Caveat Emptor should be left to the reader of the Vegas chronicles

[MDawg]

People are talking about how these Vegas chronicles should all have disclaimers attached to them that these results may not necessarily be duplicated by the reader. I think that goes without saying?

Anyway....

Dan just look at the comparison of these two threads below and you go pick on Singer's thread and call him a liar and just ignore this other thread without one word out of you so far is complete bullshit on your part.


Finding Grandpa's Newell

The Adventures of MDawg (in progress)

I am calling you out for never opining on the MDawg

Rob … has made some weak but very unconvincing attempts to keep the lie going. (The pics of him in a showroom Newell are hilarious, as is the fake for-sale ad.)

And that's why DanDruff stepped in yesterday, and once before, to opine. RS posted contradictory evidence that actually DISproved his claim of owning the Newell.

If RS had kept his mouth shut, we would have thought he was a horse, and let him through. Instead he went on about how he was "in sanitation" and made a fool of himself.


And that’s the difference between RS’ malarky, and the MDawg thread. I have presented a clear consistent story that has never contradicted itself, and clear visual and video evidence to support both the play and the wins. As well, the amounts I won were modest given my credit lines, versus RS's claim of taking in millions, and then plunking it all into a phantom RV that has never been seen.

I am not sure what the equivalent for me would be to the crapola RS has pulled…but I have never presented anything so clearly contradictory as pictures posing inside an RV for sale at a dealership and then that ridiculous faked For Sale ad with the partial images of a different RV.

Seems to be the problem I am having.



This is the problem with all of these forum owners / administrator. At the blackjack forum that I was originally banned at it was a guy claiming his super duper count could play to a 5% advantage, something impossible from blackjack card counting. The owner, a math guy knew this BUT the guy claiming was the leading poster by far bring a lot of traffic.

At WoV, I see some of the same with this MDawg character. The owner knows better, but forum traffic is involved.

And the same thing here with Rob Singer for years and now MDawg.

I get that forum owners are about traffic, but I just have a problem when they are legitimate respected gambling and math guys. When that is the case their silence and even provideing a platform for these "fantasies" does harm. Their silence is almost an endorcement.

Now his counterpoint is that he does not encourage anyone to play which is beyond his comprehension to understand just how dangerous his trip reports really are.

There is a contradiction here too. You see these forum owners say things like "no one is getting hurt", but at the same time they all (including Dan Druff) will tell you that there are many lurker visitors to their forums that don't participate. Those are the kind of people that read this crap over and over (because of the posting repetition of these nut jobs). So a forum that is supposed to be or masquerades as a legitimate gambling forum, that people come to for information, ends up promoting mis-information. That is why I feel it is not only the right, but the responsibility of legitimate AP's to call out this crap.

What about the case of KewlJ. This once young man was minding his own business when he read online about how card counting was the thing to do, and up and moved to Vegas to become a professional blackjack player. A decade or so later and he winds up LOSING and now he's sitting on his a** wondering what his next move might be. If the guy had never heard of card counting maybe by now he'd have himself a trade or career in something solid with a future, versus some occupation where the rug might be pulled out from under him at any time, with a swift kick out the casino door and a trespass warning.

Or ZenKing, who was somehow influenced by other "APs" here and ends up going postal with thoughts of shooting up the city after he fails to meet his + EV expectations.

Or "AxelAss" who keeps going on and on about how he may sit it bed all day being served breakfast by his wife and just occasionally hit the casinos to earn big AP profits.

DarkOz, who claims to make "$20,000. a week" (but only some weeks) by being the Most Feared AP on the East Coast?

PokerGrinder, talking about how he relatively recently bought bitcoin and now has (what he views as) a fortune in his backpack.

Evidently, following in the footsteps of an AP is no guarantee of success, but my point is that these AP are promoting that an entire lifestyle and living may be supported through casinos.

Compare that to MDawg, who is merely relating the results of occasional leisure trips to Vegas where he happens to win.

Which are the worse influence on the general public reader - the ones who advertise that there is a long term living to be made off casinos (without even providing any details of exactly HOW), or the guy who just relates his experiences in Vegas and leaves the reader to decide what he wants to do with that?

