The Adventures of MDawg (in progress)

[kewlJ]

Progression wagering system, you don't say? I've been preaching that it's a system all along. Just because you're looking for chops and streaks doesn't mean that you're not also employing a betting system (even if it doesn't have strict rules) simultaneously.

That's why I said that the number of wins in a row was conceivable, based on what I read. Or, at least, not even close to impossible.

I used to say, "One of these days people will start listening to me about stuff," but I'm smarter than that now. Nobody cares and nobody will ever listen to reason. Very few people are as naturally neutral as I am, also.

Don't strain your arm, patting yourself Mission. It took a long time before I even had the opportunity to interact and question Mdawg, because I was not at WoV for the first year + of this fairytale. When I finally got that opportunity, when he joined here, I asked two things the first if it was some kind of progression wagering system and he emphatically replied no. The second is less important right now.

You are right about the strict rules (or lack of). Doesn't change anything. With my blackjack play I have very strict rules. I bet this amount at this advantage etc. and I exit at this point, winning and losing. It is very possible that because he doesn't have these strict rules, or any rules written down, that he doesn't consider it a "system" but it still is! No matter how "loose" the rules, if the general theme is you start betting bigger after losing to recover the losses, that is a progression system, and they all work the same way, will result in more smaller win, initial smaller wins, and times that you successfully dig out getting back to even recording a small win, or slight loss. But there will be those times, you compound losses instead of digging out and that results in a massive loss, wiping out all the small wins.

And that is why I am so adamant about this. Whether intentional or not, and by this time, it sure seems intentional with the misleading and leaving out the losses, these guys have to be called out on this shit.

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

I do have more comments about your statement how possible this is, because Mike too has been mislead about that, but it will have to wait until later.

[redietz]

Progression wagering system, you don't say? I've been preaching that it's a system all along. Just because you're looking for chops and streaks doesn't mean that you're not also employing a betting system (even if it doesn't have strict rules) simultaneously.

That's why I said that the number of wins in a row was conceivable, based on what I read. Or, at least, not even close to impossible.

I used to say, "One of these days people will start listening to me about stuff," but I'm smarter than that now. Nobody cares and nobody will ever listen to reason. Very few people are as naturally neutral as I am, also.

Don't strain your arm, patting yourself Mission. It took a long time before I even had the opportunity to interact and question Mdawg, because I was not at WoV for the first year + of this fairytale. When I finally got that opportunity, when he joined here, I asked two things the first if it was some kind of progression wagering system and he emphatically replied no. The second is less important right now.

You are right about the strict rules (or lack of). Doesn't change anything. With my blackjack play I have very strict rules. I bet this amount at this advantage etc. and I exit at this point, winning and losing. It is very possible that because he doesn't have these strict rules, or any rules written down, that he doesn't consider it a "system" but it still is! No matter how "loose" the rules, if the general theme is you start betting bigger after losing to recover the losses, that is a progression system, and they all work the same way, will result in more smaller win, initial smaller wins, and times that you successfully dig out getting back to even recording a small win, or slight loss. But there will be those times, you compound losses instead of digging out and that results in a massive loss, wiping out all the small wins.

And that is why I am so adamant about this. Whether intentional or not, and by this time, it sure seems intentional with the misleading and leaving out the losses, these guys have to be called out on this shit.

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

I do have more comments about your statement how possible this is, because Mike too has been mislead about that, but it will have to wait until later.

Well, off the top of my head, given MDawg's own posts for his bet ranges and the likely table ranges for bets, I'd say we're looking at a ballpark of .70 (that is, 70%) to the 50th power at the least. I don't have a calculator in front of me. So let's give MDawg a stat benefit and call it 75%. What's 75% multiplied by 75% and so on to the 50th?

Note: It's possible Mdawg used a wider range, starting on a low limit table and moving up, which would increase the per session win rate likelihood, but then MDawg's trip reports would have been inaccurate.

Anyway, what is 75% to the 50th? We're likely not talking a win rate that high, and we're likely talking more sessions than that, but let's go with the most favorable math for the Dawg.

[MaxPen]

Progression wagering system, you don't say? I've been preaching that it's a system all along. Just because you're looking for chops and streaks doesn't mean that you're not also employing a betting system (even if it doesn't have strict rules) simultaneously.

That's why I said that the number of wins in a row was conceivable, based on what I read. Or, at least, not even close to impossible.

I used to say, "One of these days people will start listening to me about stuff," but I'm smarter than that now. Nobody cares and nobody will ever listen to reason. Very few people are as naturally neutral as I am, also.

