Hi. On the WOV forum you use the tagline "Vultures can't be choosers."
But in reality aren't vultures the BEST choosers?
This came up when a "vulture friend" explained the methodology to me.
By the way, he doesn't play a lot, only playing vulture opportunities. He does spend a lot of time in casinos walking around which he credits as his exercise routine.
Haha! Fair question.
Basically, it's just a play on, "Beggars can't be choosers." I was with a friend of mine and going through checking for plays on a machine. Personally, I check all bet levels, especially if I already have a ticket in the machine anyway. I found a play at the lowest possible bet and he asked me whether or not I thought it was even worth playing the few spins needed. I responded, "Hey, vultures can't be choosers."
I might change it to something else, though. I've had that one for quite awhile.
Thanks for the story.
I once posted a pic on Twitter of a nickel Ultimate X I found where all ten hands showed 12X on the next hand. I got questioned about the low EV on nickel UX's. I start with the high denoms and work down. I don't leave anything. Yes, I'm there for the high denom but it just don't take any time to play the low EV off too. Plus, I'm not leaving anything a ploppie can get a clue from.Originally Posted by Mission146
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
From nickel keno to penny UX. Tell us more......lolOriginally Posted by mickeycrimmI once posted a pic on Twitter of a nickel Ultimate X I found where all ten hands showed 12X on the next hand. I got questioned about the low EV on nickel UX's. I start with the high denoms and work down. I don't leave anything. Yes, I'm there for the high denom but it just don't take any time to play the low EV off too. Plus, I'm not leaving anything a ploppie can get a clue from.Originally Posted by Mission146
Not at all that funny. Onenickelmiracle from WOV got a $400 win on literally his last nickel(He was playing a game where you can play one line and still trigger an all lines bonus like Stinking Rich and Pharaoh's Fortune, he played 1 line times 5 and got the Bonus Symbols three times in a row in his line, getting the all lines Bonus,Originally Posted by MaxPenFrom nickel keno to penny UX. Tell us more......lolOriginally Posted by mickeycrimmI once posted a pic on Twitter of a nickel Ultimate X I found where all ten hands showed 12X on the next hand. I got questioned about the low EV on nickel UX's. I start with the high denoms and work down. I don't leave anything. Yes, I'm there for the high denom but it just don't take any time to play the low EV off too. Plus, I'm not leaving anything a ploppie can get a clue from.Originally Posted by Mission146hence how he chose his name.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Zk2WAFzDcrJ7pjNB7
Take comfort in the fact that no one is actually backing up his wishes to have you permanantly banned.
Smart is knowing a Tomato is a fruit.
Wise is knowing a Tomato doesn't belong in a fruit salad.
I am glad to get my full posting rights back!Thank you Dan!
maxpen exposed himself for the slimeball he is over this Singer/Newell bullshit that nobody cares about. He's a known liar for not putting up information he said he was going to put up. Why didn't he put it up? Because it didn't exist. Just pure slimeball trash. He's a sad pathetic individual.Originally Posted by MaxPenFrom nickel keno to penny UX. Tell us more......lolOriginally Posted by mickeycrimmI once posted a pic on Twitter of a nickel Ultimate X I found where all ten hands showed 12X on the next hand. I got questioned about the low EV on nickel UX's. I start with the high denoms and work down. I don't leave anything. Yes, I'm there for the high denom but it just don't take any time to play the low EV off too. Plus, I'm not leaving anything a ploppie can get a clue from.Originally Posted by Mission146
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
AndrewG,
You're welcome.
MickeyCrimm,
I do the same thing, except I sometimes go low-to-high. Many of the machines in the casinos I visit seem to default back to nickel denomination, at a certain point, or that's just what most people play. Anyway, I agree with what you said and also just that +EV is +EV---especially if you're on that machine and already have a ticket in anyway.