At best, if you have a problem with MDawg you should have a problem with all of the rest. Not everyone is cut out to be a successful gambler - and taking on the casinos whether in a +EV or -EV game is no guarantee of success. At least with a game like Baccarat no one in the casino is going to give you the boot.

Success at anything has as much to do with the player as the game.

[MisterV]

Which are the worse influence on the general public reader - the ones who advertise that there is a long term living to be made off casinos (without even providing any details of exactly HOW), or the guy who just relates his experiences in Vegas and leaves the reader to decide what he wants to do with that?

Your claim that you always (or nearly always) win when you gamble defies the math of the game, as did alan's claim of eighteen yo's in a row.

Given the real world impossibility of winning 98-99% of the time people understandably distrust the "proof" you adduce to support your claim.

[coach belly]

Your claim that you always (or nearly always) win when you gamble defies the math of the game

Eliot Jacobson posted the following story on WOV...

True Story:
A few years back I was asked to investigate a baccarat player who had won tens of millions of dollars from a casino as a consistent winner over a period close to 3 years.

Nobody disputed his account as impossible, unbelievable, or math-defying fiction.

If Jacobson had attached a made-up name to his winning baccarat player, would the player's reported winning defy math...would the entire story be declared untruthful and cause the author to be considered a liar ?

[kewlJ]

Your claim that you always (or nearly always) win when you gamble defies the math of the game

Eliot Jacobson posted the following story on WOV...

True Story:
A few years back I was asked to investigate a baccarat player who had won tens of millions of dollars from a casino as a consistent winner over a period close to 3 years.

Nobody disputed his account as impossible, unbelievable, or math-defying fiction.

If Jacobson had attached a made-up name to his winning baccarat player, would the player's reported winning defy math...would the entire story be declared untruthful and cause the author to be considered a liar ?

Can you link to Eliot's post please. I have some thoughts on the situation, but would like to refresh my memory of exactly what Eliot said.

[coach belly]

Can you link to Eliot's post please.

Yes I can.

But first, please answer my questions.

If Jacobson had named the player, would it make his story considered to be untruthful?

[kewlJ]

Can you link to Eliot's post please.

Yes I can.

But first, please answer my questions.

If Jacobson had named the player, would it make his story considered to be untruthful?

I am sorry, but I don't even understand the question. (I am sure you are trying for some kind of coach belly "gottch ya" moment)

[MisterV]

Nobody disputed his account as impossible, unbelievable, or math-defying fiction.

Why would they?

I readily acknowledge that people can have several overall winning years as recreational gamblers, and I believe "the math" would support that claim.

But that is not the only thing MDawg claims.

He is a baccarat player,and as such has a nearly fifty-fifty chance of winning or losing; mathematically he should lose as many hands as he wins, unless he in fact has an edge, which of course he does not.

How then to square the expected loss of roughly half his plays with his brag that he always (or nearly always) wins every time he plays?

Sorry, that dog won't hunt; no matter how you dress it up and adorn it a turd is still a turd.

[coach belly]

He is a baccarat player,and as such has a nearly fifty-fifty chance of winning or losing; mathematically he should lose as many hands as he wins, unless he in fact has an edge, which of course he does not.

How then to square the expected loss of roughly half his plays with his brag that he always (or nearly always) wins every time he plays?

You are assuming facts not in evidence...namely that MD bets the same every hand.

The Wizard offered this explanation, it may help clear up your misunderstandings...

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...52/#post789330
I retract my previous claim of "I don't believe MDawg's claims." That was based on my own misunderstanding of what he was claiming.

Dr. Jacobson explains the math here...

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...of-axelwolf/4/

The winning is definitely possible.

Those lucky enough to be two standard deviations above expectation will get a solid couple of years of play still being a winner. That's about a 1-in-40 shot.

And those 1-in-600 (or so) who are close to 3 standard deviations can get two years of extensive play and still be a winner,
while playing a losing system.

[kewlJ]

He is a baccarat player,and as such has a nearly fifty-fifty chance of winning or losing; mathematically he should lose as many hands as he wins, unless he in fact has an edge, which of course he does not.