Don't strain your arm, patting yourself Mission. It took a long time before I even had the opportunity to interact and question Mdawg, because I was not at WoV for the first year + of this fairytale. When I finally got that opportunity, when he joined here, I asked two things the first if it was some kind of progression wagering system and he emphatically replied no. The second is less important right now.

You are right about the strict rules (or lack of). Doesn't change anything. With my blackjack play I have very strict rules. I bet this amount at this advantage etc. and I exit at this point, winning and losing. It is very possible that because he doesn't have these strict rules, or any rules written down, that he doesn't consider it a "system" but it still is! No matter how "loose" the rules, if the general theme is you start betting bigger after losing to recover the losses, that is a progression system, and they all work the same way, will result in more smaller win, initial smaller wins, and times that you successfully dig out getting back to even recording a small win, or slight loss. But there will be those times, you compound losses instead of digging out and that results in a massive loss, wiping out all the small wins.

And that is why I am so adamant about this. Whether intentional or not, and by this time, it sure seems intentional with the misleading and leaving out the losses, these guys have to be called out on this shit.

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

I do have more comments about your statement how possible this is, because Mike too has been mislead about that, but it will have to wait until later.

Well, off the top of my head, given MDawg's own posts for his bet ranges and the likely table ranges for bets, I'd say we're looking at a ballpark of .70 (that is, 70%) to the 50th power at the least. I don't have a calculator in front of me. So let's give MDawg a stat benefit and call it 75%. What's 75% multiplied by 75% and so on to the 50th?

Note: It's possible Mdawg used a wider range, starting on a low limit table and moving up, which would increase the per session win rate likelihood, but then MDawg's trip reports would have been inaccurate.

Anyway, what is 75% to the 50th? We're likely not talking a win rate that high, and we're likely talking more sessions than that, but let's go with the most favorable math for the Dawg.

1 in 1,765,780

[kewlJ]

1 in 1,765,780

"One in a million....so you are telling me there is a chance" (from Dumb and Dumber movie)

[Mission146]

"One in a million....so you are telling me there is a chance" (from Dumb and Dumber movie)

I was dealt four deuces and a joker on Joker & Deuces once, of course, I'd played more than one hand lifetime. Definitely nowhere near that dealt royal cycle, though.

[MaxPen]

1 in 1,765,780

"One in a million....so you are telling me there is a chance" (from Dumb and Dumber movie)

A few months ago I hit hit a Quick Hits 9......shit happens

[Mission146]

A few months ago I hit hit a Quick Hits 9......shit happens

Nice! I've had two eights.

[MaxPen]

A few months ago I hit hit a Quick Hits 9......shit happens

Nice! I've had two eights.

A couple dozen more of those and I think you will be about 1 cycle in on hitting the 9

[Mission146]

Don't strain your arm, patting yourself Mission. It took a long time before I even had the opportunity to interact and question Mdawg, because I was not at WoV for the first year + of this fairytale. When I finally got that opportunity, when he joined here, I asked two things the first if it was some kind of progression wagering system and he emphatically replied no. The second is less important right now.

You are right about the strict rules (or lack of). Doesn't change anything. With my blackjack play I have very strict rules. I bet this amount at this advantage etc. and I exit at this point, winning and losing. It is very possible that because he doesn't have these strict rules, or any rules written down, that he doesn't consider it a "system" but it still is! No matter how "loose" the rules, if the general theme is you start betting bigger after losing to recover the losses, that is a progression system, and they all work the same way, will result in more smaller win, initial smaller wins, and times that you successfully dig out getting back to even recording a small win, or slight loss. But there will be those times, you compound losses instead of digging out and that results in a massive loss, wiping out all the small wins.

And that is why I am so adamant about this. Whether intentional or not, and by this time, it sure seems intentional with the misleading and leaving out the losses, these guys have to be called out on this shit.

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

I do have more comments about your statement how possible this is, because Mike too has been mislead about that, but it will have to wait until later.

Immaterial. I could have come to my conclusion just reading a few posts. This is how you do it, you say to yourself, "Okay, assuming everything reported is basically true, (hypothetical assumption) how would this happen?"

The only reasonable answer is a negative progression system with a very high win rate. You'll also notice that MDawg tends to think in terms of, "House money," (his words) when he is ahead, so that being the case, even the winning sessions won't be uniform. If he is ahead for the session already, then he loosens up his betting. I imagine the negative progression is pretty tight until he gets a good bit down, then he goes for the quick recoup.

