The Adventures of MDawg (in progress)

[kewlJ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

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

[Mission146]

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

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

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

And I'm Batman.

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

[redietz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

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

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

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

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

[Mission146]

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

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

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

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kewlJ]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mission146]

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

[redietz]

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

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

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

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MaxPen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

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

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

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

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

1 in 1,765,780

[kewlJ]

1 in 1,765,780

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

[redietz]

Thanks!

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

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

[Mission146]

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

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

[Mission146]

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

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

[MaxPen]

1 in 1,765,780

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

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

[Mission146]

Thanks!

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

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

Because I'm a contrarian asshole.

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

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

[Mission146]

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

Nice! I've had two eights.

[Ozzy]

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

[jbjb]

[coach belly]

coach belly can correct.

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

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

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

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

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

[MaxPen]

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

Nice! I've had two eights.

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

[Mission146]

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

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

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

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