beatingbonuses two tier simulator. So very plausible, and not even that unlikely.

Your scenario above accounts for the maximum number of hands (M) that could be played under the 4-hour 30-day parameters, correct?

I don't recall MDawg claiming to play that number of hands, but assuming he did...

Does your analysis show that the math disproves MDawg's claims to be ahead for the amount of play you outlined above?

Is the expectation different if he plays all (M) hands in a row, versus if he plays a portion of the hands, takes a break, and then plays the rest of the hands to reach (M) ?

[coach belly]

So now in order to win you resort to lying?

Who is the question above directed to?

You did not post an MDawg claim of having beaten Baccarat long-term.

[jdaewoo]

If he reports any losing day or days, then how does that affect your analysis?

I showed a table demonstrating that winning 25 out of 30 gambling days at 240 flat bets/day is a million to one shot. 28 days is a billion to 1.

Does your analysis show that the math disproves MDawg's claims to be ahead for the amount of play you outlined above?

I don't understand your question. I stated clearly that being up after 30x240 flat bets isn't terribly unlikely. Being up 25 out of 30 days wagering 240 bets each day is very unlikely.

Is the expectation different if he plays all (M) hands in a row, versus if he plays a portion of the hands, takes a break, and then plays the rest of the hands to reach (M) ?

If each hand is an independent trial, it doesn't matter if you play the next one in a second, an hour, a day, or a year from now.


Also note that 60 rounds/hr is probably a low estimate due to 3 player/table restrictions. Though if you're playing where the players get to molest the cards for their enjoyment then maybe 60 is accurate. Also, add in the higher house edge wagers of player and all these probabilities decrease.

[coach belly]

That is exactly what MDawg wants to use as evidence, statements from casino personnel

MDawg is offering his challengers, and an arbiter, the opportunity disprove any of the claims surrounding his recent trip, through in-person interviews with all relevant casino personnel, and examination of all relevant documents that will be printed in the challengers' and arbiter's presence.

If there is some complicated conspiracy to lie on MDawg's behalf, somebody will slip up and the challenger's bet will be won.

It's more plausible that he is telling the truth about his adventures, than it would be plausible to pull off a scam on the scale that you suspect.

Stop with the "election is rigged" bullshit already...put up or shut up.

[Darkoz]

That is exactly what MDawg wants to use as evidence, statements from casino personnel

MDawg is offering his challengers, and an arbiter, the opportunity disprove any of the claims surrounding his recent trip, through in-person interviews with all relevant casino personnel, and examination of all relevant documents that will be printed in the challengers' and arbiter's presence.

If there is some complicated conspiracy to lie on MDawg's behalf, somebody will slip up and the challenger's bet will be won.

It's more plausible that he is telling the truth about his adventures, than it would be plausible to pull off a scam on the scale that you suspect.

Stop with the "election is rigged" bullshit already...put up or shut up.

It is actually more plausible that a group of people take part in a conspiracy for financial gain than beating the mathematics of Baccarat.

The math has been broken down for you.

[jbjb]

His story is just as phoney as Mr. 18 yo's in a row!

[coach belly]

I don't understand your question.

OK...let's try this again.

4 hours a day. 1k bets. 60 bets/hr. 30 days. That's 7.2m in wagers.

Assuming banker bets, the chance of being up after 7.2m in wagers flat betting $1,000 is 16.68% after simulating 1m trials on the old beatingbonuses two tier simulator. So very plausible, and not even that unlikely.

Does your analysis show that the math disproves MDawg's claims to be ahead for the amount of play you outlined above?

Also note that 60 rounds/hr is probably a low estimate

I suspect that the game is played at a rate slower than one round per minute.

How much experience do you have at the high-stakes Bac tables?

If each hand is an independent trial, it doesn't matter if you play the next one in a second, an hour, a day, or a year from now..

Is each hand an independent trial?

If yes, then why the need to break the total play down arbitrarily into sessions, rather than consider the entirety of the play as one session?