And, again, that's assuming that all of the reports prior are basically true.

Yes, a massive loss will eventually occur and all wins will be gone. I've only said that about twenty times by now.

The math doesn't mislead. The math is the math. Some people only trust the math when they like what it says. I trust the math even when I don't like what it says.

[redietz]

Don't strain your arm, patting yourself Mission. It took a long time before I even had the opportunity to interact and question Mdawg, because I was not at WoV for the first year + of this fairytale. When I finally got that opportunity, when he joined here, I asked two things the first if it was some kind of progression wagering system and he emphatically replied no. The second is less important right now.

You are right about the strict rules (or lack of). Doesn't change anything. With my blackjack play I have very strict rules. I bet this amount at this advantage etc. and I exit at this point, winning and losing. It is very possible that because he doesn't have these strict rules, or any rules written down, that he doesn't consider it a "system" but it still is! No matter how "loose" the rules, if the general theme is you start betting bigger after losing to recover the losses, that is a progression system, and they all work the same way, will result in more smaller win, initial smaller wins, and times that you successfully dig out getting back to even recording a small win, or slight loss. But there will be those times, you compound losses instead of digging out and that results in a massive loss, wiping out all the small wins.

And that is why I am so adamant about this. Whether intentional or not, and by this time, it sure seems intentional with the misleading and leaving out the losses, these guys have to be called out on this shit.

Ok, I gotta go back to work. peace.

I do have more comments about your statement how possible this is, because Mike too has been mislead about that, but it will have to wait until later.

Immaterial. I could have come to my conclusion just reading a few posts. This is how you do it, you say to yourself, "Okay, assuming everything reported is basically true, (hypothetical assumption) how would this happen?"

The only reasonable answer is a negative progression system with a very high win rate. You'll also notice that MDawg tends to think in terms of, "House money," (his words) when he is ahead, so that being the case, even the winning sessions won't be uniform. If he is ahead for the session already, then he loosens up his betting. I imagine the negative progression is pretty tight until he gets a good bit down, then he goes for the quick recoup.

And, again, that's assuming that all of the reports prior are basically true.

Yes, a massive loss will eventually occur and all wins will be gone. I've only said that about twenty times by now.

The math doesn't mislead. The math is the math. Some people only trust the math when they like what it says. I trust the math even when I don't like what it says.

Mission, have you actually read all or most of MDawg's trip reports?

[Mission146]

Mission, have you actually read all or most of MDawg's trip reports?

That's going to be a no. I read a few here and there, and he knows his music and seems like a nice-enough guy...but I'd rather be the guy in charge of cleaning the toilets at Denny's on, "Seniors Eat Free Day," than read all of them.

[redietz]

Mission, have you actually read all or most of MDawg's trip reports?

That's going to be a no. I read a few here and there, and he knows his music and seems like a nice-enough guy...but I'd rather be the guy in charge of cleaning the toilets at Denny's on, "Seniors Eat Free Day," than read all of them.

Well, then, here's the logical problem with your argument regarding MDawg.

1) You're assigning a 1-in-200 eventuality to "MDawg using a 90% martingale -ish system."
2) You haven't assigned a probability to MDawg actually using a formal or semi-formal martingale system that would yield 90% session win rate.
3) Without doing (2) above, and without you having some special insight regarding MDawg or having witnessed his play, you have no idea what (2) above is.
4) The proper math here, then, is assigning a probability to (2) and then multiplying that by (1).
5) There's no indication that MDawg uses a 90% martingale-ish system based on his trip reports.
6) There's no indication that MDawg has the required bankroll necessary to execute a 90% martingale-ish system based on his bet sizes according to his trip reports.
7) Therefore, to consider the 1-in-200 number, an additional probability must be entered, namely "How likely is it MDawg has a 500K available bankroll?"

Now I know people with 500K bankrolls for table games, and a 500K bankroll for sports betting is not all that rare. So maybe MDawg has a 500K bankroll, but it has not really come into play in his trip reports.

In conclusion, the proper probability is the probability of (2) multiplied by the probability of (1) multiplied by the probability of (7).

Thus, the 1-in-200 number has no real bearing on the real world scenario of MDawg's wagering. And I think you know that.

[Mission146]

Mission, have you actually read all or most of MDawg's trip reports?

That's going to be a no. I read a few here and there, and he knows his music and seems like a nice-enough guy...but I'd rather be the guy in charge of cleaning the toilets at Denny's on, "Seniors Eat Free Day," than read all of them.

Well, then, here's the logical problem with your argument regarding MDawg.

1) You're assigning a 1-in-200 eventuality to "MDawg using a 90% martingale -ish system."
2) You haven't assigned a probability to MDawg actually using a formal or semi-formal martingale system that would yield 90% session win rate.
3) Without doing (2) above, and without you having some special insight regarding MDawg or having witnessed his play, you have no idea what (2) above is.
4) The proper math here, then, is assigning a probability to (2) and then multiplying that by (1).
5) There's no indication that MDawg uses a 90% martingale-ish system based on his trip reports.
6) There's no indication that MDawg has the required bankroll necessary to execute a 90% martingale-ish system based on his bet sizes according to his trip reports.
7) Therefore, to consider the 1-in-200 number, an additional probability must be entered, namely "How likely is it MDawg has a 500K available bankroll?"

Now I know people with 500K bankrolls for table games, and a 500K bankroll for sports betting is not all that rare. So maybe MDawg has a 500K bankroll, but it has not really come into play in his trip reports.

In conclusion, the proper probability is the probability of (2) multiplied by the probability of (1) multiplied by the probability of (7).

Thus, the 1-in-200 number has no real bearing on the real world scenario of MDawg's wagering. And I think you know that.

I said, in that thread, 1,489,277 times, that if there WERE concrete system rules AND a concrete absolute bankroll, then I could give an exact probability of a session win. In fact, doing so would be a quite trivial affair. My 90% and your 70%, therefore, are both conjecture. Also, my 90% is very much a, "Benefit of the doubt," sort of estimate because, quite frankly, I can't figure out why all of you are obsessively attacking him. If you all had instead ignored him, then he would be gone. I'm kind of glad he's not, though, because if we're ever in Vegas at the same time we can grab a bite and chat about rock music. I seriously doubt Baccarat will even come up because I think it's a really stupid game.

1.) Benefit of the doubt.

2.) I can come up with a few, if you want.

3.) Yes, because I can define a, "Session," and then define a bankroll and come up with a system. Depending on the, "Stop Win," a straight Martingale is by itself over 90%, easily.

4.) Right, and I can come up with a system that wins more than 90%.

5.) There's no indication that he doesn't, especially since his reports don't require he fully tap his bankroll.

6.) Isn't there? 64k is Step 7 on a base bet of a grand for a straight Martingale.

7.) Unknown. No way for me to know. Perhaps he'll give me his checking account credentials, of course, one of you have probably asked for those by now.

Maybe it's 1 in 10,000? Maybe it's 1 in 1,000,000. It seems like it's definitely 1 in (Lower Number Than Shit I've Actually Experienced)

Again, the math is the math. It doesn't work for you or against you. It just operates. Nobody will always like what it has to say.

[monet]

I said, in that thread, 1,489,277 times, that if there WERE concrete system rules AND a concrete absolute bankroll, then I could give an exact probability of a session win. In fact, doing so would be a quite trivial affair. My 90% and your 70%, therefore, are both conjecture. Also, my 90% is very much a, "Benefit of the doubt," sort of estimate because, quite frankly, I can't figure out why all of you are obsessively attacking him. If you all had instead ignored him, then he would be gone. I'm kind of glad he's not, though, because if we're ever in Vegas at the same time we can grab a bite and chat about rock music. I seriously doubt Baccarat will even come up because I think it's a really stupid game.

1.) Benefit of the doubt.

2.) I can come up with a few, if you want.

3.) Yes, because I can define a, "Session," and then define a bankroll and come up with a system. Depending on the, "Stop Win," a straight Martingale is by itself over 90%, easily.

4.) Right, and I can come up with a system that wins more than 90%.

5.) There's no indication that he doesn't, especially since his reports don't require he fully tap his bankroll.

6.) Isn't there? 64k is Step 7 on a base bet of a grand for a straight Martingale.

7.) Unknown. No way for me to know. Perhaps he'll give me his checking account credentials, of course, one of you have probably asked for those by now.

Maybe it's 1 in 10,000? Maybe it's 1 in 1,000,000. It seems like it's definitely 1 in (Lower Number Than Shit I've Actually Experienced)

Again, the math is the math. It doesn't work for you or against you. It just operates. Nobody will always like what it has to say.

Why on Earth would you argue with redietz?
You call that Evil Handi-Scammer a Gook Loving, Noodle Slurping, Hate Site Contributing Commie Pinko Faggot and be done with it.