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

[coach belly]

Doesn't the claim below violate the admin's privacy?

The administrator flat out told me.

Nope! I didn't name anyone. So how can that violate their privacy?

You are relayed the contents of a private message between yourself and another party.

The contents are no longer private, you violated that privacy, the admin doesn't need to be named,
you identified them here...

the administrator said something like everyone can choose to believe what they want.

I'll go to WOV and pull the above quote, and we'll find out who the admin is that you're writing about.

[kewlJ]

Nope! I didn't name anyone. So how can that violate their privacy?

You are relayed the contents of a private message between yourself and another party.

The contents are no longer private, you violated that privacy, the admin doesn't need to be named,
you identified them here...

the administrator said something like everyone can choose to believe what they want.

I'll go to WOV and pull the above quote, and we'll find out who the admin is that you're writing about.

Complete nonsense. You cant violate someone's privacy that you didn't name. Just more coach belly trollish nonsense.

[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)

[BoSox]

MDawg wrote:

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?

Thank you very much.

[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]

You cant violate someone's privacy that you didn't name.

Sure you can. You quoted the admin, we can all see who you are referring to...

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.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...97/#post786447

MDawg is allowed to say those things. The rest of the forum may say they don't believe him, but they may not say MDawg is lying.

KewlJ, what is your proof of that I reported you to the Admin?

The administrator flat out told me.

If he did what you said he did, then both of you have violated privacy.

[coach belly]

I am sorry, but I don't even understand the question.

If you believe Jacobson's story about a winning player that he did not name,
then would his story be unbelievable if he had disclosed the player's name?

What if Jacobson used a made-up nickname for the winning player,
would you then consider his story untruthful?

[kewlJ]

Sure you can. You quoted the admin, we can all see who you are referring to...



https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...97/#post786447

MDawg is allowed to say those things. The rest of the forum may say they don't believe him, but they may not say MDawg is lying.

KewlJ, what is your proof of that I reported you to the Admin?

The administrator flat out told me.

If he did what you said he did, then both of you have violated privacy.

Taking a page out of the coach belly troll playbook, the above proves nothing.

To prove that this is the administrator that I was referring to without me naming him, you would need to post every statement from every administrator on every forum that MDawg posts at (which there are many), so that we can definitively rule out any other administrator.

[MisterV]

If he did what you said he did, then both of you have violated privacy.

What is this violation of privacy rule of which you speak?

There is no such rule.

The closest rule is number three, which is an anti-doxing rule:

"3) You may not post personally identifying information of any members of the site, or their family members. Personal information is defined as last names, phone numbers, address, workplace or school information, family member information, pictures (unless already voluntary posted by the member). You also may not link to other sites where such information is displayed."

There is no rule prohibiting that which you complain of.

You've constructed a straw man.

[Ozzy]

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.

The VCT GOAT poster of all time! Pull up a chair, have a coffee, stay awhile.

[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.

[coach belly]

To prove that this is the administrator that I was referring to without me naming him, you would need to post every statement from every administrator on every forum that MDawg posts at (which there are many), so that we can definitively rule out any other administrator.

LOL...You wish.

It's clear which forum you meant, and which admin you threw under the bus.

[coach belly]

There is no rule prohibiting that which you complain of.

What page did you pull Rule #3 from?

Doesn't matter, because I didn't speak of a rule...that's your strawman.

But if someone sends you a Private Message, and you publicly post the contents of the message without their knowledge and permission, then by definition you've violated their privacy.

[kewlJ]

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

The VCT GOAT poster of all time! Pull up a chair, have a coffee, stay awhile.

I would prefer that AndrewG's "friend", Mr. Mendelson, not be mentioned in the same breath or same discussion as the likes of MDawg and Singer, because Mr. Mendelson never set out to deceive anyone. I personally believe him a victim of selective memory or at worst exaggerating or mis-remembering something he thinks he saw. And I don't say this as any kind of put down. Selective memory is a human thing. Everyone has experienced it. I'll give you an example from my world. I am sitting at a blackjack table when all of the sudden I start losing. After a number of hands I think to myself, geez I am losing every hand, I have lost 12 in a row. But is it really 12 in a row? while it may seem like it, if I were to go back and look at tape it was probably 7 or 8 or maybe 8 out of 9 hands, forgetting one win or push mixed in. THAT is how selective memory works. And I honestly believe that is what occurred with Alan. Unfortunately over the years he dug in and became very defensive and it grew to what it is.