And progressive betting is going to change the numbers a bit vs flat betting.

How about pressing into a run of 13 consecutive banker wins?

Could that net enough gains to mitigate the expected losses of flat-betting?

[coach belly]

It is actually more plausible that a group of people take part in a conspiracy for financial gain than beating the mathematics of Baccarat.

His claims don't include haven beaten the mathematics of baccarat.

The claims (which you dispute) for the purposes of this challenge are here....

I can confirm that all the following are true:

-I have been in Vegas continuously since very early October.

-I have won – net ahead – the exact figures as posted at TruePassage – at both of the resorts we were at before this one, and am net ahead some additional twenty grand at the moment, representing just the win at this third resort.

-That at this resort as of today, I have put in some 71 hours in play, at a 1200 average, with a theoretical loss of some seventy thousand dollars.

-That I have played almost every single day at all three resorts, pretty much every day other than check in and check out days.

-That all of the suites, room, food, beverage, and spa, have been comp’ed, to the tune of some fifty thousand dollars of comp’ed goods and services.

-That I also got a 1000 shopping spree.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...-of-mdawg/172/

[jdaewoo]

OK...let's try this again.
Does your analysis show that the math disproves MDawg's claims to be ahead for the amount of play you outlined above?

I clearly stated that it was plausible, and not even that unlikely and quoted a probability of 16.68% via simulation. Which part confuses you?

If yes, then why the need to break the total play down arbitrarily into sessions, rather than consider the entirety of the play as one session?

There's nothing arbitrary about it.

MDawg says "I'm a winner at -EV Baccarat over the course of a month!" The math says this isn't terribly unlikely. 16.88% making normal assumptions
MDawg says "I win every single day for a month." The math says this is very unlikely. 80 billion to 1 if you take him almost literally (29/30 winners). 1 million to one if you assume he means 25/30 days.
MDawg says "I win every single day for 10 years". The math says he's a moron and a liar.

[jbjb]

[Rob.Singer]

OK...let's try this again.
Does your analysis show that the math disproves MDawg's claims to be ahead for the amount of play you outlined above?

I clearly stated that it was plausible, and not even that unlikely and quoted a probability of 16.68% via simulation. Which part confuses you?

If yes, then why the need to break the total play down arbitrarily into sessions, rather than consider the entirety of the play as one session?

There's nothing arbitrary about it.

MDawg says "I'm a winner at -EV Baccarat over the course of a month!" The math says this isn't terribly unlikely. 16.88% making normal assumptions
MDawg says "I win every single day for a month." The math says this is very unlikely. 80 billion to 1 if you take him almost literally (29/30 winners). 1 million to one if you assume he means 25/30 days.
MDawg says "I win every single day for 10 years". The math says he's a moron and a liar.

And the fact that he's also a California flake strongly suggests he's a moron and a liar. Which brings up this point: how stoopid does anyone have to be NOT to know this flailing idiot wynnpleasure is not the foolish MDawg? It is no different than how Alan and AndrewG shamed himself.

[MaxPen]

You all should start a Bacc thread. I'm amazed that so many people take any of it seriously. Why don't one of you offer to mirror bank an agreed upon number of sessions against MDawg? He can still play at any casino of his choosing. You will just have a witness present.

[monet]

You all should start a Bacc thread. I'm amazed that so many people take any of it seriously. Why don't one of you offer to mirror bank an agreed upon number of sessions against MDawg? He can still play at any casino of his choosing. You will just have a witness present.

I don't follow or know anything about it.
I am having a nightmare trying to cash out 5k from my WSOP Online Poker Account.
CET is the DEVIL!!

[coach belly]

Which part confuses you?

I'm confused as to why you won't give a yes or no answer.

I'll make it clear for you...

QUESTION:

Does your analysis show that the math disproves MDawg's claims to be ahead for the amount of play you outlined above?

ANSWER: no it does not, math does not disprove MDawg's claims for the play outlined by jdaewoo, namely...

That's 7.2m in wagers.

