I don't even understand the challenge.
Mike gets 500 dollars just to show up right?
What happens to the other 2000 dollars?
Is that used for a wager?
Not that it matters as I am not following but I read your posts so I get a little curious.
Is DarkOz going to get scammed for 2500 dollars?
Is that what is going on here?
Feels like it.
Mike and MDawg in cahoots?
Scamming the most feared AP on the East Coast through the interwebs and WoV!?
That would be classic!
Reminds me of Matchstick Men (2003) when he tells her she didn't take his money... he gave it to her.
Last edited by monet; 04-18-2021 at 04:42 AM.
I wonder if DarkOz took the simplest of precautions, like requiring that the results from the FIRST SINGLE session be the subject of reporting as opposed to a series of sessions (taking place on a single day or over days) which MDAwg and Shackleford could mutually agree to report one of WHICHEVER THEY CHOSE.
If DarkOz didn't write this into the deal, then the entire enterprise is a complete scam.
Anybody privy to the details of the reporting deal?
You forget, Darkoz didn't write the "deal". Expectedvalue wrote the terms. darkoz just stepped in at the last minute and put up the money.
So the original deal went something like this: Shackleford is paid $500 for his time in witnessing a session of play. Mdawg is paid $1000. And if Mdawg's session is a winning session, he is paid an extra $1000.
So here in lies the problem. You cannot have a situation like that where only 2 people are involved. That invites collusion. For example what if Shackleford and Mdawg agree to report a winning session and split that final $1000. I mean you would hope Shackleford was above that, but the way he jumped at the first $500, makes me wonder. That is why there should have been 2 or 3 witnesses. AND it is why there should have been no money tied to the outcome. Pay each party for their time regardless of winning or losing session, and you have all but eliminated the likelihood of collusion.
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".
So interesting reading over at Wizard of Voodoo, where Mdawg has assumed complete control. Mdawg and his sock puppets are having a conversation among themselves. It is seriously like watching a mental patient sitting in the corner conversing with himself. (or unfortunately on the street corner here in Vegas).
It is stunning to see what direction Shackleford has allowed that forum to go, straight to voodooism and bullshit. I mean the forum still bears his name. You would think he would care a little.
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".
As an AP I deal with trust issues all day
My own team members could be misrepresenting the money they win. Or they could be honest (dishonesty has occurred and usually I figure it out and fire the person)
I trust the Wizard. I don't trust MDawg but he isn't holding my money.
Is Wizard and MDawg about to collude? For a one time $500 apiece advantage? The Wizard has more to lose imo if detected than the $500 would be worth it but hey the world works in mysterious ways.
I suggest waiting for the enterprise (entertainment) to finish and see what the outcome is before casting aspersions
I hate to bring in what seem to be legalistic details, but there is a world of difference between "witnessing a session" and "witnessing the first session at such and such a time." The first leaves open the door to witnessing multiple sessions and choosing one of them as the "a session." It doesn't specifically preclude that the witness saw multiple sessions but did not report on them. "Witnessing the first session at a specific time" pins things down.
You almost have to have an adversarial legalese process where one witness is neutral or advocates for a win while another witness advocates for a loss.
This stuff crops up in paranormal investigations often. The paranormal claimant usually tries to evade specific witnesses by arguing that "negativity" carried by the unfavorable witness or witnesses will prevent the claimant from succeeding.
I think that some of the cheerleaders/puppets at WoV are laying the groundwork for the witness-negativity-affects-outcome claims. Hopefully, my mentioning this here will prevent them from mustering it up down the road.
For anyone interested in the difficulties pinning down in-the-field displays of the paranormal, which is what "reading the cards to win" is, I suggest researching the "James Randi Million Dollar Challenge."
I still cannot fathom why you people don't put people like MD on ignore and not even waste time on him and his ilk. We hear enough of these same bullshit stories all day in the casinos that there is NO REASON to subject yourselves to them here.
Actually, the better time to cast aspersions would be before the outcome if you believe the process is flawed. But whatever.
I want to trust Wizard. But it becomes harder and harder. In recent weeks the bias towards Mdawg has become very obvious. Since Mike has to know the claims are bullshit, one can only assume it is about forum traffic. Bullshit and trolling increase forum traffic. Shooting it down doesn't.
It started when Wizard back-tracked on his demand that Mdawg put up or shut up (no money involved, just time to prove something). This backtrack occurred after Mdawg bent Wizards ear privately.
Then there was weeks of bias suspensions to those challenging these claims. Once dear tried to be fair and was over-ruled on several occasions.
And recently several Mdawg supporters and socks coach belly and Wellbush were suspended. Coach belly's suspension was mysteriously reduced from 7 days to 3 and wellbush lifted after a mere 12 hour and done so after Mdawg publicly vouched for wellbush. That is like Nathan vouching for Tasha. Point is that it is pretty hard to ignore the bias at this point. And that makes it pretty hard to expect a fair outcome.
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".
KewlJ's right to challenge process before reported results. That's proper.
And the process I am arguing is this: Mdawgs claims are that of long-term winnings playing -EV game. Finally after conveniently reporting a loss, the claim is of winning nearly every session, every day, every trip.
So first, that claim cannot be validated, nor disproven by watching a single session. It can't be validated by watching several session either, but at least with that little bigger sample size, Wizard would be able to see and know what Mdawg is doing and report if it is a winning strategy capable of all the winning claims Mdawg has made. THAT, was the goal.
But that is not what is occurring. Now with this having turned into a challenge where Mdawg profits by just having winning session, he won't even be playing that single session, the way he normally would. He will be employing a strategy where he bets small, and progressively bets bigger until he gets ahead, which with a progression is likely at some point, and then just small bet, running out the clock to collect the extra money.
This contest or whatever you want to call it, in no way gets to the bottom of Mdawgs claims that defy math as stated.
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".
What the Fuck are you talking about?
Mike has constantly shown bias to his pals.
He changes the rules to fit his agenda constantly.
From StrictlyAP to WoN to BBB to AxelWolf to QFIT and even to kewlJ.
He was going to bend the rules for Mission146 but Mission declined and resigned from being a Moderator.
Course Mission didn't give up his paying gig.
Giggity.
Heck, Mike and BBB were going to bend the rules and show me bias for creating a duplicate account.
However, that plan changed when I told Mike to GFY and to Jump off a Cliff.
I still don't understand why telling someone "Good For You" is so offensive.
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".
And don't believe for a second, Mike and company don't absolutely know this! WoV was tops in detecting and not allowing sock puppets (when they wanted to be) and now, we are supposed to believe they have no clue who is and isn't a sock puppet. Every other forum knows how to navigate around VPN's, but WOV is suddenly perplexed.
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".
There are currently 316 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 316 guests)