Now the other thing that differentiates is that Alan was never trying to mislead anybody for financial gain. I have been on forums where players were and rather blatantly. And I have been on forums, where that sort of thing didn't occur out in the open on the forum, but behind the scenes via private discussions. One guy on a blackjack forum, took to "mentoring" new players. He had a certain blackjack count that he pushed, hi-opt2, and would privately teach some of the newer players. It is highly doubtful he did so for free. And then the story broke, that he had partnered with several of these newer players that he mentored, combined bankrolls, and that he had been robbed of everybody's money.

So there are all kinds of ways. Even our own Rob Singer has mentioned privately meeting and teaching players his progressive system, which he later revealed to Alan was a scam. I mean who knows what financial arrangements were involved in those private lessons. Is there anybody that really thinks he did that for free? I mean this is a guy that wrote books on his progressive system that he later admitted was bogus (which we all knew).

And that is why I don't buy the argument that Dan Druff made yesterday that he let Singer go on because he was never selling anything. Who knows what went on behind the scene. If a forum owner gives someone the platform to push such a claim, they are also providing the means (private messaging) for all the backdoor stuff.

[Ozzy]

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

The VCT GOAT poster of all time! Pull up a chair, have a coffee, stay awhile.

I would prefer that AndrewG's "friend", Mr. Mendelson, not be mentioned in the same breath or same discussion as the likes of MDawg and Singer, because Mr. Mendelson never set out to deceive anyone. I personally believe him a victim of selective memory or at worst exaggerating or mis-remembering something he thinks he saw. And I don't say this as any kind of put down. Selective memory is a human thing. Everyone has experienced it. I'll give you an example from my world. I am sitting at a blackjack table when all of the sudden I start losing. After a number of hands I think to myself, geez I am losing every hand, I have lost 12 in a row. But is it really 12 in a row? while it may seem like it, if I were to go back and look at tape it was probably 7 or 8 or maybe 8 out of 9 hands, forgetting one win or push mixed in. THAT is how selective memory works. And I honestly believe that is what occurred with Alan. Unfortunately over the years he dug in and became very defensive and it grew to what it is.

Now the other thing that differentiates is that Alan was never trying to mislead anybody for financial gain. I have been on forums where players were and rather blatantly. And I have been on forums, where that sort of thing didn't occur out in the open on the forum, but behind the scenes via private discussions. One guy on a blackjack forum, took to "mentoring" new players. He had a certain blackjack count that he pushed, hi-opt2, and would privately teach some of the newer players. It is highly doubtful he did so for free. And then the story broke, that he had partnered with several of these newer players that he mentored, combined bankrolls, and that he had been robbed of everybody's money.

So there are all kinds of ways. Even our own Rob Singer has mentioned privately meeting and teaching players his progressive system, which he later revealed to Alan was a scam. I mean who knows what financial arrangements were involved in those private lessons. Is there anybody that really thinks he did that for free? I mean this is a guy that wrote books on his progressive system that he later admitted was bogus (which we all knew).

And that is why I don't buy the argument that Dan Druff made yesterday that he let Singer go on because he was never selling anything. Who knows what went on behind the scene. If a forum owner gives someone the platform to push such a claim, they are also providing the means (private messaging) for all the backdoor stuff.

There's no doubt, I've been hard on Alan in the past, but the bottom line is, he's a great poster. He brings action and views. He's owed a lot of credit, for keeping this place going for years, when it was a complete ghost town at times. Before the influx of Aps from Wov, this place was pretty dead for the most part. Take a look at some of the interesting threads, ALAN tried starting, in the early years of 2010-2013, a lot of them had ZERO responses. He hung in there, he deserves credit for that.

[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.

[kewlJ]

There's no doubt, I've been hard on Alan in the past, but the bottom line is, he's a great poster. He brings action and views.

Oh, thank you, for reminding me, I forgot to mention that I too enjoy reading most of Alan's experiences. And the best part is he doesn't try to pretend he is something he isn't (Andrew excluded ). Alan is a negative EV player. A recreational player, playing for fun. He expects to lose in the long run and by all accounts he has.

[Garnabby]

I image that old Eliot would state that the variance is the same, all along.

I think that a better way of explaining the odds here, by the link,

https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/...ns-97c0aedb8c1

Look at the waiting time on average to come across a so-called casino winner.

Here, we would have to wade through 40 such MDawg's, before stumble on a valid lightweight one.

So far, only one MDwag, who plays baccarat somewhat often, here.

One for one, on the very first try? Quite doubtful.

[Ozzy]

He's made his share of outlandish ridiculous claims over the years. He's still beneficial to this place. Hopefully he decides to stick around, I have a feeling his buddy Robby, will be incognito for a while.