MDawg says "I win every single day for a month." The math says this is very unlikely.

The math says that is unlikely for 240 rounds per day of flat-betting banker.

That's your assumption, but that doesn't define MDawg's daily play.

Under those circumstances, shouldn't the entirety of play be considered as one session, since you don't have a definition of MDawg's play for a single day?

[coach belly]

You all should start a Bacc thread. I'm amazed that so many people take any of it seriously. Why don't one of you offer to mirror bank an agreed upon number of sessions against MDawg? He can still play at any casino of his choosing. You will just have a witness present.

MDawg's future performance is not in dispute.

The challengers are insisting that his recent trip reports are lies.

If they are so convinced that he is lying, then they should treat MDawg like you are treating Singer about the RV...bet him, then face him and make him prove it.

Do you think Singer could fabricate evidence to prove his RV claims and pass your scrutiny?

[kewlJ]

Why don't one of you offer to mirror bank an agreed upon number of sessions against MDawg? He can still play at any casino of his choosing. You will just have a witness present.

Because MDawg won't agree to people witnessing his play. He wants the "proof" to be statements from the casino via his host, that can be manipulated and phony. He doesn't want actual witnesses.

I'm amazed that so many people take any of it seriously.

I see your point, but personally I just don't like these phony claims of huge successes via gambling that are obviously phony because they defy the mathematics of gambling. I have never called out anyone that I don't beleive is doing what they claim as long as the math works. THAT is the very low bar that must be met.

And frankly I believe AP's and people known for their expertise in gambling mathematics have not only a right, but a responsibility to call out shit that just can't be. And that is why this case of MDawg is so frustrating to me. Why isn't Wizard calling this out? He has called out 18 y.o.'s in a row and Singers progressive claims and almost immediately calls out any claims involving martingales. This is right there with those things. It defies the math. The very math that Mike made his name and reputation with. And now he is not only remaining silent, but suspending people who do call out MDawg with very questionable infractions. I mean it really appears to be that he has now escalated to "protecting" MDawg and these false claims.

I have been through this whole thing before on Norms blackjack form. A forum owner, who is all about the math, inexplicably protecting a member making claims that defy the math. I don't know exactly what is going on other than these forum owners have a different agenda...whatever generates more traffic for their forum, even at the expense of the math they themselves believe in.

[coach belly]

Because MDawg won't agree to people witnessing his play.

He invited forum members to witness his play months ago.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...s-of-mdawg/80/

[kewlJ]

Because MDawg won't agree to people witnessing his play.

He invited forum members to witness his play months ago.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...s-of-mdawg/80/

I just read through 2 pages of the thread where you linked to it and I don't see such an offer to witness his play. I see some kind of challenge about both depositing money at a casino cage and see who is further ahead after two weeks. If there is a challenge where MDawg invites people to witness his play.....all of his play, you are going to have to specifically point me to it.

However I do see these quotes by MDawg:

"At the end of two weeks I will be in the plus"

"and I am leaving Las Vegas ahead at the end of each trip. So for me, it's just business as usual"


These quotes indicate his will win going forward, something in the last few days, you claim he never said. You keep repeating he is only talking about past results. And these quote prove that is not so.

Like I said, this is a work of fiction. It wouldn't be much of an "adventure" of Huckleberry Finn, oops I mean Mdawg if he wasn't doing all this extraordinary winning. It is just funny how he knows that ahead of time.

[coach belly]

If there is a challenge where MDawg invites people to witness his play.....all of his play, you are going to have to specifically point me to it.

The challenge that you read is an invitation to witness his play. The challenger can play anything other than sports betting. That means they can play Bac, and they can play at the same table as MD. Doesn't that qualify as witnessing his play?

The first quote you posted seems like posturing to entice the challenger.

The second quote has a peculiar tense structure that requires context to explain. As is, it doesn't read as a prediction since it's present tense..."I am leaving".

If you provide the link to either or both I'll take a look and try to explain them to you.

The past results refers to the latest challenge regarding the reports of his most recent trip.