If you really think about it, the big time-spend (especially where I'm at) is going to the casino to begin with. Have to drive there and back. That being the case, I'm not going to stress over converting my EV for a few extra seconds on each machine/play into an hourly. Besides, when it comes to the days/times I go, I come up with a rough hourly EV for the overall visit.
Mission, you made an argument today at WoV, as to why Mdog's claims are still possible but on the far side of the bell curve. Just wondering if your argument takes into consideration, not only the unlikely results of this current trip and it's almost every single day winning play, but also the other trips posted in the Mdog thread and since he has stated that he has won like this for over 20 consecutive years, dating back to 2000. Still just on the unlikely side of the bell curve?
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".
Ok, so I see Mdoggy, who claims he doesn't read my posts but of course he does, has tried to clean up his previous 20 year winning statement at WoV, saying something like he has played like this since 2018 and before that took a decade off. Well that is in direct contradiction to a statement he made earlier.
I myself am recovering from a little too much to drink while attending and mostly after the Golden Knights game last night, so I am not in good enough spirits (<-) to go looking for this contradictory statement through millions of nonsensical Mdog posts, but I can tell you right where it was. It was a while back, but I believe earlier on this current trip, when Mdawg posted pictures from 2000 or 2001 showing one of the strip casinos on fire. he went on to say, he has been playing and winning every year since then. These guys always end up contradicting themselves. can't keep their "story" straight.
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".
Also, Mission, when you get around to reading this and responding, I want to discuss the guy posting as Moraine at WoV. The guy trying to re-invent the wheel as per blackjack counting. We see people do that every so often and that's ok. It is actually part of the education of someone getting into blackjack. They get to thinking that with hi-lo and it's simplicity, there must be something better, something stronger, and sort of go through the thought process of all the different counts that took place back in the 80's and 90's. In the end those "stronger" counts just don't add much if anything (diminishing returns).
I am not arguing the process of going through all that before realizing that hi-lo or another level 1 count works pretty darn good. They identify the advantageous situations so a player can get the money out and win money and THAT is the name of the game.
But the problem with this moraine dude, is the attitude. Before making his appearance at WoV, he showed up at BJinfo where he was arguing the same thing, but then became pretty nasty with a number of members he was arguing with, before being banned, including 2 blackjack hall of fame members, Don Schlesinger and the other a member of the famed MIT blackjack team. He told these members and myself we didn't know what we were talking about and called everyone outdated using ancient methods that no longer work from the 80's and 90's.
Well, I was BORN in the 80's so I wasn't playing blackjack.I have made over 1M in the last 12 years (my time in Vegas) and 1.3M in my career started in 2004. So how is that outdated method that no longer works?
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".
Originally Posted by kewlJ
At some point, whatever the claim involves, anyone with practical expertise has to step in and stop with the "far end of the bell curve" junk. It's technically correct in a completely worthless way because it does more to boost the credibility of the claimant than it does to frame the event in reality. If every time a claim comes up, you say "as likely as getting struck three times by lightning" as opposed to "far end of the bell curve," that at least is helpful in framing the claims with real world examples people can relate to.
The example I like is from the Fillmore district in San Francisco. The mayor says he doesn't want any more problems like that.
Harry: "Yeah, well, when an adult male chases a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard."
Mayor: "Intent? How did you establish that?"
Harry: "When a naked man is chasing a woman through a dark alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross."
Now you can make the case that there is a "far end of the bell curve" chance the man (while collecting for the Red Cross) decided to defend the woman from an escaped gorilla who ripped the guy's clothes off, and that adrenalin gave him the hard on, even though there's no gorilla in sight. Or you can shoot the bastard for intent to commit rape.
Similarly, you can make the case that there is a "far end of the bell curve" chance MDawg reported reality with no edits, or you can label him a scammer.
In the real world, and especially the real world of gambling (of which I have extreme experience), you better choose which path serves you best.
