Well, then, here's the logical problem with your argument regarding MDawg.
1) You're assigning a 1-in-200 eventuality to "MDawg using a 90% martingale -ish system."
2) You haven't assigned a probability to MDawg actually using a formal or semi-formal martingale system that would yield 90% session win rate.
3) Without doing (2) above, and without you having some special insight regarding MDawg or having witnessed his play, you have no idea what (2) above is.
4) The proper math here, then, is assigning a probability to (2) and then multiplying that by (1).
5) There's no indication that MDawg uses a 90% martingale-ish system based on his trip reports.
6) There's no indication that MDawg has the required bankroll necessary to execute a 90% martingale-ish system based on his bet sizes according to his trip reports.
7) Therefore, to consider the 1-in-200 number, an additional probability must be entered, namely "How likely is it MDawg has a 500K available bankroll?"
Now I know people with 500K bankrolls for table games, and a 500K bankroll for sports betting is not all that rare. So maybe MDawg has a 500K bankroll, but it has not really come into play in his trip reports.
In conclusion, the proper probability is the probability of (2) multiplied by the probability of (1) multiplied by the probability of (7).
Thus, the 1-in-200 number has no real bearing on the real world scenario of MDawg's wagering. And I think you know that.
I said, in that thread, 1,489,277 times, that if there WERE concrete system rules AND a concrete absolute bankroll, then I could give an exact probability of a session win. In fact, doing so would be a quite trivial affair. My 90% and your 70%, therefore, are both conjecture. Also, my 90% is very much a, "Benefit of the doubt," sort of estimate because, quite frankly, I can't figure out why all of you are obsessively attacking him. If you all had instead ignored him, then he would be gone. I'm kind of glad he's not, though, because if we're ever in Vegas at the same time we can grab a bite and chat about rock music. I seriously doubt Baccarat will even come up because I think it's a really stupid game.
1.) Benefit of the doubt.
2.) I can come up with a few, if you want.
3.) Yes, because I can define a, "Session," and then define a bankroll and come up with a system. Depending on the, "Stop Win," a straight Martingale is by itself over 90%, easily.
4.) Right, and I can come up with a system that wins more than 90%.
5.) There's no indication that he doesn't, especially since his reports don't require he fully tap his bankroll.
6.) Isn't there? 64k is Step 7 on a base bet of a grand for a straight Martingale.
7.) Unknown. No way for me to know. Perhaps he'll give me his checking account credentials, of course, one of you have probably asked for those by now.
Maybe it's 1 in 10,000? Maybe it's 1 in 1,000,000. It seems like it's definitely 1 in (Lower Number Than Shit I've Actually Experienced)
Again, the math is the math. It doesn't work for you or against you. It just operates. Nobody will always like what it has to say.
I am still home. Looks like work for the day is done, as my "sig other" is home from work early and we are heading out for a long bike ride and catch a bite to eat somewhere. (The beauty of self employment).
So I want to address this "lying" thing. I generally don't like to jump to words like that. And I didn't in this situation. At WoV, mike said everyone has the right to decide if they believe these claims or not. I and some others clearly didn't. I used the word "fiction" and then was suspended when Mdawg complained to Mike that I was calling him a liar.
So next thing you know Mdawg starts ramping up attacks on me, because I stated I didn't believe his claims as stated. At WoV, only mildly, staying within the rules. But he comes here and immediately starts in with all the faggot name calling. Nothing new here, I read that everyday. But you have to ask yourself, why people like Singer and now Mdawg using the same playbook, get so nasty, when you challenge their claims based on math and how you know the casino industry to work. It isn't personal with me, why do they come back with the nastiest personal attacks they can. To me that only confirms my opinion, that they aren't being truthful.
Now here is the clincher: Last year was a very "trying year for me, as I shared. Went like this. January (precovid) good start. up 5 figures. February (still precovid) up $5. Not a misprint. I won exactly $5 in February. A little ahead in the first few days of March before shut down for covid.
So June casinos reopen, I have doubled my stakes, and immediately hit some major negative variance and start losing. Lose what I was up pre-shutdown and go into the hole about 15 k. Work back to about even and straddle that even line until October, a little up, a little down. oct 1, still slightly in the red. had a decent October, ending up 9 grand total and played just a couple sessions in Nov and early Dec, finishing up 14k for the year. This was my worst year since my 3rd year of play, playing very lower stakes, so not really compatible, so in my mind, this was my worst year. And I gladly and accurately shared it.