How then to square the expected loss of roughly half his plays with his brag that he always (or nearly always) wins every time he plays?

You are assuming facts not in evidence...namely that MD bets the same every hand.

The Wizard offered this explanation, it may help clear up your misunderstandings...

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...52/#post789330
I retract my previous claim of "I don't believe MDawg's claims." That was based on my own misunderstanding of what he was claiming.

Dr. Jacobson explains the math here...

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...of-axelwolf/4/

The winning is definitely possible.

Those lucky enough to be two standard deviations above expectation will get a solid couple of years of play still being a winner. That's about a 1-in-40 shot.

And those 1-in-600 (or so) who are close to 3 standard deviations can get two years of extensive play and still be a winner,
while playing a losing system.

Coach belly I don't think you understand exactly what 3 standard deviations above or below expectation means. First it is far different depending on sample size. With a small sample size it is much easier to have results 3 standard deviations away. Let's take a session of blackjack for me. If I sit down and play 20 minutes to a half hour and encounter several different periods of high counts where I am placing large bets, I can (and do) both win and lose thousands of dollars in that small sample size of play. And almost assuredly those results both winning and losing will be 3 standard deviations from expectation for that small sample size.

But the more you play, the larger the sample size, the rarer 3 standard deviations away from expectation becomes. In my case my worst two years of play, 2020 and 2012 (large sample size) each where I underperformed expectations, by 60 thousand dollars, were still both within 3 standard deviations of expectation (both barely 2 standard deviations actually).

So for a large sample size 3 standard deviations from expectations is extremely rare. Elliot put it at 600-1. I don't know where he got that number since we don't know the exact amount of play MDawg has engaged in, but I mean several 6 week and months long trips, playing 4 hours a day (that he claims) is a large amount of play. Being more than 3 standard deviations ahead is probably longer odds than Eliot estimated for such a large amount of play. And MDawg is talking years, not just one year.

We are probably talking more than 3 standard deviations from expectation that Eliot estimated, we are probably talking 4 or 5. I am not going to say impossible, but all but impossible.

And that all before you factor in that MDawg announced that he would keep winning at this unlikely multiple standard deviations above expectations, and then proceeded to do just that.

[MisterV]

Dr. Jacobson explains the math here

CB, you cherry picked and left out the key part of the analysis, namely: yeah, someone can win if they are an AP and play with a demonstrable advantage against the casino, and by report MDawg does not play with an advantage.

Here's what Eliot wrote:

"The winning is definitely possible. Playing a winning system, given what he has disclosed, is what is not possible. It's all about having information, and nothing that the poster has said at any point in any post they have made indicates that they have any information beyond what a recreational gambler has. That's all you need to know to dismiss everything they say about having a winning system. As for winning, that's irrelevant."

[mickeycrimm]

He is a baccarat player,and as such has a nearly fifty-fifty chance of winning or losing; mathematically he should lose as many hands as he wins, unless he in fact has an edge, which of course he does not.

How then to square the expected loss of roughly half his plays with his brag that he always (or nearly always) wins every time he plays?

You are assuming facts not in evidence...namely that MD bets the same every hand.

The Wizard offered this explanation, it may help clear up your misunderstandings...

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...52/#post789330
I retract my previous claim of "I don't believe MDawg's claims." That was based on my own misunderstanding of what he was claiming.

Dr. Jacobson explains the math here...

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...of-axelwolf/4/

The winning is definitely possible.

Those lucky enough to be two standard deviations above expectation will get a solid couple of years of play still being a winner. That's about a 1-in-40 shot.

And those 1-in-600 (or so) who are close to 3 standard deviations can get two years of extensive play and still be a winner,
while playing a losing system.

Coach, you have always had a fascination with winning while playing a minus EV game. You should take Jacobsen's quote here to heart. You have only a 1 in 40 shot at being a winner after two years of play. I don't like those odds. Your dream of beating a minus EV game longterm is nothing more than a pipedream.

[MDawg]

That's contradictory. KewlJ, Bosox, etc. are saying that there is a danger that people will read my thread and then go out and "try this at home."