Btw, in my 'humble' opinion, the guy posting as moraine, is not a new-ish member going through the process of thinking he know more than all the experiences professional players and math guys. In my opinion he is a re-cycled member (of the blackjack community) going through the exercise that he has been through before of telling everyone they are wrong and he is right. May not be technically a sockpuppet since he may or may not have been at WoV before but same concept. past member of the community, pretty thoroughly debunked, shows up with a new handle and continues making the same old arguments.
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".
this is exactly why I hate that argument people make against me when I say such and suchOriginally Posted by redietz
is impossible or "defies math". I live in the real world., not some world from 'dumb and dumber' where the guys says "1 in a million? so you are telling me there is a chance".
If someone making such claims wants to throw a disclaimer out that what they are describing is not a winning system and they recognize they were extremely, extremely lucky and their results very atypical, ok, but when they try to portray their system or style of play as a winning strategy, they can't be allowed to get away with that. And unfortunately, at WoV, the person that is supposed to step in and be the voice of reason, Wizard, has all but checked out
Last edited by kewlJ; 05-19-2021 at 09:26 AM.
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".
I submit that your question is irrelevant. Beyond that, I have no desire to read the reports of every single session he has ever had and will not do so.Originally Posted by kewlJ
Your question is irrelevant because my current operating assumption is that there are factors at play that change the overall mathematical proposition. Granted, I don't know that to be true, (and also don't care) but I am accepting at least one claim (loss rebates) as true and accepting Wizard's claim that there is something more to what he is doing than simply varying bets as true.
If there are factors at play that would change the overall mathematical proposition of MDawg's action, then that changes the bell curve. If I accept that the bell curve has changed, then I must accept that how far to the right on the bell curve that MDawg is has changed.
I would also urge you to take into consideration my words, "Assume," and, "Accept." I am not there, so I have no Empirical evidence of anything. And, I cannot stress enough, I also do not care.
Last edited by Mission146; 05-19-2021 at 10:26 AM.
I will discuss Moraine to whatever extent you wish, I suppose, but please understand that I might not have much more to say about him. The reason for that is because that's another thread I'm considering no longer following. As you know, my knowledge base when it comes to Blackjack card counting is rudimentary, at best, so I feel like I'm speaking somewhat out of class on that subject.Originally Posted by kewlJAlso, Mission, when you get around to reading this and responding, I want to discuss the guy posting as Moraine at WoV. The guy trying to re-invent the wheel as per blackjack counting. We see people do that every so often and that's ok. It is actually part of the education of someone getting into blackjack. They get to thinking that with hi-lo and it's simplicity, there must be something better, something stronger, and sort of go through the thought process of all the different counts that took place back in the 80's and 90's. In the end those "stronger" counts just don't add much if anything (diminishing returns).
I am not arguing the process of going through all that before realizing that hi-lo or another level 1 count works pretty darn good. They identify the advantageous situations so a player can get the money out and win money and THAT is the name of the game.
But the problem with this moraine dude, is the attitude. Before making his appearance at WoV, he showed up at BJinfo where he was arguing the same thing, but then became pretty nasty with a number of members he was arguing with, before being banned, including 2 blackjack hall of fame members, Don Schlesinger and the other a member of the famed MIT blackjack team. He told these members and myself we didn't know what we were talking about and called everyone outdated using ancient methods that no longer work from the 80's and 90's.
Well, I was BORN in the 80's so I wasn't playing blackjack.
That said, I feel like my defense of High-Low being one of the most simple/efficient and still EV-worthy card counting strategies was decent enough.
I'm afraid that I don't follow Blackjackinfo, so I wasn't really aware of that history. In any event, if that's the case, then there's a fair possibility that he will similarly find himself banned on WoV, sooner or later, particularly if people even more knowledgeable about card counting than myself choose to engage with him.