So Mdawg starts saying I had a "losing year and then quit". said it at WoV a few times, said it here a few times. I corrected him the first 2 or 3 times. I didn't have a losing year, had I had a losing year I would have accurately shared that. Not a whole lot of difference in a losing year and the bad year I had, but it simply wasn't a losing year.
So Mdawg has gone on to say this losing year and "quit" thing about 40 more times, knowing it is not true. So I ask you: If a guy is going to lie, and yes I will use the term LIE in big bold letters, about something like that, that is really pretty insignificant and yet he has been corrected about, so he KNOWS he is lying, then how can anybody believe anything he says? So where you normally would give someone the benefit of doubt, this guy has used that up with me and I hope everyone else being objective. THAT is what credibility is about.
Dan Druff: "there's no question that MDawg has been an obnoxious braggart, and has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. There's something missing from his stories. Either they're fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete".
How does he know he is lying? Did he have written evidence of all of your sessions for last year? Perhaps he simply considers your account of last year fiction. Calling something fiction is different than calling it a lie, apparently.
In any case, I can't emphasize how little of a fuck I give as to the veracity of his individual reports. I entered into his thread for one reason and one reason only---and that was to offer a mathematical perspective. I wasn't trying to prove, disprove, support or contradict anything other than to offer math.
But, now look at me. Posting here and there in these threads daily. I will look at both sites one more time this evening and then I am banning myself from posting anything but articles for seven days. (Oh, also threads and posts to pimp my articles)
Dan Druff: "there's no question that MDawg has been an obnoxious braggart, and has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. There's something missing from his stories. Either they're fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete".
Just part of the fallacy. He shows a loss so that when the challenge happens it just furthers his narrative. What is off is that. NO ONE I REPEAT NO ONE is getting a rebate day over day in Vegas anymore. ESPECIALLY NOT someone with 50k lines. Not only are they not going to rebate someone who has been there 28 days winning every day but one but rebates are based on the trip at best. On top of dawg saying he will be near even after his rebate on 48k loss With an overall daily loss of 10k. So he claiming at 20 percent rebate. Or even 15. PURE BULLSHIT I hahe screen shots from a very well known celebrity gambler who gets 17 percent Trop over trip but not until he loses 1 mil. Anything under is 10 percent an not triggered until a 400 loss. And this person has lost millions. Rebates are negotiated. So mdawg negotiates rebate but never promo chips. Guess thats next leve
They are two separate things, MDawg blatantly lies numerous times regarding your previous year results KJ because he knows that you are a very easy target, which he finds rather amusing. Not surprisingly some other people laugh their ass off seeing how you get all worked up and agitated. MDawg has now got you to say on both boards about two dozen times that last year you made 14K, KJ everyone is now aware of it that you tell the good with the bad. Bottom line is that he finds you entertaining.
Pertaining to him lying about himself is an entirely different thought process that he has to work at. Combining all the protection he receives from management of that site, with numerous ongoing suspensions taking place he is a much harder target.
Last edited by BoSox; 04-13-2021 at 03:40 PM.
Why doesn't MasturbatoryDawg simply allow the Wiz or someone else to watch him play for at least several hours?
No bets involved, allow note taking: all in aid of him establishing once and for all that he's the real deal, the meanest, baddest Dawg to ever strut his stuff in the rarefied air of Las Vegas' most elegant baccarat pits.
Should be enough to get a feel for how he approaches the game and to settle questions about whether he is genuine or a lying sack of shit.
What, is MushmouthDawg afraid his pic will be taken and posted online?
DumbDawg should know that "for a lawyer there's no such thing as bad publicity."
Of course that applies to lawyers, not squatters on Fantasy Island.
What, Me Worry?
I don't know, does Darkoz want to pony up ten grand? I tend to think that the $500 would be Wizard expecting a time spend of two hours, not counting time in transit.
I'll watch 12 hours worth over a five day period for $2,000, if you want and MDawg agrees. That's 12 hours of watching. I also want room, flight and food covered. I'll take care of transit out of my 2k. I'll take the bus.
There are currently 22 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 22 guests)