If people don't believe what I post in the first place, how or why would it influence them to try to emulate me?

[BoSox]

That's contradictory. KewlJ, Bosox, etc. are saying that there is a danger that people will read my thread and then go out and "try this at home."

If people don't believe what I post in the first place, how or why would it influence them to try to emulate me?

You do not see this right before your own eyes. The people who do not believe in your posts will never ever try what you are doing. All of this is about the new players who are joining the boards who may be influenced early on to try out your theories.

[kewlJ]

two things:

1.) If you were legit, you wouldn't need to lie and mis-represent myself and the others that you named. And if you at an ounce of decency and honesty to you, you wouldn't continue to repost lies after you had been corrected.

2.) The difference between your claim(s) and the claims and story of each and every person you named is mathematics. Every person you named is playing or attempting to play with an advantage, while you are playing at a disadvantage and claiming to be a long-term winner. This by the way is the same problem Singer had. It IS about the math. And that is the very low bar that must be cleared.

I have called out a handful of posters on different forums. It isn't personal, it is always about the math or lack there of. There are many more that I believe may be lying, or exaggerating, but as long as the math work, I keep that to myself. But someone claiming results that defy math, I am going to say something.

Now if you are doing something, anything that makes your play +EV and I have asked you this many times, you would get less flack from me. I would still have a problem with the "always wins" because that is not how gambling works even when playing with an advantage.

OR, if you were posting trip reports of a higher end gambler playing -EV, losing because he can afford to but enjoying himself and getting high end comps, I would not say a word and would look forward to reading those "adventures".

But when you combine the 2, it is pure baloney. Can't be.

[MDawg]

As I have said many times, what do you want me to do, lie and say that I lost? The fact is I won, and I post back up to prove it. Just today I posted proof of two stock trades. I don't bother to post every stock trade here any longer, but believe me, I push millions through those trades if not daily, weekly, and they all pan out - or else, I wouldn't keep doing it. Given that they say that about 90% of day traders lose money, I'd say that the EV for stock trading is negative also same as baccarat, and yet, I manage to remain in that 10% of stock trading winners. I'd stop stock trading if I weren't cut out for it. I also wouldn't keep going to the casino if I lost.

Mere trip reports - believe it or don't.

And in any case, if you don't believe it why would you be worried about following in my footsteps?

[kewlJ]

As I have said many times, what do you want me to do, lie and say that I lost?

What I want is for you to tell the truth! But you have proven yourself incapable of that. I have my doubts about your Lawyer claim, but with your constant lying even after you have been corrected....maybe. (no offense to other lawyer members who are most honest)

Mere trip reports - believe it or don't.

Yeah, I did that. On another forum, the administrator said something like everyone can choose to believe what they want. So I said I didn't believe you and thought your "stories" were a work of fiction. You then cried to him (the administrator) that I called you a liar and I was suspended.

[kewlJ]

And one more thing: How many threads about yourself are you going to start? You have some serious mental issues. You are basically Tasha/Nathan, except slightly more on the topic of gambling.....phony gambling stories and topics, but gambling never-the-less.

[Ozzy]

High IQ, filthy rich, always wins in everything he does Tasha/ Nathan.

[MDawg]

I started this thread because people didn't seem capable of staying off this topic within the RS Newell thread, so I did Dan a favor and moved it all here. Do with it what you will.

[AndrewG]

This is my area of expertise. Our clients also include businesses such as Realtors and retailers who depend on having a state or city issued license in good standing. Disclaimers are always needed to protect the clients. With section 203 under attack Mr Druff would be wise to have a standard disclaimer posted on the site.

By the way, I think Mr Mendelson said he viewed 18 yos in a row -- not that he threw 18 yos in a row.

Frankly with all of the shenanigans we've seen in the last year someone tampering with the dice wouldn't surprise me. I recently heard of a Vegas casino which discovered the shooter applied some sort of sticky substance to the faces showing 2 which resulted in multiple hard 10s in succession. The scam was discovered when the stickman brought the dice back and the dice were stuck together on the sides with the twos.