I can't compare it to getting struck by lightning any particular number of times because I don't know precisely what he is doing, so I am not able to quantify/compare how far to the right of the bell curve he would have to be. In any event, I am no longer posting in or reading MDawg's thread anyway. MDawg either has Wellbush to thank for that, or has Wellbush to, "Thank for that," depending how he perceives my future absence in his thread.Originally Posted by redietzOriginally Posted by kewlJ
At some point, whatever the claim involves, anyone with practical expertise has to step in and stop with the "far end of the bell curve" junk. It's technically correct in a completely worthless way because it does more to boost the credibility of the claimant than it does to frame the event in reality. If every time a claim comes up, you say "as likely as getting struck three times by lightning" as opposed to "far end of the bell curve," that at least is helpful in framing the claims with real world examples people can relate to.
The example I like is from the Fillmore district in San Francisco. The mayor says he doesn't want any more problems like that.
Harry: "Yeah, well, when an adult male chases a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard."
Mayor: "Intent? How did you establish that?"
Harry: "When a naked man is chasing a woman through a dark alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross."
Now you can make the case that there is a "far end of the bell curve" chance the man (while collecting for the Red Cross) decided to defend the woman from an escaped gorilla who ripped the guy's clothes off, and that adrenalin gave him the hard on, even though there's no gorilla in sight. Or you can shoot the bastard for intent to commit rape.
Similarly, you can make the case that there is a "far end of the bell curve" chance MDawg reported reality with no edits, or you can label him a scammer.
In the real world, and especially the real world of gambling (of which I have extreme experience), you better choose which path serves you best.
In any event, the path that serves me the best is the one that I probably should have taken from the beginning---declining to participate.
Originally Posted by Mission146I can't compare it to getting struck by lightning any particular number of times because I don't know precisely what he is doing, so I am not able to quantify/compare how far to the right of the bell curve he would have to be. In any event, I am no longer posting in or reading MDawg's thread anyway. MDawg either has Wellbush to thank for that, or has Wellbush to, "Thank for that," depending how he perceives my future absence in his thread.Originally Posted by redietzOriginally Posted by kewlJ
At some point, whatever the claim involves, anyone with practical expertise has to step in and stop with the "far end of the bell curve" junk. It's technically correct in a completely worthless way because it does more to boost the credibility of the claimant than it does to frame the event in reality. If every time a claim comes up, you say "as likely as getting struck three times by lightning" as opposed to "far end of the bell curve," that at least is helpful in framing the claims with real world examples people can relate to.
The example I like is from the Fillmore district in San Francisco. The mayor says he doesn't want any more problems like that.
Harry: "Yeah, well, when an adult male chases a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard."
Mayor: "Intent? How did you establish that?"
Harry: "When a naked man is chasing a woman through a dark alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross."
Now you can make the case that there is a "far end of the bell curve" chance the man (while collecting for the Red Cross) decided to defend the woman from an escaped gorilla who ripped the guy's clothes off, and that adrenalin gave him the hard on, even though there's no gorilla in sight. Or you can shoot the bastard for intent to commit rape.
Similarly, you can make the case that there is a "far end of the bell curve" chance MDawg reported reality with no edits, or you can label him a scammer.
In the real world, and especially the real world of gambling (of which I have extreme experience), you better choose which path serves you best.
In any event, the path that serves me the best is the one that I probably should have taken from the beginning---declining to participate.
I don't fathom what is so hard about this. If someone says they can fly without an aeroplane or jetpack or rocketship, then you take as the parameters there is no aeroplane or jetpack or rocketship and you evaluate the claim. Presuming something is going on for which there is no evidence does the claimant an enormous and unnecessary favor, and does the people who trust your opinion an enormous and unnecessary disservice.
People who would rely solely upon my opinion disservice only themselves. I am a person who writes reasonably well and believes that he has a better than average understanding of gambling, math and math as relates to gambling.Originally Posted by redietz
However, those are my beliefs and it is not proven to be so. Anything that I can do, there exists someone else who can do it better. Absolutely anything. There is not one single thing that I am the best at.
So, AT BEST anything that I express upon any matter should be considered only a starting point from which to seek out and gain actual knowledge from actual experts.
Or, simply put, my opinion is every bit as worthless as a betting system is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote