The Adventures of MDawg (in progress)

[Mission146]

I completely agree with this. If you have some expertise, you owe it to civilians to call out the nonsense. If you do not, then you're part of the problem. This means Shackleford is part of the problem.

Mission says none of this fucking matters. I think what matters is what we have the ability to fix or at least begin to fix. We solve what what we can. Most things are beyond our powers. And, for those few things we can impact, if we have the ability or the experience to solve something, we should. Mission has the experience and the ability to weigh in and try to fix this. He doesn't.

So Mission, the Steve Stevens scam artist on the "Money Talks" television show on CNBC. Should I have stayed quiet regarding him? Because "none of this fucking matters?"

So I was surprised at Mission's position or lack thereof. I will be writing about this whole thing down the road, so I decided to do some cogitating.

And then it hit me: the difference between those who are supportive or neutral regarding the MDawg stories on the two forums, and the people who are most annoyed. They divide into two distinct populations.

This isn't complete unanimous, but for the most part, the people most annoyed by MDawg (kewlJ, EV, MrV. Boz, now myself since his stuff became cartoonish, to a lesser extent BoSox, AndrewG) are people who either gamble for a living or gamble large amounts. They do or have done what I would refer to as serious gambling. The people who are neutral or support MDawg do not gamble serious amounts of money. And before somebody mentions The Wiz, let me say that you can tell, by the kinds of things Shackleford has posted in the past (with pics) that he's not a big player.

While not unanimous, that seems to be the theme. The higher the roller, so to speak, the more annoying the win/win/win fantasy is to the person. I find that fascinating. The bigger the player, the more, to paraphrase Mission, the nonsense fucking matters.

I'll take the time to address this post because it's well-thought out and articulated.

1.) It depends on what you mean by, "Calling out the nonsense." Baccarat systems don't work, have failed in the past and will continue to fail after I am dead---assuming that people are still playing Baccarat by then. In MDawg's thread, I mentioned several times that Baccarat is a negative expectation game and that, given enough time (and absent some AP tactics), 100% of negative EV Baccarat players will eventually lose-system or no system. I have said that MDawg, personally, would lose if only if were able to play enough, and again, absent any sort of AP tactic or external factor that might swing the EV.

The nonsense in the thread is any attempt to discredit the claims as to his personal results (until they become statistically virtually impossible) with nothing more than conjecture. We have hit a point where some of these claims (assuming the meetup with Wizard happens) will either be supported, somewhat supported or demonstrated to be bullshit.

That aside, suggesting that MDawg's reporting of his results is extremely unlikely is perfectly fine. I could demonstrate that if I knew his exact playing parameters. Calling the claims as to his results categorically untrue is not a mathematically valid thing to do, so I am actually in that thread defending the math. Whatever his system is, you could run 10,000 simulations playing the same number of hands (however many he has played) and the results would almost certainly show a few players are ahead.

As to winning however many sessions in a row---what I'll say about that is that MDawg seems inconsistent in what he calls a, "Session." He hasn't stated any absolute rules for his playing parameters and his reports of his actual play have slightly contradicted what parameters have been stated. I think he'd even admit that.

So, it's for me to do a, "Reality Check," just that systems don't work and Baccarat is a negative EV game. Between WoV and WoO, there is a myriad of good and mathematically sound gambling information, so I really think that people getting so worried about one thread about one individual is a greatly exaggerated thing to do. Sure, more people could spring up, but then you would just consolidate all trip reports pertaining to using a system into one thread and retitle it, or just consolidate all trip reports into one thread entirely.

2.) To your second paragraph, I have weighed in to the extent that Baccarat is a negative expectation game and 100% of players will eventually be on the losing end. I have repeated this on many occasions in MDawg's thread. I don't know what else you could possibly want from me in that regard.

I also think you're mistaking my unwillingness to attack someone's credibility without proof for a total unwillingness to attack someone's credibility. Do I believe every word MDawg writes? Not really, but it doesn't matter. I don't have to believe it. However, let's not get it confused that not believing in something and saying it is definitively untrue are two different things. Again, I don't even see the point in being harshly antagonistic without proof. I will say that I think there is more than zero truth to MDawg's claims, but I think they are less than 100% accurate.

You'll also recall I defended 18's Yos in a row as, "Theoretically possible." Well, it is. I'm sorry that math doesn't always do what you want it to.

3.) To the next two sentences: As far as I can tell, MDawg is not trying to sell his system in any way. If there was any evidence to support an accusation, then I'd go after him vociferously and examine every word of his posts for contradictions. I don't see that he's encouraging anyone else to play Baccarat directly, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, unlike a few of you, I have not read every post he has ever written.

4.) I don't think being a gambling writer and a small-time AP changes anything. The math supports what the math supports. If the math says, "Very unlikely," that's still not the same thing as, "Absolutely not," with respect to one person's claims. Again, I'm sorry if you consider it a personal disservice that the math doesn't say what you want it to say.

To wit, suppose session parameters resulted in a probability of winning an individual, "Session," 90% of the time, the odds against winning fifty sessions in a row would be less than 200:1. That's not Earth-shattering mathematical unlikelihood.

5.) Going back to #1-#3---I have said in that thread, and I quote, "The best way to play Baccarat is---1.) Don't play Baccarat..." so if you think I'm not weighing in, then you're just not seeing what you don't want to be there and I can't help you with that.

6.) To be clear, I'm not neutral on the claims that his systems works. It doesn't. No system does. I'm neutral on the subject of his trip reports because I have no evidence for or against.

You remember that grand old time that evidence of something actually mattered? O.J. got off. You people have nothing. Rest assured, you might soon, detectives.

7.) Finally, what keeps MDawg's thread alive? I mean, from the perspective of those who wish it dead? I'll tell you---the people coming in and creating more posts to challenge him certainly helps. It was the same thing with Nathan; you people just don't know how to get someone gone who you want gone. You ignore them. Without the detractors, you'd have MDawg, a couple of loyal fans and maybe me popping in every so often to say that gambling systems don't work and MDawg's reports are not the results that a player can or should expect.

8.) And, you think the difference is money? You're cute. No, the difference is that I have better things to do with my time, for the most part, like clip my toenails. Cleaning the toilet is also slightly more entertaining than most of this shit. You'd think the people with money would be less interested in this than I am.